Topic: REDD

Putting the Pieces Together for Good Governance of REDD+: An Analysis of 32 REDD+ Country Readiness Proposals

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:05:45 -0400

Executive Summary

Developing countries are receiving new financial and technical support to design and implement programs that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degrada¬tion (referred to as REDD+). Reducing emissions from forest cover change requires transparent, accountable, inclusive, and coordinated systems and institutions to govern REDD+ programs. Two multilateral initiatives— the World Bank-administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the United Nations Collaborative Pro¬gramme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (UN-REDD Programme)—are supporting REDD+ countries to become “ready” for REDD+ by preparing initial strategy proposals, developing institutions to manage REDD+ programs, and building capacity to implement REDD+ activities.

This paper reviews 32 REDD+ readiness proposals sub¬mitted to these initiatives to understand overall trends in how eight elements of readiness (referred to in this paper as readiness needs) are being understood and prioritized globally. Specifically, we assess whether the readiness proposals (i) identify the eight readiness needs as relevant for REDD+, (ii) discuss challenges and options for addressing each need, and (iii) identify next steps to be implemented in relation to each need. Our analysis found that the readiness proposals make important commit¬ments to developing effective, equitable, and well-governed REDD+ programs. However, in many of the proposals these general statements have not yet been translated into clear next steps.

Key Findings:

Discussions of stakeholder participation, non-carbon monitoring, and cross-sectoral coordination are the strongest in terms of the number of readiness proposals that identify issues as relevant for REDD+, discuss key challenges and options, and propose clear next steps (e.g., studies, processes, institutional support costs).
Few REDD+ countries consider specific design op¬tions or challenges related to REDD+ benefit sharing, conflict resolution, or revenue management systems, although most include plans to address these issues as readiness activities move forward.
Relatively few readiness proposals identify specific next steps to address land tenure challenges or estab¬lish mechanisms to coordinate with local institutions during REDD+ planning and implementation.
Cross-cutting issues such as vertical coordination of REDD+ programs and coherence of proposed new REDD+ bodies with existing forest sector institutions have not been explicitly considered in most readiness proposals to date.

Delivering on the commitments made in the readiness proposals will be crucial to building stakeholder confidence and scaling up financial support for REDD+ programs. We make three recommendations that can help countries make short-term progress on REDD+ objectives and ultimately develop effective and equitable REDD+ programs:

REDD+ countries, donors, and civil society stakehold¬ers should consider gaps identified by our analysis and work to ensure that readiness activities promote comprehensive and integrated approaches to designing REDD+ strategies, systems, and institutions.
REDD+ countries should improve efforts to prioritize and sequence readiness activities to enhance transpar¬ency on how readiness financing is allocated to differ¬ent readiness needs.
REDD+ countries should develop transparent and ac¬countable domestic systems for tracking progress on readiness activities to ensure that readiness proposal commitments to well-governed REDD+ programs are carried out in practice.

Coming Soon: Global Forest Watch 2.0

James Anderson — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:03:32 -0500

Welcome to the home of Global Forest Watch 2.0, a powerful near real-time forest monitoring system that unites satellite technology, data sharing, and human networks around the world to fight deforestation.

GFW 2.0 is currently under development, and will launch in late 2013.

Read more below, and email gfw2@wri.org to participate in the pilot testing period or be notified when GFW 2.0 launches. Please note that as we prepare for the launch, the original Global Forest Watch website has been redirected to this page.

Watch a Short Preview of Global Forest Watch 2.0 at the UN Forum on Forests 10, in Istanbul.

Watch the full version here

Speakers:

Zulkifli Hasan, Minister of Forestry, Indonesia
Kerri-Ann Jones, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General, United Nations
Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson, Global Environment Facility
Tim Christophersen, Senior Program Officer, Forests and Climate Change, UNEP
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forests Initiative, World Resources Institute

Photo by David Gilbert

WHY FORESTS, WHY NOW?

Forests provide food jobs, raw materials, climate benefits and more. But without clear, up-to-date information, governments, companies and communities lack the tools to monitor and manage these resources.

We can track a company’s financial information daily, but information about forests is often years out of date.

Deforestation continues today in part because by the time satellite images are available, analyzed, and shared, the forest clearing is long done. The illegal loggers have moved on; cattle are already grazing amidst stumps; the oil palm plantation has been established. We simply find out too late.

New technologies can overcome these challenges

Fortunately, a convergence of technologies and human networks offers the ability to address these challenges for the first time:

Advances in satellite and remote sensing technology, including the launch of NASA’s Landsat 8 in early 2013, and new private systems, enable higher spatial resolution analysis and much more rapid updates of information. This has enabled the development of near-real-time forest cover change detection.
Brazilian partner IMAZON, is making its Amazon Alert System available through GFW 2.0, and also the DETER system which is innovating in detection of forest degradation. Brazil has seen a remarkable drop in deforestation in the Amazon of almost 80 percent partly due to improved linked to more effective use of satellite imagery.
Cloud computing and open source software can now be used to rapidly process and interpret large volumes of satellite data at low cost by utilizing clusters of servers scattered around the world. Google Earth Engine’s team is partnered with Global Forest Watch 2.0 to optimize easy access to cloud computing-based forest cover information.
High speed internet connectivity enables sending data and forest maps processed in North America, Europe, or Singapore to laptops and mobile phones in Jakarta, Kinshasa, Lima, Vladivostok, and other corners of the globe.
Smartphones are more common than ever and can be used by anyone in the field to download maps and satellite images, as well as upload GPS coordinates and photographs from the ground.
Crowdsourcing using simple web interfaces can empower thousands if not millions of people to gather and share information, participate in forest monitoring, and hold decision-makers accountable. • Social media outlets are creating a flat, networked world in which information travels fast, communities self-organize, and people get mobilized.

ABOUT GLOBAL FOREST WATCH 2.0

These enhanced technologies and social movements are the foundation for Global Forest Watch 2.0. GFW 2.0 will unite a near-real-time deforestation alert system, complementary satellite imagery and monitoring systems, WRI’s data-rich collection of maps, mobile technology, and a networked world to create never-before-possible transparency for faraway forests.

The platform is currently under development, and will be launched in late 2013.

This powerful new platform will enable responsible companies, NGOs, the media, and progressive government leaders to hold those responsible accountable for forest management.

GFW 2.0 can be useful to multiple groups of users involved with the sustainable management of forests:

Buyers of sustainable commodities. GFW 2.0 will enable buyers of sustainably sourced commodities―such as certified timber, palm oil, soya, and beef―to confirm adherence to or violations of supplier commitments to “no deforestation,” “no clearing of high conservation value forest,” and related criteria.
Suppliers of sustainable commodities. GFW 2.0 will help suppliers of sustainable commodities prove to buyers, investors, governments, and NGOs that their commodities are adhering to best forest management practices, national laws, criteria of the relevant commodity roundtables, or investor lending conditions.
Governments. GFW 2.0 is designed to help progressive elements in governments better enforce sustainable forest management and forest protection laws. GFW 2.0 is also designed to be a trusted, independent, and user-friendly way to help investors in REDD+ and other forest conservation projects monitor performance and hold countries accountable to their commitments on greenhouse gas emission reductions and forest conservation.
Conservation and community organizations. GFW 2.0 will enable NGOs dedicated to forest conservation, indigenous rights, and forest communities to identify deforestation hotspots as they arise and quickly mobilize action to curtail further clearing.
The media. GFW 2.0 will enable local, national, and international media to ring the alarm bell on deforestation hotspots around the globe at a pace never-before-possible, and thereby put pressure on governments, companies, and others to curtail forest conversion and illegal logging in time

Applying new technology

GFW 2.0 combines satellites, new algorithms, cloud computing, mobile phone technologies, and WRI databases to connect images, maps, photos, and data with forest clearing alerts ultimately within two weeks of significant deforestation occurring.

Because GFW 2.0 will be powered by Google Earth Engine and Earth Builder, it will bring to target users a seamless experience of the best technology offered by WRI, Google, and their partners, as Bloomberg does for the world’s vast, complex array of financial information.

Mobilizing human networks

GFW 2.0 will mobilize networks of people to ensure sustainable management of forests and greater forest conservation. Global Forest Watch “anchor” NGOs in each priority country or region, will actively use and contribute content in an open-source, network model.

These groups will include ScanEx and its non-profit affiliate Transparent World in Russia, Imazon in Brazil and their Amazon-wide network of partners across the seven neighboring countries, the Observatoire Satellital des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale (OSFAC) which covers the Central Africa region. More partners in Canada, China, Europe, and the United States are joining every day.

Watch a Sneak Peek of GFW 2.0 presented at Rio+20

Video streaming by Ustream

Speakers:

Carlos Souza Jr., Senior Researcher, IMAZON
Charles Barber, Forest Division Chief, Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science, U.S. Department of State
Rebecca Moore, Google
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forest Initiative, World Resources Institute

Watch UNEP’s press conference featuring GFW 2.0 at COP18 in Doha

Speakers:

Mr. Heru Prasetyo, Deputy I, Presidential Delivery Unit on Development Monitoring and Oversight, Government of Indonesia
Tim Christophersen, Senior Programme Officer, Forests and Climate Change, UNEP
Jane Feehan, Natural Resources Specialist, European Investment Bank
Nigel Sizer, Director, Global Forest Initiative, World Resources Institute

Watch a Sneak Peek of Global Forest Watch 2.0 at the U.S. Pavilion, COP18 in Doha

Video streaming by Ustream

Speakers:

Nigel Sizer, Director, Forests Initiative, World Resources Institute
Nirarta “Koni” Samadhi, Head of REDD+ Task Force Working Group on Moratorium Monitoring, Presidential Work Unit on Monitoring and Development Oversight (UKP4), Government of Indonesia
Per Fredrik Ilsaas Pharo, Director, International Climate and Forest Initiative, Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, Government of Norway
Tim Christophersen, Senior Program Officer, Forests and Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Read more about WRI’s forest work here.

Safeguarding Forests and People: A Framework for Designing a National System to Implement REDD+ Safeguards

Sarah Parsons — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0500

Executive Summary

Background

Around the world, members of governments, civil society, and the private sector are grappling with how to design and implement initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by slowing, halting, and reversing forest loss. These efforts have been spurred at least in part by the agreements onlong-term cooperative action (LCA) that Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have made since 2007 in Bali, Cancun, and Durban. In these agreements, Parties stated that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and sustainable management of forests in developing countries should be recognized as mitigation actions. Parties also agreed that these actions should be at least partially supported by Annex 1 countries. This series of actions, and the related global mechanism for recognizing and supporting them, comprise the global initiative known as REDD+.

REDD+ has attracted significant attention from governments, the private sector, and civil society, with particular interest in its potential for increasing the resources available for protecting forest ecosystems and promoting sustainable development.

However, to contribute to the sustainable management of forests, REDD+ actions will need to be implemented effectively, equitably, and sustainably. In a 2010 UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) in Cancun, Parties recognized the importance of good governance to successful implementation of REDD+ actions. The Parties agreed on seven UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards, among them transparency, participation, protection of biodiversity, and protection of the rights of local people. If implemented correctly, the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards can help ensure that REDD+ does not inadvertently harm communities and ecosystems by exacerbating existing inequalities.

The UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards provide broad guiding principles. It is now up to those designing, funding, and implementing REDD+ initiatives to determine how those principles should be put into practice. One option is to put in place a system at the national level. A national system to implement the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards brings opportunities to strengthen the rules and institutions that currently govern forested lands. These opportunities, however, come with challenges and will require balancing of different costs and benefits. This report lays out a framework to help REDD+ countries develop a national system to implement the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards. The framework presented here does not provide a ready-made solution, but it does provide a roadmap for navigating some of the choices that can arise during the design and implementation of national systems. The report also provides examples of how Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico are progressing along this path.

A Framework for Designing a National System

The framework laid out in this report comprises four components: goals, functions, rules, and institutions. Safeguard goals define what the safeguards are meant to achieve. Safeguard functions are the processes by which those goals are achieved. A complete safeguard system supports each goal by:

anticipating potential risks and opportunities associated with national and/or subnational REDD+ actions, such as REDD+ strategies, activities, and projects;
planning to avoid harm and produce benefits to ecosystems and people by addressing social and environmental considerations in the design of REDD+ actions;
managing REDD+ actions by implementing safeguard plans and procedures that will help ensure desired social and environmental goals;
monitoring REDD+ processes and outcomes to demonstrate the achievement of goals, make course corrections, and deal with unanticipated impacts; and
responding to problems and grievances related to the social and/or environmental effects of REDD+ actions.

Safeguard rules and institutions ensure that safeguards are put into practice. A safeguard system’s rules outline the parameters of the system by defining what should or should not occur. In addition to ensuring that the parameters are designed in a transparent and participatory manner, the system’s institutions also ensure that they are thoroughly followed.

Creating a National REDD+ Safeguard System

If a REDD+ country chooses to develop a national system, the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards provide an initial set of goals for that system. Governments, in collaboration with stakeholders, can add to these goals to meet national needs. They will then need to define how their established goals should be implemented. This task will necessitate defining the rules and institutions responsible for ensuring that all functions of the system are met, including everything from anticipating risks to responding if something needs to be changed.

Before putting in place new rules and institutions for a national system, a government should, together with stakeholders, (a) assess the degree to which existing rules and institutions already provide for the goals and functions of a REDD+ safeguard system and (b) assess risks to achieving safeguard goals given current gaps. After gaining an understanding of existing rules and institutions, a government and stakeholders can determine how to best fill those gaps. As part of any initial assessment, it may also be beneficial to consider the safeguard policies of potential funders in order to enhance coordination and coherence.

Many options are available to fill any gaps identified—in some cases, assessments may show that reforming existing rules, or empowering and strengthening existing institutions, may be the best solution. Alternately, new rules and institutions may need to be developed. Under that scenario, new national laws or policies could be created, new regulations put in place, or new procedures instituted by government agencies. Rules can be specific to REDD+ or apply more broadly. In terms of institutions, new government agencies or new positions within existing agencies could be created, or new responsibilities could be given to nongovernmental or private actors. Responsibility for implementing several of the functions of the safeguard system can be consolidated with one body, or spread out across multiple institutions.

Choices related to rules and institutions come with different sets of costs and benefits. For example, putting in place a new law may provide more long-term stability and greater buy-in from multiple sectors. However, new laws can take time to be approved or require a level of political support in the legislature that does not exist. Consolidating responsibility with one agency can help ensure effectiveness by reducing the need for coordination between agencies, but it may place too heavy a burden on one player and reduce the political buy-in often obtained by having multiple government agencies involved.

The right choice of rules and institutions for implementing the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards will depend on a nation’s circumstances and may change over time. Evaluating options strategically in a transparent and participatory manner can help actors better utilize resources and plan for the future.

Conclusion

A national system for implementing the REDD+ safeguards can help ensure that all REDD+ activities within a country are covered by adequate safeguard policies. It can be more sensitive to unique national circumstances. It can help national governments coordinate REDD+ activities and their associated safeguard policies. While there will be many, sometimes difficult, decisions to be made by governments and stakeholders about how to design and implement a system that builds trust between all the actors involved in REDD+, the value of undertaking such a process will have benefits well beyond REDD+. This is perhaps the most important reason to invest the time and energy in designing a national system to implement the REDD+ safeguards. Many governments and stakeholders have already expressed the intent to go down this path, supporting them is the intent of this document and hopefully will lead to further enthusiasm and interest in exploring the options for developing national systems.

RELEASE: Project Launched to Support Conservation and Improved Forest Management in the Congo Basin

Lauren Zelin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:02:47 -0400

Global Environment Facility begins pilots in Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo

The Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Resources Institute (WRI), and Rainforest Alliance joined with officials from government, national NGOs, the private sector, and international development organizations throughout the Congo Basin to launch a regional Global Environment Facility (GEF) project will focus on improving forest management and conservation.

The project, entitled A Regional Focus on Sustainable Timber Management in the Congo Basin, is starting with a set of activities at the regional level and in three pilot countries: Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, and the Republic of Congo. The regional launch held in Douala, Cameroon, on March 20-21 was followed by events in Bangui, Central African Republic, on March 27, and Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, on March 29. A subsequent launch event is expected to be held in Bata, Equatorial Guinea, in April 2012.

At the regional launch event in Douala, Adamou Bouhari, UNEP/GEF Task Manager, invited the participants to collaborate closely on this effort to address illegal logging and ensure that the management of production forests is carried out in a sustainable manner. According to Bouhari, initiatives at the national level have had significant impacts, but have focused on the ‘formal’ sector rather than the informal sector, and have not addressed regional and cross-border issues. GEF and UNEP involvement in this project will ensure that the Global Environment Benefits (GEB) are maintained and enhanced through a regional approach.

“WRI is very excited and proud to undertake this important and challenging four-year project to serve as a regional catalyst and work to promote a harmonized approach to the sustainable management of production forests,” said Pierre Methot, WRI’s Director of Forestry for Central Africa and Project Director. “This project will reinforce WRI’s already strong presence in the region and enhance our efforts to improve transparency and governance in the Congo Basin that focus on timber management, REDD, and other aspects of sustainable forest development.”

This project forms part of the GEF Congo Basin Strategic Program and will contribute to the implementation of the Convergence Plan and reinforce the capacity of COMIFAC.

The project will also capitalize on Rainforest Alliance’s ongoing work in Cameroon, and elsewhere around the world, with community-based forest enterprises.

According to Rainforest Alliance’s Senior Vice President & Vice President of Forestry Richard Donovan, “The forests of the Congo Basin are an incredible resource, but how do we ensure that local communities and indigenous people truly benefit from commercial activities, based on timber or carbon, in a way that supports forest conservation and community livelihoods? That is a critical challenge for this effort.”

# # #

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is an Implementing Agency of the Gobal Environment Facility (GEF) with the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and is the only GEF Agency whose core business is the environment. UNEP plays a key role in supporting countries to develop and execute GEF projects that fit within its comparative advantage. www.unep.org

The World Resources Institute is a global environmental think tank that goes beyond research to put ideas into action. We work with governments, companies, and civil society to build solutions to urgent environmental challenges. WRI’s transformative ideas protect the earth and promote development because sustainability is essential to meeting human needs and fulfilling human aspirations in the future. www.wri.org

The Rainforest Alliance is an international nonprofit conservation organization that works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior. www.rainforest-alliance.org

# # #

Getting Ready: A Review of the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Preparation Proposals

admin — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:43:01 -0400

The World Bank administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Programme) are two leading multilateral efforts currently supporting developing countries to become ―ready‖ to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks (REDD+).

This working paper is the eighth in a series of regular updates reviewing the Readiness Preparation Proposals (R-PPs) submitted by REDD+ Country Participants to the FCPF and the National Programme Documents (NPDs) submitted by UN-REDD Programme countries to the UN-REDD Programme. The analysis is based on a desktop review of each R-PP and NPD in order to understand how countries are considering fundamental issues of forest governance during the readiness phase. We assess whether the documents identify major governance challenges contributing to forest loss, and whether principles of transparency, accountability, participation, and coordination are being applied in the development of REDD+ institutions, systems, and plans.

The 7th meeting of the UN REDD Programme Policy Board and the 10th meeting of the FCPF Participants Committee will be held in Berlin, Germany, from 13-14 October and 17-19 October, respectively. This paper evaluates R-PPs from Central African Republic and Colombia submitted for formal consideration by the FCPF Participants Committee. Draft R-PPs from Guatemala and Mozambique were submitted for informal review, but are not analyzed in this paper. We also review Nigeria’s NPD, which will be considered for funding by the Policy Board.

Indonesia's Moratorium on New Forest Concessions: Key Findings and Next Steps

Maggie Barron — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:50:39 -0500

The Indonesian moratorium on the award of new licenses in primary natural forests and peat lands, announced in May 2011, is an important step for improving management of forest resources by “pausing” business-as-usual and allowing time to implement reforms.

To quantify the moratorium’s coverage, exemptions, encroachments, and additionality (i.e., whether the moratorium extends protection to land not already protected), the World Resources Institute (WRI) analyzed the indicative moratorium map released by the Ministry of Forestry in July 2011. The objective of the analysis was to better characterize the moratorium’s potential impacts and identify opportunities for improvement.

The analysis concluded that the moratorium in its current state will not contribute to Indonesia’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goal of 26 percent by 2020. Although there are 43.3 million hectares (ha) of primary forests and peat lands and significant carbon stocks within the boundaries of the indicative moratorium map (IMM), the questionable status of secondary forests, the exemption of existing concessions, and the limited enforcement of the moratorium boundaries may result in gains being negated by other land-use emissions. Nonetheless, long-term positive impacts can still be achieved if significant governance reforms are accomplished during the moratorium period.

Map of SBSTA Submissions: REDD+ Safeguard Information System

Kevin Lustig — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:27:01 -0500

Summary

In December 2010, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requested the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) to develop guidance relating to paragraph 71(d) of the Cancun Agreements in time for COP 17 in Durban, December 2011.

Paragraph 71(d) speaks to a system to provide information on how the safeguards in Annex 1 of the Cancun Agreements are being addressed and respected (termed the “safeguard information system” or SIS).¹

In June 2011, SBSTA discussed the development of a guidance document on the SIS, and invited Parties and accredited Observers to submit their views on such guidance.² Submissions were welcomed on: characteristics; design; provision of information; potential barriers, if any, to providing information on addressing and respecting safeguards; and other relevant issues.

SBSTA received 26 submissions in total, 14 from Parties and 12 from Observers. Several submissions represent the view of more than one Party or Observer. While most submissions followed the structure suggested by SBSTA in June, they often covered substantively different topics under each heading. In an effort to bring greater clarity to discussions surrounding the SIS, ClientEarth and the World Resources Institute (WRI) have divided the information in the submissions into four categories:

The Role of the Safeguard Information System
The Type of Information that Parties Should Provide
How to Collect and Provide Information
Other Elements of the International Safeguard System

A summary of our key findings for each category is provided below. Tables of the specific language from Party submissions make up the rest of the document. In some cases it was difficult to be certain of the exact meaning of the language included in the submissions.³ Every effort has been made to accurately reflect, in this abbreviated format, the views contained in the submissions. ClientEarth and WRI regret any misrepresentation of those views that may have occurred in an effort to achieve brevity, clarity and comparability.

This paragraph speaks to “a system for providing information on how the safeguards referred to in appendix I to [the Cancun] decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 70 above, while respecting sovereignty.” ↩
SBSTA also invited input on other elements of REDD, including reference levels and MRV. Please note that document only reviews submissions related to the safeguard information system. ↩
For example, it was sometimes difficult to know when reading the submission if Parties/observers envisaged activities (like reviews) happening at the national and/or the international level. ↩

Threats to Village Land in Tanzania: Implications for REDD+ Benefit- Sharing Arrangements

Peter Veit — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:28:02 -0500

This piece originally appeared in Lessons About Land Tenure, Forest Governance and REDD+: Case Studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America.¹ The full text of the article is available here.

Abstract

REDD+ presents an important opportunity for Tanzania to leverage its forest resources to bring in new capital flows, promote forest management and provide benefits to communities. With a legal framework designed to promote decentralization and more than a decade of experience with Participatory Forest Management, the country appears ready to capitalize on REDD+.

On closer examination, however, villagers face multiple obstacles in securing rights over land and realizing forest benefits. This paper examines five challenges—classification of General Land; recognition of Village Land; recognition of village government; transfer of Village Land to General or Reserved Land; and Participatory Forest Management procedures. Legal ambiguities and contradictions coupled with inconsistent implementation and governance structures pose unique threats to the success of REDD+ in Tanzania. With REDD+ infrastructure yet to be developed, however, opportunities exist for these challenges to be addressed. The current legal and institutional framework needs clarification and strengthening to make REDD+ a success for all Tanzanians.

Read the full article

Naughton-Treves, L. and C. Day. eds. 2012. Lessons about Land Tenure, Forest Governance and REDD+. Case Studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Madison, Wisconsin: UW-Madison Land Tenure Center. ↩

STATEMENT: A Climate Deal Comes Together in Durban

Michael Oko — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:40:27 -0500

As the climate talks concluded today, Parties agreed to move forward with a “Durban Package” that includes a pathway forward on a legally-binding instrument for all countries, an agreement on a second commitment for the Kyoto Protocol, and a set of decisions to implement the Cancun Agreements, including the Green Climate Fund.

Following is a statement by Jennifer Morgan, Director, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute:

“A roller-coaster two weeks ended with a major climate deal in Durban. Significantly, countries will now negotiate a legally-binding agreement covering both developed and developing countries by 2015, which would cover post-2020 emissions targets and actions. However, there was little progress to close the significant gap between countries’ emissions levels and what’s needed to stay within two degrees Celsius of warming.

“Durban represented a fork in the road between a legally-binding system and a voluntary one. In the end, the European Union, the United States, China, India, along with vulnerable countries in Africa and small islands opted for a path toward an international climate regime.

“The European Union, in particular, came into the conference with a willingness to enter into a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. Working closely with allies in the least-developed countries and small island nations, the EU injected ambition into the talks. The result is a clear pathway for countries to enter the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

“Countries also pushed ahead with the implementation of the Cancun Agreements. Most notably, they agreed to make the Green Climate Fund operational, and set up a work plan to mobilize significant climate funds from both private and public sources. Currently, however, the funding level is insufficient to meet the commitments. Though details remain to be sorted out, there was also progress on other core issues, such as adaptation, REDD+, and technology.

“On the other hand, the lack of a common accounting framework for developed countries is a significant step backward. This will make it very difficult to know how countries targets compare against the 2 degrees Celsius goal.

“Finally, while negotiators forged a hard-won agreement, countries need to take further steps to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift to a lower-carbon and safer future.”

-End-

Note to reach Jennifer Morgan in Durban, Tel. +27 (0) 72 579 5783; jmorgan@wri.org

Global Map of Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities

Maggie Barron — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 11:19:41 -0400

A New And Improved Map

This restoration opportunity map is a revised and improved version of a previous map (published in 2009 and revised in 2010). The boreal forest landscapes of the north are now included; differences in forest canopy cover are reflected in greater detail; the assessment of potential forest cover has been improved; and the analysis has been updated with more recent and higher resolution data.

The new map indicates a restoration opportunity twice as large as the old one. This is mainly because a more precise mapping of potential forest extent has increased the estimate of degraded lands with opportunities for restoration, not because something has changed in the real world.

Downloads

High Resolution Bitmap (PNG, 2200 x 1765 px, 3.2 Mb)
Brochure (PDF, 2.4 Mb) (includes map)

A World of Opportunity

Over the last several centuries, vast forest areas have been cleared as agriculture has spread and human populations have grown. About 30 percent of global forest cover has been completely cleared and a further 20 percent has been degraded. Breaking the spiral of loss and degradation and restoring these lands would bring many benefits.

Restored lands support livelihoods and biodiversity by supplying clean water, reducing erosion, providing wildlife habitat, biofuel, and other forest products. Forests and trees mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon. Trees in agricultural landscapes can enhance soil fertility, conserve soil moisture, and boost food production.

More than two billion hectares worldwide offer opportunities for restoration—an area larger than South America. Most of these lands are in tropical and temperate areas.

One and a half billion hectares would be best-suited for mosaic restoration, in which forests and trees are combined with other land uses, including agroforestry, smallholder agriculture, and settlements.
Up to about half a billion hectares would be suitable for wide-scale restoration of closed forests.
In addition to these two billion hectares, there are 200 million hectares of unpopulated lands, mainly in the far northern boreal forests, that have been degraded by fire. These areas would likely be difficult to restore due to their remoteness.

Croplands and densely populated rural areas on former forest lands amount to a further one billion hectares. They do not offer extensive restoration opportunities in terms of area, but some of these lands would benefit from having trees planted in strategic places to protect and enhance agricultural productivity and other ecosystem functions.

Restoration is possible. Most countries have suffered forest loss and degradation and have opportunities for restoration. Vast deforested areas in Europe and North America have regrown forests. South Korea and Costa Rica have embarked on successful forest restoration strategies. tries are slowing desertification and restoring woodlands with associated dramatic improvements in livelihoods and ecological health. Yet restoration opportunities are often overlooked.

Restoration of Forests and Landscapes

Forest and landscape restoration is about more than just trees. It goes beyond afforestation, reforestation, and ecological restoration to improve both human livelihoods and ecological integrity. Key characteristics include the following:

Local stakeholders are actively engaged in decision making, collaboration, and implementation.
Whole landscapes are restored, not just individual sites, so that trade-offs among conflicting interests can be made and minimized within a wider context.
Landscapes are restored and managed to provide for an agreed, balanced combination of ecosystem services and goods, not only for increased forest cover.
A wide range of restoration strategies are considered, from managed natural regeneration to tree planting.
Continuous monitoring, learning, and adaptation are central.

A restored landscape can accommodate a mosaic of land uses such as agriculture, protected reserves, ecological corridors, regenerating forests, well-managed plantations, agroforestry systems, and riparian plantings to protect waterways. Restoration must complement and enhance food production and not cause natural forests to be converted into plantations.

Conclusions

Many countries have suffered forest loss or degradation in the past. Opportunities for restoration are huge in terms of area and exist on all continents.

Many more countries can mitigate climate change through restoration than by avoiding additional deforestation and degradation.

Restoration and avoided deforestation are complementary and mutually supportive measures. Restoration opportunities tend to be located far away from the areas where ongoing deforestation is widespread and concentrated.

One of the most attractive features of forest and landscape restoration is its many benefits. The Convention on Biological Diversity has agreed on a target to restore 15 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2020. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has adopted a decision that sets a goal for all countries to slow, halt, and reverse forest cover and carbon loss. Properly designed initiatives could bring benefits for biodiversity and climate while also improving people’s lives.

The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration

The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration is a worldwide network that unites governments, major UN and non-governmental organizations, companies, and individuals with a common cause. We believe that ideas transform landscapes. The partnership provides the information and tools to strengthen restoration efforts around the world and builds support for forest landscape restoration with decision-makers and opinion-formers, both at local and international levels.

Authors

Susan Minnemeyer (WRI)
Lars Laestadius (WRI)
Nigel Sizer (WRI)
Carole Saint-Laurent (IUCN)
Peter Potapov (South Dakota State University).

This map was supported by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, building on work supported by Profor and the Forestry Commission of Great Britain. Review comments from the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre are gratefully acknowledged.

Indonesia’s Ambitious Forest Moratorium Moves Forward

Beth Gingold — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:49:11 -0400

A summary of key elements, and unanswered questions, in Indonesia’s recent moratorium on new forest permits.

On May 20, 2011, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed a Presidential Instruction (“decree”) putting into effect a two-year moratorium on issuing new permits for use of primary natural forest and peatland.

The highly anticipated moratorium is part of a broader $1 billion Indonesia-Norway partnership to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (known as REDD+).

According to government statements, the decree applies to between 64 and 72 million hectares of primary forest and peatland, shown in a map attached to the decree. The decree highlights governance as a key area for improvement, critical in addressing the underlying causes of forest loss. The President calls on ministries and agencies to work together nationally and locally to implement the moratorium.

It is difficult to assess the likely effectiveness of the moratorium in achieving its goal of reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since the decree includes a number of exemptions (such as cases in which licenses are pending) without providing details on the exempted areas’ location or size.

In order for the public to fully assess the impact of the decree, the government would need to make all exemptions public in such a way that a quantitative spatial analysis can be independently prepared and published. Only with this information can the various partners in Indonesia’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions see whether the spirit of the decree is being met.

In the meantime, this article provides a summary of how key elements are addressed, identifies unanswered questions to be further explored once the digital maps and additional information are publicly available, and suggests priority actions for the two-year moratorium period that can produce lasting benefits to Indonesia’s forests and the people and businesses that depend on them.

The moratorium makes progress in some key areas…

Despite stiff opposition from advocates of business as usual, a moratorium has been signed and issued.
It highlights the importance of improved governance.
It recognizes the importance of ministries and agencies working together to make implementation of the decree successful.
It includes a map of areas that should not be deforested. The representation of this decree in map form makes it easier for stakeholders to carry out monitoring and support law enforcement.

…but some important issues remain:

Areas of secondary forest are not covered. These are widespread and valuable for carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods.
There is no mention of the Minister of Mines and Energy in the decree, and it is not clear how permits for non-exempted mining activities (i.e. coal and minerals) will be addressed. The Ministry of Agriculture is also not mentioned in the decree.
Community-based forest management and other sustainable activities that do not result in forest conversion are not included in the exemptions.
No information is provided on the extent and location of existing permits that are exempted from the moratorium.
It is unclear what will happen with the many permits that may have been issued illegally.

What is addressed in the Presidential Decree?

The Presidential Decree gives instructions to specific government agencies regarding a two-year suspension of new permits on areas of primary natural forest and peatland shown in an attached “Indicative Map of New License Suspension” (Indicative Map).

The Presidential Decree addresses key elements in the following ways:

Objectives: Does the preamble clarify the objectives of a temporary suspension of new permits to achieve long term improvements in land use planning and permitting processes

The decree itself states that the objective is to balance economic, social, and cultural development and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The explicit inclusion of governance is notable and should be applauded, as this starts to get to the root causes of Indonesia’s high rates of forest loss. It will be especially important in the coming months to reach agreement on what specific improvements in governance are needed most and how these improvements can be achieved.

Definitions: Are terms clear and consistent with achieving the stated objectives

The decree does not include definitions of terms. The decree refers to primary natural forest and peatland, but not secondary forest. Large areas of secondary forest, with high carbon content and important biodiversity, will therefore likely not be covered by the decree.

The terms primary natural forest and peatland have not been defined in Indonesian law. In this context they have been interpreted as descriptions of vegetative cover and soil characteristics, as distinct from legal designations. The decree also refers to legal designations such as conservation forest, protected forest, and production forest, which have been previously defined in Indonesia’s 1999 Forestry Law. Media reports suggest there is ongoing confusion regarding whether or not primary natural forest refers to a legal designation.

Data: Are the data and maps that will be used or created to determine the areas impacted by the moratorium accurate and adequate

There is insufficient information on the data and methods used to develop the Indicative Map, and indeed, on who produced it. This map shows peatland and primary forests, yet there are no definitions of these terms. It is also not clear which areas are under which forms of protection, and whether any information on existing or already exempted permits was used to generate the map. Crucially, no information is provided on the extent, location, and status of existing and exempted permits.

A more detailed analysis can be conducted only once the digital maps, source data layers, associated methods, and accurate information on the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits, are made publicly available.

Permits: Which permits are included and excluded from the moratorium?

The moratorium applies to “new permits” (e.g. for the clearing of land to start oil palm, timber or other large estate crops) in the areas specified by the Indicative Map, with a considerable number of notable exemptions, including those for:

forest area release and use permits that have been approved in principle by the Ministry of Forestry;
geothermal, oil and gas, electricity, rice and sugar cane development;
extension of existing and valid forest use permits (e.g. logging permits); and
ecosystem restoration concessions.

No exemptions are provided for the multiple types of use or management rights that can be issued to communities, even though community based forest management and monitoring has been recognized as an effective strategy for achieving sustainable forest management and balancing economic, social, and environmental development goals.

The types of permits which will not be exempted include loan use and business permit use for timber in natural forests issued by Ministry of Forestry, lease rights and use rights issued by the National Land Agency, and recommendations for and location permits issued by Governors and Regents/Mayors. There is no mention of exemptions or inclusion of forest use for mineral or coal mining.

The process for determining the validity of existing forest use permits is unclear. It is also not clear what the implications are for companies that have existing location permits (which are exempted) but not business use permits (called HGU permits). These existing permits may cover millions of hectares (an estimate from Daemeter Consulting is at least three million hectares).

Agencies: Which government agency is responsible for producing the relevant maps associated with the moratorium

Instructions to suspend issuing permits apply to all areas in the Indicative Map. This applies to the Ministry of Forestry, National Land Agency, as well as to all Governors, Regents and Mayors. The Minister of Interior is instructed to coach and supervise Governors and Regents in implementation.

For new permits that are exempted and may still be issued inside the Indicative Map areas, the Minister of Environment is instructed to reduce emissions of the business activities by issuing environmental licenses. It is assumed to mean that these licenses will restrict allowable GHG emissions.

The Ministry of Forestry is given primary responsibility for reviewing and updating the Indicative Map and reporting to the president at least once every six months, in cooperation with the Head of the National Spatial Planning Coordinating Agency, Head of the Coordinating Body for National Survey and Mapping, Governors, Regents, Mayors, and the Head of the REDD+ Task Force. The Head of the REDD+ Task Force is instructed to monitor implementation and submit a report to the president.

This updating process does not only have consequences on the physical delineation of primary forest and peatlands, it also moves the licensing authority on non-forested lands (other usage areas) to the Ministry of Forestry as stated in Section Four of the decree.

This decree does however involve many of the important ministries and agencies and specifies their role and the need to work together. This is an important step forward in managing lands and forests more efficiently and sustainably. This is also consistent with indicators of ‘good governance’.

Process: What processes will be put in place regarding reviewing permits, cooperation and coordination of government agencies, increasing transparency and participation, making maps and spatial data publicly available, and settling disputes

The decree includes some instructions to agencies regarding improving governance. For example:

The Minister of Forestry is instructed to: (1) improve policies on issuing permits on the use of timber in natural forest areas and (2) improve management of lahan kritis (“critical” or degraded forest) through ecosystem restoration concessions.
The Minister of the Environment is instructed to improve governance of business activities within the areas shown on the Indicative Map through environmental permits.
Multiple agencies are instructed to coordinate the map revision process and provide information to monitor and report to the President on a regular basis.
The Head of the National Spatial Planning Coordinating Agency is instructed to accelerate the consolidation of the Indicative Map into the spatial planning map revision as part of land use governance reform, in cooperation with other agencies. This could ensure that primary forest and peatland that is not already under some form of legal protection is appropriately zoned through the spatial planning process, with the status change lasting beyond the two-year moratorium period.

The decree does not make any specific provisions for reviewing or revoking permits, increasing transparency and participation, or making maps and spatial data publicly available.

The omission of an exemption for community forestry permits—when many exemptions were made including for industrial activities— is a major weakness in the decree.

Addressing Unanswered Questions

An effective moratorium would help to improve land use planning and permitting processes that contribute to Indonesia’s development goals and respect local rights, continuing beyond the two-year suspension period.

Important unanswered questions include:

What specific areas are included in the moratorium and what data and methods were used to identify them? What are the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits? How will this information be made publicly available?
What instructions will be given to the Minister of Mines and Energy?
How will provisions be made to allow legal community-based forest management during the two-year period, and to strengthen local management options in the future?
How will government agencies interpret and by what process will they implement the instructions provided regarding ‘improving governance’?
What additional actions will be taken regarding the governance of areas not identified on the Indicative Map?

The Indonesian government can begin to help answer some of these questions by ensuring that a digital version of the Indicative Map, source data layers, associated methods, and accurate information on the extent, location, and status of existing and already exempted permits, are made publicly available.

What are additional priorities for the two-year moratorium period?

In addition, as acknowledged by the government, achieving these goals will require taking many actions in the two-year moratorium period that are not addressed in the Presidential Decree. This includes putting in place REDD+ policies such as improved land use planning and permitting processes, reviewing or revoking illegal permits, encouraging expansion of agriculture and timber plantations onto degraded land instead of forested land (e.g. sustainable palm oil expansion on degraded land) and developing incentives for existing permits on forested lands to be swapped for permits on degraded lands (e.g. voluntary land swaps).

The main purpose of this decree, as identified in a previous article, is to create time for the government, business and civil society to develop and implement changes that will lead to more sustainable land management while stimulating economic growth, such as:

Comprehensive, accurate, and regularly updated spatial data and maps on land cover and forest type, land use, land status, and land rights—including permits—made publicly available through easily accessible websites.
Revised land use plans (zoning) such that appropriate natural forest and peatlands are classified for conservation or sustainable management and appropriate degraded lands are classified for agricultural or other uses, through a process that incorporates best practices in participatory spatial planning.
Transparent and participatory processes for reviewing, revoking, reissuing, or relocating permits that are illegal or are in areas that are inappropriate for development, incorporating best practice stakeholder engagement and including the free prior and informed consent of relevant communities.

Whether this Presidential Decree contributes to achieving the goals of the Indonesia-Norway agreement on REDD+ is highly dependent on how remaining unanswered questions are addressed and what additional actions the Indonesian government takes—with the participation of industry and civil society—during the two-year period.

PRESS RELEASE: WRI Expands Capacity in International Forest and Ecosystems Work

Michael Oko — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:29:37 -0400

Two new leaders, Nigel Sizer and Robert Winterbottom, added to roster

Two international forest experts, with more than 45 years combined experience, have joined the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) People and Ecosystems Program. Dr. Nigel Sizer, who worked at WRI earlier in his career, returns to lead the Global Forest Initiative, overseeing efforts to increase the ability of governments, businesses and civil society to protect intact forest landscapes, sustainably manage working forests, and restore deforested lands. Robert Winterbottom, who also previously spent time at WRI, is now directing the Ecosystem Services Initiative, managing activities to reduce the degradation of ecosystems, and to invest in ecosystem services to secure economic growth and enhance people’s well being.

“We are thrilled to bring Nigel and Bob back to WRI— two extremely qualified experts with hands-on experience,” said Craig Hanson, director of WRI’s People and Ecosystem Program. “I look forward to working with them, as WRI expands its impact through our global forest and ecosystem services initiatives.”

Sizer comes to WRI from Rare, an international conservation organization, where he served as vice president for Asia. While at Rare, he expanded operations into China, and conceived and developed Community Carbon, a grassroots effort to link impoverished communities in Indonesia to global carbon markets. In 2008, he served as lead advisor on climate change and energy issues in Asia to former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative. Sizer has also worked with UNEP in Nairobi, and established The Nature Conservancy’s Asia-Pacific Forest Program.

“I am delighted to be back at WRI, which has built an extraordinary reputation over the years,” said Sizer. “I really look forward to working with new colleagues and helping expand both our influence and impact in the world.”

Winterbottom comes to WRI with more than 25 years of experience on environment and sustainable development issues in dozens of countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. In Bangladesh, he worked to scale up the collaborative management of wetlands and protected forests by building capacity at the grassroots level and among responsible government agencies. In eastern Senegal, he increased rural incomes by expanding community-based enterprises, together with improved land use planning and natural resource management. Winterbottom also supported efforts by Niger to strengthen property rights and policies to promote widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and “regreening” of rural landscapes. Most recently, he led a team of experts in assessing needs and opportunities in Vietnam for climate change adaptation and restoration of ecosystem services in targeted watersheds.

“For many years, WRI has been at the forefront of helping governments and businesses understand the value of ecosystem services,” said Winterbottom. “I’m excited to be back at WRI to advance this groundbreaking work.”

World Resources Institute Comments on the Forest Investment Program Results Framework

Florence Daviet — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:36:46 -0500

The Forest Investment Program (FIP) is a targeted program within the framework of the Climate Investment Funds that supports developing countries’ efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). The FIP Results Framework is a tool to monitor and evaluate the implementation of FIP funds. Following are WRI’s comments suggesting ways to improve the FIP Results Framework.

For full text, download the PDF (PDF, 591 Kb)
See also: WRI Comments on the Climate Investment Funds Results Frameworks

WRI welcomes the opportunity to comment on the December 2010 version of the FIP Results Framework. This analysis focuses on the Framework’s governance related results and indicators, drawing on the Governance of Forests Initiative Framework of Indicators, a diagnostic tool for gathering evidence-based research on the strengths and weaknesses of forest governance Civil society partners in Brazil and Indonesia have piloted these indicators, with support from WRI; this work has provided valuable insights into the types of evidence that can be gathered to assess forest governance institutions and practices.

This analysis identifies five areas of the FIP Results Framework where we believe improvements in governance would lead to the desired results. We suggest potential governance indicators for each area, and describe what kind of evidence would be needed respond to these indicators. As much as possible we sought to refine or replace indicators rather than add additional ones.

Our comments are structured as follows:

Overarching recommendations
Governance indicator recommendations
Additional comments

In addition, we have included an Annex where we provide information about the type of evidence that could be used to support claims of governance improvements for many of the indicators we recommend.

Main Recommendations

Overarching

Narrow the FIP Project/Program results and align them more clearly with the results on governance sought at the “Catalytic Replication Outcome” level.
Focus on “process” rather than “outcome” indicators to assess governance at the “Project/Program Outcome and Outputs” level.
Focus governance indicators on assessing implementation of actions, rather than on the existence of rules, policies or laws.

Project/Program Indicators

Change the forest management indicator to capture whether protected areas are effectively being managed, not just whether they are being formed.
Include tenure indicators that assess the administration of land tenure laws and the existence of mechanisms to resolve land tenure conflicts.
Refine the indicators related to the empowerment of local communities and Indigenous Peoples to more accurately capture what is meant by “empowerment”.

To continue reading, download the PDF (PDF, 591 Kb)

The REDD+ Decision in Cancun

Florence Daviet — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:52:13 -0500

How does the new agreement on REDD set the stage for halting the destruction and degradation of forests?

After almost three years of difficult negotiations, parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have agreed to slow, halt, and reverse forest loss and the related emissions in developing countries (REDD+). However, there is still much work to do before parties to the UNFCCC can recognize potential REDD+ countries’ actions. The Cancun Agreements provide important guidance for all actors – countries, NGOs, multilateral institutions – who are helping countries prepare for REDD+ in the “fast-start” period through 2012. However, their actions will remain outside of (though now guided by) the UNFCCC, until discussions about appropriate methods for tracking and financing national mitigation actions are completed.

These will be the tasks for the upcoming year. What was in the agreement, and what remains to be done is described in more detail below.

The Cancun REDD Text

Like much of the Cancun Agreements, the REDD+ text was derived from text that has been in discussion for years. There are two major differences from previous drafts. First, the agreement now clearly states that REDD+ is not only about reducing emissions but halting and reversing forest loss. This is important as it emphasizes that REDD+ actions must result in maintaining existing forests and carbon stocks. Second, the agreement encourages all countries to find effective ways to reduce the human pressures on forests that result in greenhouse gas emissions. This element is important as it, correctly, puts part of the responsibility of slowing, stopping and reversing forest cover loss and associated emissions on those countries and actors (e.g., companies and consumers) that create the demands that drive deforestation (e.g. demands for timber, oil palm, soy, and cattle).

Primarily, the Cancun REDD+ text provides countries with guidance on REDD+ readiness. For example, the agreement recognizes that a phased approach will likely be necessary – from plans and implementation (phase 1 and 2) to results-based activities (phase 3) – and lists the systems and information that developing countries need to undertake REDD+ activities. These include a national plan, a national reference emission level, a robust and transparent national forest monitoring system, and a system for providing information for how safeguards – such as respecting indigenous peoples’ rights – are being addressed and respected.

In addition, Annex 1 to the REDD+ agreement provides more details about the principles and safeguards that actors undertaking activities and providing finance will need to respect, even in the “fast-start” finance period. While the language in the text could have been stronger, it represents a significant shift in the type of language included in UNFCCC documents to date and is one of the most significant aspects of the text.

Finally, the last paragraphs of the Cancun REDD+ agreement reflect some of the learning from REDD+ programs in the past year. Developed countries are being asked to coordinate financing and activities in each REDD+ country, as currently activities sometimes overlap or conflict. The text also recognizes the role of international organizations and other stakeholders in both the implementation and coordination of REDD+ activities.

Unanswered Questions

Though this agreement represents a step towards a fully-fledged REDD+ framework, there are important questions left unanswered. These will need to be addressed before REDD+ actions can be recognized and supported in the UNFCCC context. These include:

1. Definitions. While the REDD+ agreement includes five recognized activities – i.e., reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and sustainable management of forests – most of these activities are still undefined by the UNFCCC. For example “forest degradation” has not yet been defined, let alone “sustainable management of forests” and “conservation”. Without definitions it is not possible to measure progress or pay for performance, which is central to the REDD+ discussions.

2. Reference Emission Levels. Additionally, more guidance is required for countries to develop national reference emissions levels (RELs). These RELs will determine the potential compensation a country could receive from REDD+ for a given level of activity. For example, if a country sets their REL too high, they may generate emission reductions though they have taken few actions to achieve them. In Annex 2 to the REDD+ agreement, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technology Advice (SBSTA) has been given the mandate to develop modalities for REL development.

3. Safeguards. The agreement requests that countries develop an information system to track how safeguards are addressed and respected for REDD+. This is an important operational step for making the safeguards applicable. However, more detail is necessary on what information will be captured, how that information will be shared and for what purpose. The REDD+ decision text does not include language with regards to any institution within or outside of the UNFCCC (e.g., the registry or Green Climate Fund board) that would use the information to make decisions. The institutional questions need not be answered for the “fast-start” finance period. However, what information needs to be collected and shared is an area where fast-start finance actors (multilateral institutions, countries, etc.) have identified the need for further harmonization. In order to do so, these actors will need to better understand this issue and start the process of standardizing information. This should take place in the coming year. While SBSTA was also given this mandate in Annex 2, the stakeholders and experts that should be involved in these discussions are likely to reside outside of the UNFCCC process.

4. The Phased Approach and Links to NAMAs. The current text describes a phased approach to REDD+, but it does not make links between the phases and recognition of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the support linked to NAMAs. This leaves a number of unanswered questions, including whether actions in the early phases (and the financing supporting them) would be included in the NAMAs registry if taken after the “fast-start” finance period, and if so how they would be measured, reported and verified. Additionally, it is not clear how countries will move between phases and whether there will be a time table for moving between phases once the country has identified a starting point and received support. Finally, the “results-based” approach promoted as the final phase will need to be clarified.

5. Finance. The developed countries are urged to support - using bilateral and multilateral channels – phase 1 and 2 activities and to improve their reporting of their support. However, the question of financing for phase 3 was not agreed to in Cancun. This is likely due to the outstanding methodological questions about what the “results-based” approach would actually include. While this may have been disappointing for those who expected a signal that a market-based approach will be used to generate REDD+ finance, several countries were strongly opposed to this approach.¹

As with many of the decisions agreed to in Cancun, now the hard work begins on implementing the framework. However, all actors involved in the readiness and fast-start activities now have clearer guidance of what the framework will include and what work needs to be done. The progress REDD+ countries make in implementing readiness activities, as well as methodological work by SBSTA, will be important next steps on the road to next year’s meeting in South Africa.

This paragraph was edited for clarity on January 28, 2011. ↩

Reflections on the Cancun Agreements

Jennifer Morgan — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:29:06 -0500

Jennifer Morgan and our team of climate experts look back on the keys to progress in Cancun, and analyze the major decisions.

Download as a PDF (PDF, 176 Kb)

On December 11, the Cancun climate talks concluded with the Cancun Agreements, a set of decisions that will move international action on climate change forward. A turning point for international climate negotiations, the Agreements solidify the role of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the center of international climate policy and cooperation moving forward.

This summary follows the outline below. Click to jump down to a particular issue:

I. Why Cancun Worked

II. Evaluating the Cancun Agreements

The Kyoto Protocol
Decisions Under the UNFCCC Track

There was progress in several key areas in Cancun, which enabled there to be decisions on core issues. In particular, the Cancun Agreements bring countries’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets under the UNFCCC process, ensure greater transparency in emissions reporting by all countries, and establish a “Green Climate Fund” to help facilitate financial support to developing countries.

However, there were shortcomings and issues that will need to be sorted out in the lead up to the next round of climate talks in Durban, South Africa in 2011. The reality is that even with the decisions in Cancun, countries will still fall short of what the science says is needed to prevent the worst impacts of climate change and to sufficiently support countries in coping with the impacts. Hopefully next year countries will increase their ambition for 2020. In addition, the next year will be crucial in filling in the details of the Cancun Agreements so that Durban can make final decisions and operationalization can begin.

I. Why Cancun Worked

Since the final night of the Cancun climate negotiations, many have asked what made this “comeback” for an international approach to tackling climate change possible. What new dynamics occurred to allow countries to go further than they did in Copenhagen? There is certainly no single answer, but let’s look at some of the overarching dynamics that allowed for progress in Cancun:

While in the media the overall expectations of the meetings were lower, for delegates the pressure to deliver was higher in Cancun than in Copenhagen. Failure to make progress would have meant a true sidelining of the UNFCCC process, which most governments wanted to avoid. This dynamic likely increased their willingness to find solutions and make compromises. The Mexican presidency also allowed room for divergent views, but did not allow one country (namely Bolivia) to block the rest from moving forward.
In contrast to Copenhagen, the majority of countries described the process run by the Mexican presidency as transparent, enabling a basis of trust to underpin the negotiations. Countries felt they were consulted in an inclusive manner throughout 2010 and were not worried that a “secret text” would emerge and trump their work in Cancun. This trust was fundamental to reaching agreement.
A year after the decisions made by heads of state and government in Copenhagen, negotiators and ministers were able, throughout 2010 and in Cancun, to build on the political guidance they received to focus on operational details. This was most evident regarding the targets and actions that had been put on the table in Copenhagen, thus making Cancun about the how to incorporate those targets and actions rather than what they would be.
Major negotiating blocks and key countries were able to see at least one of their top priorities in the final agreement while remaining flexible on other pieces to find common ground. The Conference of the Parties (COP) Presidency managed to put together a package that required everyone to compromise, but not so much that a country could not agree to the final package.
With other international priorities in the background, China and the United States were in a much more cooperative mode, avoiding blame games in the media and focusing on getting the job done.
India tabled proposals that became central to the agreement, putting its Minister in a key leadership position in the lead-up to and during the meeting.
A new coalition was built over the last year, known as the Cartagena Dialogue, which consisted of a number of developing and developed countries that focused on finding solutions in the UNFCCC process. Having already negotiated compromises in this forum, they were well-placed to help other countries find them too. Such South-North cooperation is essential moving forward.

[Top]

II. Evaluating the Cancun Agreements

The Cancun Agreements are made up of a set of decisions under two tracks, the Kyoto Protocol (KP track) and the UNFCCC, known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (or LCA track). Success was only possible when progress was shown under both tracks. This analysis starts with the Kyoto Protocol decision and then goes into each of the building blocks under the Convention:

The Kyoto Protocol

With the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol on course to end in 2012, many countries wanted a second commitment period agreed to in Cancun. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, includes economy-wide targets for Annex I Parties (i.e. all developed countries, except for the United States). Although Cancun did not reach agreement on a second commitment period, there were a number of steps taken that demonstrate progress under the Kyoto track and signal a way forward.

First of all, the preamble of the Cancun decision under the Kyoto track has important language that recognizes that in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, Annex I Parties as a group would have to reduce emissions in a range of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The decision also:

Takes note of the targets of Annex I countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. This helps to formalize these targets, which were put forward in the lead-up to Copenhagen and brings them under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Countries then agreed that further work is needed to convert those targets into actual binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
Urges developed countries to increase their level of ambition in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Agrees that emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation shall continue to be available for meeting Annex I targets. This sends a signal that carbon markets will continue to play a role in Annex I countries meeting targets in the future. In addition, carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) has been approved as an eligible project type under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). (See WRI’s analysis on this area of work).
Creates a process to review the forest management reference levels under the land-use, land-use change and forestry provisions. Countries have been urged to raise the level of the ambition of their pledges taking into account, among other thing, the quantitative implications of the LULUCF rules. The text leaves a number of the issues that have been discussed in the last three years unfinished, especially around accounting for forest management emissions and removals.
Agrees that the there should be conclusion of both the rules and the targets as soon as possible so there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods of the Protocol. This was an attempt to keep up the pressure to conclude the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in South Africa next year.

The Kyoto Protocol negotiations will thus continue with a clear focus on finalizing the issues noted above with the continued link to the other track of negotiations described below.

[Top]

Decisions Under the UNFCCC Track

The other track of negotiations under the Ad Hoc Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) resulted in a COP decision incorporating all of the building blocks from the Bali Action Plan from 2007. A description of that outcome is included below.

Shared Vision:

A shared long-term vision for the Cancun Agreements includes a goal to limit average global temperature warming below 2˚C in comparison to pre-industrial levels. It further recognizes the need to strengthen this goal, based on scientific advancements, and to consider a 1.5˚C goal at a future date. The shared vision in the Cancun agreement does not reference an explicit long-term goal in terms of cuts in GHG emissions, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere or a peak year. Instead, it pushes such a decision to the next session. (Kelly Levin)

Reviewing The Long-Term Global Goal:

The Cancun Agreements establish a process for reviewing the adequacy of the long-term global goal (limiting warming below 2˚C). The review will be guided by best available scientific knowledge, including the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, as well as observed impacts of climate change. An assessment of overall aggregate effort by Parties will be conducted in the review process. Parties will consider strengthening the global goal, including in relation to a 1.5˚C goal. The review is scheduled to commence in 2013 and will be concluded by 2015. Notably, the Conference of the Parties (COP) “shall take appropriate action based on the review.” The COP’s next session will further define the scope of the review process. (Kelly Levin)

[Top]

Developed Country Emission Reduction Targets:

All developed countries put forward “pledges” of GHG emission reduction targets going into Copenhagen. The COP decision in Cancun takes note of developed country, or Annex I Party, quantified economy-wide emissions reduction targets. The decision further urges Parties to increase their ambition on emission reductions.

While it is clear that the current targets are inadequate to reduce emissions to the levels need to stay within 2 degrees warming, it was an important step to incorporate them into a UNFCCC decision and to clarify assumptions underlying them. These targets previously were only noted in the Copenhagen Accord, now they are formally under the UNFCCC and should be the basis for the review clauses described below.

However, many of the targets that were submitted under the Copenhagen Accord are not clear as far as what they include or do not include. Therefore, the agreement provides a mandate for the UNFCCC Secretariat to organize workshops to clarify the assumptions underlying emission reduction targets, including those related to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and offsets. These workshops will also be used to present options for increasing ambition.

Furthermore, the Secretariat is requested to prepare a technical paper with the aim of facilitating better understanding of the assumptions underlying the targets, the attainment of targets, and a comparison of associated emission reduction efforts. (See WRI’s analysis about the importance of such clarifications).

The Cancun decision also sets in motion a process “for international assessment of emissions and removals related to quantified economy-wide emission reductions targets” for Annex I Parties. This should be done in a “rigorous, robust and transparent manner, with a view to promoting comparability and building confidence.” The text goes on to focus on the issues of land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and carbon credits from market-based mechanisms as key issues, taking into account international experience, i.e. the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements. As WRI’s analysis shows, attention to these issues is essential to creating a transparent and well-functioning system. The decision also includes a mandate for developed countries to develop low-carbon development strategies or plans. (Kelly Levin)

[Top]

Developing Country Actions:

In the lead-up to Copenhagen, many developing countries also made pledges to reduce their emissions. The COP decision in Cancun incorporates those pledges into the UNFCCC and, as is the case for developed countries, takes note of those pledges of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). They will be submitted in a separate document. Notably, these actions are “aimed at achieving a deviation in emissions relative to business-as-usual emissions in 2020.”

Similar to the workshops for Annex I targets, this section of the Cancun Agreements calls for workshops to understand the diversity of mitigation actions submitted, underlying assumptions and support needed for implementation of these actions. Developing countries are invited to submit information related to the estimated costs and emission reductions related to nationally appropriate mitigation actions. Developing countries are encouraged to develop low-carbon strategies or plans in the context of sustainable development. (Kelly Levin)

Transparency and Reporting:

The Cancun Agreements create a new standard for transparency in which all major economies, including the United States and China, as countries will report on the progress they are making in meeting their national climate targets or actions.

In addition to the accounting provisions around the targets and the international assessment provisions and workplan for Annex I Parties noted above, developed countries have agreed to enhance reporting of their support to developing countries in the form of finance, technology and capacity building. Such contributions will be submitted through common reporting formats. (To learn about why such formats are important, see WRI’s analysis).

In return, developing countries have agreed to strengthen reporting on their mitigation actions and to accept “international consultation and analysis” of these actions. This will include not just reporting on the list of mitigation actions they wish to undertake, as was presented in the Copenhagen Accord, but also a review of the effect of these actions, along with the domestic provisions and timeline for implementation of these actions.

Thus, all large emitting countries will now produce national communications and inventories (the traditional UNFCCC reporting tools) at least every four years and produce biennial update reports on their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries will undergo international consultations and analysis of those biennial reports in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, “in a manner that is non-intrusive, non-punitive and respectful of national sovereignty.” The reports will be analyzed by technical experts that are now empowered to analyze information relating to greenhouse gas inventories, mitigation actions, progress on implementation of such actions and domestic measurement, reporting and verification (known as MRV).

A registry will also be set up which will help to match actions seeking finance and other support, and will help ensure transparency around the provision of support and the effectiveness of this finance and other support.

These are important steps forward for transparency in the climate regime, and many operational elements will need to be further developed and adopted in 2011. (Hilary McMahon)

[Top]

REDD+ and Forests:

The Parties’ agreement in Cancun on a text for policy approaches and positive incentives in issues relating to reduction of deforestation and degradation (known as REDD+) answers a number of questions that have been prominent since the Bali Action Plan in 2007.

It addresses the overall goal of the activities to be undertaken – to slow, halt and reverse forest cover and carbon loss – and the scope of what will be considered relevant activities.
It also provides some initial guidance with regards to “readiness” by listing the activities REDD+ countries should undertake (and for which they should be supported) as part of engaging in actions to achieve REDD+ emission reductions.
It supports a phased approach to countries reaching their objective.
Finally, it makes the role of developed countries clear. First, they should provide financial support. Second, they should address their own actions that drive deforestation. Both of these are important steps forward.

While many questions were answered in Cancun, there are still many more that need to be resolved before a REDD+ framework will be operational. For example:

Who will use the information about how safeguards are being promoted and supported?
How will the information be used to ensure real change happens on the ground?
Will this empower REDD+ parties and donors to work together to track improvements in governance as part of the development of national monitoring systems?

Other questions have also been left open, including how reference emissions levels should be set, the definition of forests and degradation, and the relationship between this section of the text and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs). Questions about what types of finance will ultimately be used are also still unanswered, yet important.

Parties will need to work on these issues as they head to the next round of climate talks in Durban, but this agreement shows that countries are willing to have difficult discussions and still come to agreement, which is a good start, given the discussions ahead. (Florence Daviet, Fred Stolle)

[Top]

Finance:

In a major step forward for climate finance, the COP formalized the commitment made by developed countries in Copenhagen to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the mitigation and adaption needs of developing countries. The Cancun Agreements include the establishment of a “Green Climate Fund,” which will manage a portion of this funding. It was agreed that the Climate Fund will be composed of a Board with equal representation of developed and developing countries, though many details still remain.

A Transitional Committee will complete the Fund’s design and make recommendations for COP approval in Durban. The terms of reference agreed to in Cancun are intended to ensure the Fund provides wide stakeholder participation; applies environmental and social safeguards; applies fiduciary standards and sound financial management to its investments; and is subject to independent evaluation. In response to a key demand from developing countries, the Fund will have the capacity to provide “direct access” to national institutions, without the intervention of international implementing agencies like the World Bank and the United Nations.

A Standing Committee has also been established to ensure the Fund does not sit empty, by assisting the COP in mobilizing financial resources and measuring, reporting and verifying their delivery. The Committee will also help the COP bring greater coherence to coordination of climate finance both within and outside the Fund. Although the Parties noted the report of the High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, established by the United Nations to explore options for innovative sources for long-term finance, there is no procedure yet in place to follow up on its recommendations.

In the near term, developed countries agreed to greater transparency of on the delivery of their pledges to provide USD $30 billion in fast start climate finance between 2010 and 2012, through annual reporting to the UNFCCC the Secretariat in 2011, 2012 and 2013. (Athena Ballesteros)

[Top]

Adaptation:

The Cancun Agreements create a new Climate Adaptation Framework and an associated Adaptation Committee. Together, these committees raise the importance of adaptation within the UNFCCC, and should make possible a more coherent, action-oriented treatment of adaptation.

The Framework identifies a broad set of priority areas for action, while the Committee will identify gaps in action, highlight good practices, and make recommendations on unmet needs. Innovations in the Framework include attention to migration, disaster risk reduction, and strengthening of institutions.

More specifically, the Cancun Adaptation Framework identifies a broad set of priority areas for action on adaptation by Parties, including:

The development of plans, projects and programs;
Strengthening institutions;
Improving research, observation and information management systems;
Impact, vulnerability and financial needs assessments; and
Adaptation technology

Both ecological and socio-economic resilience are highlighted in the Framework, as is the importance of addressing climate-related migration of people. The Framework also calls on Parties to explicitly link adaptation to the Hyogo Framework for Action, a global agreement on disaster risk reduction.

The Committee will have responsibility for reviewing parties’ communications regarding adaptation action and support, in order to make recommendations on further action needed, and to enhance synergy with institutions outside the UNFCCC.

A program of workshops and expert meetings was created to explore options for treating “loss and damage,” which refers to issues such as storm damage, permanent land degradation, and other costs that cannot be reduced through adaptation. This is an important step forward on a hard-fought issue for the small island nations, where damage is already mounting, and where commercial insurance is often unavailable.

There are a number of unresolved issues regarding adaptation including the allocation of adaptation finance among developing countries, and the precise relationship of the Framework and Committee to new and old funds. Treatment of regional centers and networks for adaptation needs further attention since no concrete decision was taken; parties are merely “invited” to strengthen such institutions, and the possibility of creating a new center was only “noted.”

The Cancun decision also does not resolve a contentious question regarding how to make decisions to allocate adaptation finances to various countries. Priority access to fast-start finance was given to a set of the “most vulnerable countries” – which include small island developing states, least developed countries, and countries in Africa. However, the Adaptation Framework and long-term finance in the Green Fund prioritize “particularly vulnerable countries,” which is undefined in the Cancun Agreements. (Heather McGray)

[Top]

Technology Mechanism:

The Cancun Agreements create a new Technology Mechanism, which is a significant step forward for international technology cooperation. It underlines that countries intend to elevate the importance of development and deployment of the clean technologies within the climate framework.

The mechanism will have two components, the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN). While the TEC can start its work immediately, negotiators will still need to determine the detailed modalities for the CTCN next year. The Parties also left many important questions to be resolved next year, such as how the technology mechanism relates to the financial mechanism and how the two components of the technology mechanism will relate to each other. Delegates also decided to take one of the most contentious issues, intellectual property rights, off the table.

The new TEC will consist of 20 experts - 11 from developing and 9 from developed countries - who will identify technology needs, coordinate international efforts, and make recommendations to make them more effective. To show they are serious about this new body, parties now need to nominate high-level experts for the committee. As they further refine the technology mechanism in 2011, they could also develop stronger qualification criteria to ensure TEC members have the expertise needed.

The CTCN will consist of a small center and large network, probably including regional units. This reflects the negotiators intent to create a mechanism that is nimble, builds on existing initiatives and coordinates them better. Where the center will be, what the network will look like, and how they will operate and interact still needs to be defined in 2011. Technology negotiators have put these questions in their workplan for next year, but it will be challenging to resolve them all. (Lutz Weischer)

[Top]

Legal Form:

The issue of the legal form of the agreement was not resolved in Cancun and will be discussed over the coming year in the lead-up to Durban. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action has been extended for one year and should continue to discuss the “legal options with the aim to complete an agreed outcome.” This means that Parties still need to decide whether to adopt a legally binding agreement that complements the Kyoto Protocol, an inclusive legally binding agreement for all countries that would replace the Kyoto Protocol, or another option where Parties cooperate through COP decisions rather than a new treaty. (Jacob Werksman, WRI’s director of Institutions and Governance, will soon have a post on the legal form.)

[Top]