Redd Shift

REDD
Shift
 Star
watchers
can
determine
the
speed
at
which
an
object
is
travelling
away
from
them
using
a
phenomenon
known
 as
red
shift.

Forest
watchers
at
the
fourteenth
Conference
of
the
Parties
(COP
14)
to
the
United
Nations
Framework
 Convention
on
Climate
Change
(UNFCCC)
recently
bore
witness
to
a
similar
occurrence.

To
the
casual
observer
it
 might
have
appeared
that
the
chances
of
a
successful
outcome
to
the
negotiations
on
Reducing
Emissions
from
 Deforestation
and
Degradation
(REDD)
are
receding
rapidly
into
the
distance.
 
 There
are
many
reasons
to
be
disappointed
at
the
outcome
for
tropical
forests
emerging
from
Poznań.

Some
 progress
was
made,
however,
and
a
programme
of
work
has
been
drawn
up
for
2009.


Overview
of
the
proceedings
 REDD
is
being
followed
under
two
agendas
within
the
UNFCCC.

Methodological
issues
continue
to
be
negotiated
 under
the
Subsidiary
Body
for
Scientific
and
Technological
Advice
(SBSTA)
and
policy
items
are
being
discussed
under
 the
Ad‐hoc
Working
Group
on
Long‐term
Cooperative
action
(AWG‐LCA).
 Both
of
these
groups
started
with
open
meetings
but
to
the
consternation
of
the
NGOs
present,
rapidly
moved
to
 informal
working
groups.

The
outcomes
discussed
below
are
those
taken
from
the
first
and
last
meetings,
which
 were
open,
or
from
discussions
in
the
corridors
and
snippets
of
information
from
friendly
quarters.


Outcomes
from
SBSTA
 Work
under
SBSTA
has
progressed
more
steadily
than
under
AWG‐LCA.
Workshops
were
held
throughout
the
year
 to
discuss
methodological
issues
such
as
baselines,
reference
periods
and
the
scope
of
REDD.

Initial
expectations
 were
high
that
a
COP
decision
might
be
reached
for
some
of
these
key
elements
of
a
REDD
mechanism.

It
soon
 became
clear,
however,
that
progress
was
slow
and
late
in
the
second
week
negotiations
hit
a
stumbling
block.

In
 what
was
described
by
some
as
the
longest
COP
meeting
ever,
Parties
wrangled
until
the
early
hours
of
the
morning
 over
two
critical
issues;
what
was
in
or
out
of
scope
and
to
what
extent
should
Indigenous
Peoples
(take
note
of
that
 ‘s’)
be
involved
and
recognised.




Scope
 One
factor
behind
the
marathon
session
was
the
removal
of
a
semi‐colon
from
paragraph
4
of
the
draft
decision1:
 “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”
 This
change
brought
sustainable
forest
management
(SFM),
and
the
conservation
and
enhancement
of
carbon
stocks
 into
scope.
India
who
were
one
of
the
main
proponents
of
this
change
argued
that
REDD
should
reward
all
countries
 and
all
activities
not
just
the
reduction
of
emissions
in
countries
with
previously
high
rates
of
deforestation
(and
 degradation).

Countering
this
view,
is
the
position
that
for
REDD
to
get
off
the
ground
it
needs
to
be
kept
simple.
 It
is
unclear
what
the
implications
of
this
decision
are
for
other
methodological
elements.

Conservation
could
be
 rewarded
under
either
a
fund
or
a
market
based
system
through
a
distribution
mechanism.

Enhancement
is
already
 included
under
the
Kyoto
Protocol
through
the
CDM
A/R
methodologies
and
it
seems
an
unnecessary
addition
to
 include
it
here,
unless
this
is
intended
to
be
a
step
towards
a
full
carbon
accounting
methodology
which
incorporates
 savannah,
standing
forests
and
everything
in
between.


Biodiversity
 Unfortunately,
references
to
the
conservation
or
protection
of
biodiversity
were
also
omitted
from
the
final
text
in
 favour
of
“exploring
co‐benefits
in
the
context
of
methodological
development”.

The
“conservation
and
sustainable
 use
of
biodiversity”
as
outlined
in
COP
9
Decision
IX/16
of
the
Convention
on
Biological
Diversity
(CBD)
is
critical
to
 the
success
of
REDD,
and
gives
a
clear
signal
in
the
debate
on
forest
definitions
that
tropical
forests
cannot
be
 replaced
by
plantations.
 




























































 1


http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/sbsta/eng/l23.pdf



Indigenous
Peoples
 The
progress
on
the
rights
and
needs
of
Indigenous
Peoples
(again
noting
the
‘s’
in
Peoples)
can
be
viewed
in
one
of
 two
ways.

The
Bali
Action
Plan2
made
only
a
passing
reference
to
“the
needs
of
local
and
indigenous
communities”,
 so
on
the
one
hand,
the
draft
decision
from
Poznań,
which
now
refers
to
“the
need
to
promote
the
full
and
effective
 participation
of
indigenous
people
and
local
communities”,
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.


 The
only
blemish
on
this
progress
is
that
at
one
time
during
the
negotiations
the
potential
for
a
stronger
agreement
 existed.

Several
Parties
including
the
EU
and
its
member
states
and
NGOs
were
pushing
for
a
reference
to
the
 United
Nations
Declaration
on
the
Rights
of
Indigenous
Peoples
and
at
minimum
to
include
the
rights
of
Indigenous
 Peoples
with
a
crucial
‘s’
at
the
end.

The
United
States,
at
the
11th
hour,
called
for
the
‘s’
to
removed
from
‘Peoples’
 as
it
was
in
conflict
with
the
US
Constitution,
which
does
not
recognize
the
rights
of

‘Indigenous
Peoples’.


Outcomes
from
AWG­LCA
 Although
not
much
time
was
spent
on
REDD
during
the
negotiations,
AWG‐LCA
has
been
busy
behind
the
scenes
 creating
an
assembly
document3.

The
document
condenses
the
700+
pages
of
“ideas
and
proposals
presented
by
 Parties
on
the
elements
contained
in
paragraph
1
of
the
Bali
Action
Plan”
into
a
more
digestible
122‐page
format.


 Of
particular
interest
are
paragraphs
52‐63
from
page
42
onwards
which
summarize
the
submissions
on
“Policy
 approaches
and
positive
incentives
on
issues
relating
to
reducing
emissions
from
deforestation
and
forest
 degradation
in
developing
countries”.
 The
assembly
document
is
an
important
step
towards
reaching
agreement
on
policy
approaches
for
REDD
as
it
 highlights
areas
of
convergence
and
divergence
amongst
the
Parties.

The
synthesis
is
broken
down
into
two
main
 sections;
“inputs
by
Parties”
and
“input
from
observer
organizations”.

Within
these
sections
the
analysis
is
grouped
 into
broad
topics
that
aim
to
crystallize
the
objectives
and
nature
of
policy
approaches,
the
provision
of
positive
 incentives,
what
should
be
measured,
reported
and
verified,
and
what
should
be
supported
in
the
areas
of
capacity‐ building,
readiness
and
demonstration.
 Critically,
this
document
was
supported
during
the
meeting
of
the
AWG‐LCA
and
can
therefore
continue
to
provide
 guidance
for
both
negotiations
and
a
draft
policy
text.


Unilateral
commitments
 It
seems
some
Parties
are
not
willing
to
wait
for
the
UNFCCC
to
come
to
a
decision
and
are
going
full
steam
ahead
 with
bilateral
and
multilateral
agreements
to
combat
deforestation.

By
far
the
most
ambitious
of
these
 commitments
is
Brazil’s
pledge
to
reduce
emissions
from
deforestation
by
70%
by
2018
from
the
1996‐2005
levels.

 Although
it
is
unclear
how
much
this
will
cost
and
where
the
money
will
be
spent,
Brazil
has
previously
stated
that
it
 aims
to
raise
$21
billion
by
2021
in
the
fight
against
deforestation.

Mexico
made
a
similar
commitment
to
reduce
 overall
emissions
by
50%
by
2050,
a
significant
step
for
a
non‐Annex
I
country.
 The
major
international
donor
is
currently
Norway,
which
has
pledged
$500
million
a
year
to
combat
deforestation.

 Germany
has
also
committed
€500
million
over
the
next
four
years
and
a
contribution
of
€500
million
every
year
 after
that
to
protect
global
forests.
The
UK
recently
made
a
commitment
of
£100
million
of
which
£60
million
will
go
 to
the
Congo
Basin
and
£15
million
to
a
World
Bank
demonstration.
 Although
this
is
still
a
long
way
from
the
$17
‐33
billion
per
year
quoted
by
the
Eliasch
Review
that
is
needed
to
halve
 deforestation
by
2030,
it
is
certainly
sufficient
to
meet
the
estimated
$100
‐
$600
million,
proposed
in
a
recent
 Woods
Hole
Research
Centre
paper,
required
to
reduce
deforestation
to
nearly
zero
in
Brazil.


Where
do
we
go
from
here?
 Both
SBSTA
and
AWG‐LCA
have
outlined
programmes
of
work
between
now
and
Copenhagen.

SBSTA
has
requested
 submissions
from
Parties
on
technical
and
capacity‐building
issues
including:
 • • •

Methodologies
for
estimating
and
monitoring
changes
in
forest
cover
and
associated
carbon
stocks
and
 greenhouse
gas
emissions.
 National
and
sub‐national
monitoring
and
reporting
systems
 Methodologies
for
forest
inventories,
ground‐based
and
remote‐sensing
approaches.































































 2 3


http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3

 
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/awglca4/eng/16r01.pdf




 SBSTA
has
also
invited
Parties
and
observers
to
submit
views
on
issues
relating
to
indigenous
people
and
local
 communities.
Both
sets
of
submissions
are
due
by
15th
February
2009
and
will
be
compiled
by
the
secretariat
and
 presented
at
the
thirtieth
meeting
of
the
subsidiary
bodies
(SB
30),
in
Bonn
in
June.
 AWG‐LCA
will
compile
a
document,
which
builds
on
the
assembly
document,
for
consideration
at
its
fifth
session
in
 Bonn
from
29th
March
–
8th
April
2009.
Submissions
will
be
received
for
this
until
6th
February
2009.

A
negotiation
 text
will
also
be
prepared
based
on
submissions
received
from
Parties
by
24
April
2009.
 These
documents
will
hopefully
form
the
basis
for
the
policy
guidance
under
AWG‐LCA
needed
to
progress
REDD
 negotiations
in
the
final
run‐up
to
Copenhagen.


Concluding
remarks
 The
coming
year
is
a
critical
time
for
consensus‐building
if
agreement
is
to
be
reached
at
the
decisive
climate
summit
 in
Copenhagen
in
December
2009.

Poznan
was
a
stepping
stone
in
the
road
to
Copenhagen
and
although
some
 progress
was
made
it
was
not
at
the
scale
or
with
the
urgency
required.

Negotiations
were
held
in
limbo
as
the
 world
watches
to
see
which
way
the
world’s
biggest
polluter,
the
United
States
will
turn.

Early
indications
from
the
 President
elect
are
positive;
Obama’s
new
government
has
already
indicated
that
it
aims
to
reduce
emissions
to
 1990
levels
by
2020.
 We
must
not
forget
that
forest
loss
constitutes
a
global
emergency
and
that
an
immediate
response
is
required
to
 tackle
it.

The
GCP
will
continue
to
provide
critical
input
into
the
UNFCCC
negotiations.

The
Little
REDD
Book,
which
 was
successful
in
Poznan
at
highlighting
the
key
areas
of
convergence
within
REDD,
will
continue
to
progress
 alongside
evolving
negotiations
and
will
be
presented
to
the
key
meetings
in
Bonn
and
Copenhagen.
 Although
we
saw
REDD
recede
to
the
edges
of
negotiations
in
Poznan
there
have
been
some
key
areas
of
progress
 and
the
foundations
for
consensus
are
emerging
within
the
international
community.
Forest
stakeholders
need
to
 now
focus
on
the
policy
implications
of
REDD
and
to
demonstrate,
with
the
full
involvement
of
Indigenous
Peoples,
 capacity‐building
activities
at
the
national
and
sub‐national
level.
 
 Contact:

Charlie
Parker,
Policy
Analyst,
Global
Canopy
Programme,

 John
Krebs
Field
Station,
Wytham,
Oxford,
OX2
8QJ,
UK
 Tel:
+44
(0)
1865
724
222
Email:

[email protected]
 
 Visit
the
following
websites
for
updates.
 www.littleREDDbook.org,
www.globalcanopy.org/REDD