Where to now on Deforestation
The Fourth Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) Dialogue on Forests, Governance and Climate Change held at Stationers Hall in London this week, provided a timely opportunity to test the temperature on international negotiations on deforestation in the aftermath of the Copenhagen climate conference.
Effective action on deforestation has long been one of the sick men of global environmental politics. Protracted international negotiations have led to little more than statements of non-binding principles and the establishment of a range of consultative fora. However, in more recent years, it has seemed as if this was all set to change because of the imperative of climate change. Destruction of forests is responsible for around one fifth of global emissions each year, making reducing and eliminating deforestation potentially one of the most effective ways of tackling climate change.
It is now almost five years since Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica first proposed a mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD). The basic idea behind REDD is that developing countries should be financially compensated for reducing emissions from deforestation. In order to be fit for purpose, REDD must achieve a range of criteria including providing sufficient yearly funding, not only maintaining carbon values but also protecting biodiversity and the rights of Indigenous peoples, avoiding displacement by requiring national rather than project or sub-national reductions in deforestation and not supporting the replacement of natural forests with plantations or subsidization of the expansion of industrial logging, agri-business and other destructive practices into intact forests or any other such perverse outcomes. Naturally it is also critical that any emissions reductions through REDD do not come at the expense industrialized nations taking action to reduce their own carbon footprint.
In the lead-up to Copenhagen, it was widely accepted that REDD was the major element of the negotiations on which it was most likely that agreement would be achieved. REDD was discussed in two bodies: the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) which produced a draft decision on methodological REDD issues, which was adopted by COP-15, and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperation Action (AWG-LCA) which produced draft text (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/L.7/Add.6). In the event no binding decision was taken on REDD as a consequence of the general failure to achieve legal agreement at Copenhagen. However, REDD does feature prominently in the Copenhagen Accord and six countries (the US, UK, France, Japan, Australia and Norway) committed US$3.5 billion at Copenhagen to be paid between 2010 and 2012 (when the Kyoto Protocol expires) as fast start interim finance to kick-start REDD. This year a number of other nations have also announced contributions and the total amount pledged is now thought to be somewhere between 4.5 and 6 billion. In the wake of Copenhagen, the governments of France and Norway instigated a process to take things forward known as ‘the Paris-Oslo initiative’. The first ministerial level meeting occurred in Paris on 11 March and the second is slated for 27 May in Oslo, after which it is hoped that there will be an agreed text and the establishment of a light secretariat. The purpose of the process is to use the political mandate established by Copenhagen to create a multilateral Interim REDD Partnership to secure coordination, transparency, progress and positive precedents with the available fast start interim funding. In blunt terms, substantial money is now on the table and the task is to ensure that something useful and effective is done with it.
Although it also evinced plenty of optimism, the RRI dialogue meeting in London this week made clear some of the tensions associated with the Paris-Oslo initiative. Paul Watkinson, the head climate negotiator for the French Ministry of Ecology, Energy and Sustainable Development said that the aim of the Paris-Oslo initiative was to restore ‘political momentum’, while members of the Norwegian delegation spoke positively of the need for a pragmatic approach. In response, various civil society and Indigenous peoples’ representatives expressed disquiet at what they perceived as the haste and opacity of the process. Unsurprisingly, the event ended on a rather inconclusive note. Next steps in the Paris-Oslo Initiative include the completion by Australia and Frances of an inventory of current REDD-related pledges and programs, the release of a draft consultation text by Norway and the concretization of arrangements for the May meeting.
The Paris-Oslo initiative is the key current dynamic in the global politics of deforestation and climate change and will be a focus of this blog in April and May.
