Policy Brief: The Outcome for Forests Emerging from Cancun

LANDMARK DECISION ON FORESTS REACHED IN CANCUN
The decision may have been a long time coming and it is far from perfect, but forest watchers have reason to rejoice following a historic decision on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Cancun. Whilst expectations were low in the run up to the sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), REDD was seen by many as the great hope for this year’s climate conference.  After two weeks of heavy negotiations that were conducted in the most part behind closed doors, the 192 Parties to the Convention reached a decision on tropical forests, thereby establishing a new international framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

THE ROAD FROM COPENHAGEN
Following on from last year’s chaotic and ultimately disappointing climate change meeting in Copenhagen, the main task at hand for negotiators was to rebuild damaged trust and get the train back on the twin negotiation tracks of the climate change discussions.  The year of negotiations, however, had produced scant progress, and the discussions on REDD had in fact gone backwards not forwards since the draft decision that had been tabled in Copenhagen. Despite this, REDD was still considered to be one of the most likely areas of agreement at Cancun, due in part to the considerable momentum building behind REDD outside of the climate discussions and in part because the negotiations on REDD were still considerably more advanced than other areas within the climate change talks.There was also an underlying awareness amongst the delegates in Cancun that failure to reach a decision on REDD would result in an implosion in the UNFCCC process - a feeling reflected by last year’s Chair of the REDD contact group, Tony La Vina, at Forest Day 4, who stated plainly that if REDD was not agreed in Cancun then he would find another job.

WHAT WAS AGREED AT CANCUN
The main outcome to emerge from the climate discussions is a series of COP decisions that have collectively been called the ‘Cancun Agreements’.  The Decision that is relevant to REDD is contained in the Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) that includes, among other things, a section on paragraph 1 b iii) of the Bali Action Plan on ‘Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries’. Section III C, as it is titled in the document, is the culmination of three years of negotiation on REDD and is not substantively different from the draft decision in Cancun.  At just under two pages long and containing only 12 paragraphs of text and a short preamble, Section III C does not provide a concrete framework for how REDD should work but instead offers a set of clear guidelines (elaborated in Annex I of the Decision) and a work plan for the coming year (in Annex II).

WHAT IS IN THE REDD TEXT?
SCOPE OF REDD
As discussed in the Little REDD Book the choice of scope will have an impact on the scale, relative cost and mitigation potential of a REDD mechanism. It will also play an important role in the countries that might benefit under REDD. The scope of the REDD decision in Cancun is broad, and includes all of the elements that were originally agreed in Bali and later reconfirmed in Poznan. The REDD decision states that developing country Parties can contribute to mitigation actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities:

• Reducing emissions from deforestation;
• Reducing emissions from forest degradation;
• Conservation of forest carbon stocks;
• Sustainable management of forest;   
• Enhancement of forest carbon stocks;

Whilst this is a clear outline for a future REDD mechanism, Parties - with support from civil society - will need to spend considerable time over the coming two years (yes two! - see SBSTA’s programme of work) defining these activities and how they will be incentivised.

DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION
The REDD decision makes reference to the drivers of deforestation but falls short in placing adequate and fair guidelines on how to address these drivers.  The decision requests developing countries to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, but fails to address the role that developed countries play in driving tropical deforestation. Whilst SBSTA has been requested to develop a programme of work to look into the drivers of deforestation, this appears to be limited currently to an assessment of the methodological aspects in estimating emissions and removals resulting from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities.

THREE KEY ELEMENTS FOR REDD READINESS
Developing country Parties wishing to engage in REDD are encouraged to develop the following elements:

• A national strategy or plan: The decision provides no additional guidelines on how the plan should be developed but it is likely to be either in the context of the ongoing readiness processes (i.e. UN-REDD and FCPF) or developed unilaterally as would be the case for Brazil.
• A national reference level: As with other areas of the REDD text the details around how reference levels are established will need to be elaborated over the coming year. The issue of subnational reference levels has been resolved (albeit maybe only temporarily) by making provision for both national and subnational approaches; although to address concerns over leakage, subnational reference levels are only advised as an interim measure. In UNFCCC-speak the reference level can also be based on either emissions (reference emission level) or forest area (reference level) although it will remain to be resolved from a methodological perspective how these two approaches can be reconciled.
• A forest monitoring system: The forest monitoring system should provide information on the progress of the activities within the scope of REDD. The monitoring system should also provide information on how the safeguards referred to in the Annex of the decision are being addressed (see below).

PHASED APPROACH
The REDD decision refers to a phased approach as follows:

• Phase 1: Development of national plan, policies and measures and capacity building
• Phase 2: Implementation of national plan, policies and measures and further capacity building, technology development and transfer, and results based demonstration activities.
• Phase 3: Results-based actions with full measurement reporting and verification.

SAFEGUARDS
The safeguards referred to in Annex I of the decision provide guidelines on how REDD should be implemented and have hardly changed at all from the draft text that was put forward in Copenhagen. The safeguards refer to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as to social and environmental safeguards, but it is unclear how these provisions will be effectively operationalized.  The safeguards also fail to address the issue of biodiversity loss and the role of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which is alarming given the wealth of experience that exists within the CBD.

WHAT IS NOT IN THE REDD TEXT
Whilst the REDD decision provides the background to begin work across a broad range of issues there are several key components that remain unresolved.

PROGRAMME OF WORK UNDER AWG-LCA
Aside from the need to provide adequate and predictable sources of finance, there was little guidance in the REDD decision on where the money might come from.  The Parties have requested that the AWG-LCA explore financing options for Phase 3 activities (i.e. results-based emissions reductions - see above) and to report on progress at COP 17 in Durban.  It is unclear what this report will look like but it will hopefully build on the platform provided by publications such as the Little Climate Finance Book and the report of the Advisory Group on Finance.

PROGRAMME OF WORK UNDER SBSTA
The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) has agreed an ambitious programme of work to move forward on methodological issues contained in Annex II to the decision; The Annex contains five areas of work that are to be completed individually by either COP 17 in Durban or COP 18 in 2012.

By COP 17
• Develop modalities for reference levels: Reference levels will play an important role in determining the environmental effectiveness of a REDD mechanism.
• Develop modalities for forest monitoring systems: The development of forest monitoring systems will be essential for countries to measure their changes in carbon stocks or forest area during the implementation of REDD.
• Develop guidance for information systems on safeguards: The guidance should be for how the safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of REDD.
• Develop modalities for MRV: Whilst the text is confusing, the final task for SBSTA is to develop modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying emissions reductions resulting from REDD activities.

By COP 18
• Identify LULUCF activities in developing countries: Particularly those linked to the drivers of deforestation to assess the mitigation potential across these activities. This will be particularly important in identifying which activities offer the most potential to reduce emissions in developing countries.

THE ROAD FROM CANCUN
The Cancun agreements are a step in the right direction for REDD and for forest conservation more broadly. The alternative – that no decision was reached at COP 16 – is unthinkable.  It would have been very difficult to justify continuing engagement in the UNFCCC process, and forest conservation would have continued in an uncoordinated and fragmented fashion.  For that reason alone the Cancun accords were a necessary step.
Notwithstanding that, the UNFCC process is not progressing with the urgency or boldness necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. If we are to avoid losing the world’s tropical forests – and thereby a chance at avoiding the worst impacts of climate change – we need to pick up the pace and raise our ambition.
Cancun has shown what can be achieved with focused political will from just a few countries. We now need to act collectively to make good on this beginning and forge an ever more effective framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

CONTACT US
If you would like more information on our work with climate change and forests visit
www.globalcanopy.org
Charlie Parker: c.parker@globalcanopy.org
© Global Canopy Programme 2011