OPI

NIO

N

a mechanism can easily be seen as a way to legitimise the continued carbon pollution of developed countries. But this is not necessarily the case. After all, countries have agreed that REDD+ must be part of a comprehensive post Kyoto agreement including both Annex I as well as non Annex I countries, and it includes sufficiently strong CO2 emission reduction targets. The understanding is also that only certain emission reductions will be eligible for REDD+ compensation. Developed countries will still have to transform their largely fossil-fuel dependent economies into greener ones.

Because such a transformation will take decades and requires huge financial investment, it is thought that REDD+ has the potential to allow these countries to achieve CO2 reductions at a much faster pace. In addition, REDD+ may provide additional benefits for biodiversity and local communities such as the formal recognition of indigenous land rights. Despite the optimism, however, preparations for REDD+ have turned out to be much slower and much more costly than expected.

Under REDD+, countries will get paid for actively reducing deforestation and forest degradation, or taking measures that increase carbon stocks.

R educing Emmisions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) was first

adopted as a mechanism under the UNFCCC in 2005. It entered the official process in 2007 and was then enshrined in the COP15 in Copenhagen and, more firmly, at the COP16 in Cancun in 2010. In November 2013 (COP19 in Warsaw), REDD+ was formally approved as an international policy instrument for climate change mitigation. Over the past years many countries have already undertaken steps to become ready to implement REDD+. The REDD+ mechanism is mainly based on the idea that reducing deforestation in developing countries is a significant and immediate way to cut down on global greenhouse gas emissions. Although on paper REDD+ is remarkably simple, in practice it turns out to be enormously complex. The idea is to create an incentive for developing countries to protect and improve management of their forest resources by assigning forests a monetary value based on the carbon they currently contain and their capacity to further absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere. If a government, company or other entity in a developed country needs to offset its greenhouse gas emissions, REDD+ offers it the possibility to invest in protecting forests in developing countries. Of course, such

The ambitions of REDD+An opinion by Caspar Verwer, IUCN NL

www.projectcobra.org | Opinion

Since it's introduction in 2005, REDD+ has been a controversial but increasingly adopted mechanism for climate change mitigation. This opinion piece looks at a number of the issues that developing nations might encounter in REDD+ and considers how indigenous rights and public awareness might be affected by a market-driven forest protection scheme.

1Project COBRA is supported by a three year grant from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme

So what's in it for developing nations?

www

Since 2008, over US$7.5 billion has been committed to REDD+ projects and the global forest carbon-based market is projected to generate US$30 billion per year . The principle of carbon markets is to ensure that reductions take place in areas where they are most efficient and affordable and that the polluter pays someone who can do it more cheaply. In theory, this should create incentives for developed countries to set more ambitious overall emission reduction targets. You can probably imagine that for such a huge financial incentive to work properly it requires a good understanding of what is exactly happening in terms of carbon stocks and emissions from forests. In other words: we need to know how much carbon we will be saving. In this context a number of fundamental questions arise, such as: can we assume that without implementing REDD+ deforestation and forest degradation will continue at its current rate until all forests are gone?; does it make sense to pay more to areas that are suffering from greater levels of deforestation? Wouldn’t that be unfair, for example, towards the Guiana Shield countries that typically have experienced low deforestation rates, and hence would hardly benefit from REDD+? Some people are proposing that additional payments to low-deforestation countries will be needed for the conservation of existing carbon stocks . It is these types of issues that have been hotly debated over the past two years and it has become clear that arriving at fair and realistic reference levels for each country requires careful decision making. For example, despite the low historical deforestation in the Guiana Shield, threats to the extensive forests have been increasing over the last decade and it has become more likely that forests will be opened up for mining, logging and agriculture in this region. This makes estimating the amount of deforestation offset through REDD+ schemes extremely complicated. Yet somehow these drivers of deforestation must be taken in to consideration when assessing a country´s reference level. Though challenging, developing reference levels for REDD+ is extremely urgent, particularly given the lack of quality data in many countries, uncertainties about future rates of deforestation and forest degradation, as well as potential incentives for biasing the estimates.

Since its inception, REDD+ has been the subject of serious debate. Part of this debate touches upon the more general issue of whether ‘commodifying’ nature has the potential to offer new sources of finance for forest protection. Originating from the global climate agreement, REDD+ is primarily about carbon levels. One of the major concerns therefore has been that REDD+ does not recognise the value of the other ecosystem services that forests provide, and as such it might encourage the conversion of low-carbon natural ecosystems to industrial monoculture plantations, resulting in a loss of biodiversity. However, co-benefits for nature and people formed an integral part of the REDD+ proposals from the onset and they have been included in the UNFCCC’s unprecedented safeguards. Moreover the ‘readiness’ preparations between 2007 and now have largely focused on capacity building, the strengthening of governance and the clarification of rights. Since COP15 in 2009, key safeguards have been part of all the negotiations on REDD+, and it is important to note that the conversion of natural forests is not permitted, and that mono culture plantations won't be eligible for REDD+ funding. In fact, most conservationists now recognise the potential of REDD+ for protecting natural forests and biodiversity, especially since the “+” in REDD+ denotes the contribution that conservation, sustainable management and restoration of existing forest makes to carbon storage.

Commodifying Nature...

The majority of the criticism directed towards REDD+ comes from rights organisations that are concerned about transparency, possible market failures and the fact that rights are indeed often not well enough protected.

www.projectcobra.org | Opinion

2 Project COBRA is supported by a three year grant from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme

Rainforests in the Guiana Shield have come under increasing threat of deforestation in the last 10 years.

Currently, legal and legislative frameworks to sufficiently protect the rights of local peoples and forest dependent communities are either very week or completely absent. The key question therefore is whether REDD+ can function more responsibly than other demands on forests (e.g. expanding agriculture, mining, and infrastructure). Provided that all safeguards are in place, there is no reason why this would not be the case, as REDD+ is well positioned and has been provided with useful standards to ensure its success. Of course, there are still real dangers, but REDD+ may at least provide better options for local communities to pursue their interests whilst providing an alternative to the model of extraction, conversion, and mainstream economic development.The REDD+ debate also raises a number of justice-related political questions, like whether it would not undermine the tenure rights and livelihoods of forest-dwelling and other local communities, or whether bringing public goods to the market domain is a good idea. For example, low carbon prices could hamper the success of REDD+, especially in high deforestation areas where it is impossible to compete with other land uses such as agriculture or logging. This is particularly relevant when considering recent global investments in large-scale agriculture for food and biofuel production. So, shouldn’t our concern be: why introduce yet another volatile system, and another market, which may have insufficient guarantees in the long run? On the other hand, continuity of public funding for conservation is also uncertain, and the risks of inefficiency, bad local governance, lack of implementation and options for craft could even be greater compared to a market mechanism with the right objectives.

Carbon payments have the potential to provide significant financial rewards for indigenous communities to continue to preserve their traditional forested lands. The global database for voluntary REDD+ projects currently has over 1500 registered REDD+ arrangements in 35 countries, financed by 16 funder countries. A number of REDD+ initiatives have been the subject of increasing criticism . Opponents believe that REDD+ will lead to the displacement of local peoples and communities , and violation of the rights to land and resources, but also the survival of traditional knowledge, cultures and subsistence. Clearly, not everybody is confident that collective and individual land rights and indigenous customary laws, as enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), are properly recognized under REDD+. Indeed, to date many indigenous communities remain unrecognized by state governments, but under the agreed REDD+ text some essential elements of UNDRIP such as Free Prior and Informed Consent have been acknowledged. In fact, REDD+ has focused unprecedented international attention on tenure and other rights of forest peoples, and the design of REDD+ with the standards and safeguards at least encourages project developers and buyers to consider these issues. Yet, despite this, there is still a long way to go, as national land registration institutions are often inadequate for effectively addressing the central, underlying issue of customary tenure rights, and national backing for enforcement of tenure rights is often lacking . The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) will soon finalise an assessment on how to address indigenous peoples’ rights and safeguards in REDD+ projects worldwide. Some indigenous communities do see potential benefits of carbon projects, especially when traditional low-carbon livelihoods can be supported. A promising example is the Surui REDD project in Brazil in which the Surui people aim to use REDD+ finance to support their efforts to develop alternative livelihoods and protect 248,000 hectares of forest. Interesting news also comes from Cambodia, where the Oddar Meanchey REDD+ project is supporting 13 Community Forestry Groups and nearly 8,000 households in reducing deforestation and improving livelihoods across nearly 65,000 hectares.

www.projectcobra.org | Opinion

How can indigenous people in the Guiana Shield hope to protect their rights under REDD+?

3Project COBRA is supported by a three year grant from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme

There might be a big risk of having relatively short term contracts (20-30 years) that cannot guarantee that the forests will not be cleared afterwards. Corruption and carbon fraud have already begun , illustrating once again that strong governance is indispensable to the success of REDD+.

It has been proposed that REDD+ should be performance based. This means that REDD+ projects will need to report the amount of carbon that is actually being stored or the extent of deforestation that is being avoided. It is designed to include robust and cost-effective Monitoring, Reporting and Verifications (MRV) systems, using a combination of remote sensing data and data collected on the ground. For many regions, detailed data on forest carbon stocks and uptake are still lacking, so a lot of work needs to be done -especially by local people- and the need to improve local capacity in this field is obvious. In preparation for REDD+, the Government of Guyana is undertaking national-level MRV work in the country’s forests which also includes building local capacity for MRV . The community MRV project undertaken in the Rupununi area of Guyana has led to the establishment of independent C-MRV capacity in North Rupununi and also to the replication of the C-MRV approach in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in Acre, Brazil.One of the most pressing challenges where MRV is concerned is potential “leakage”, i.e. halting deforestation in one place leads to deforestation occurring somewhere else. The exact same thing has happened with the Amazon moratorium on logging. The moratorium might have been highly successful in the Amazon but deforestation rates in the Cerrado region peaked after the Amazon moratorium was approved. Leakage can occur within countries, but also across borders. Both these issues are very challenging. Let’s just hope that national-level emission reporting will be sufficient to detect emission sources and deviations from reference levels. Another pressing issue is that of “additionality”, i.e. are emission reductions occurring due to REDD+ or would they have occurred anyway? In order to answer this question it is necessary to have a clear understanding of both the historical and business as usual (BAU) deforestation rates in the region. What might complicate this even more is the fact that subnational REDD+ projects that are already underway may be using varying baselines and be dealing with different drivers of deforestation.A serious challenge which reaches beyond MRV is the guarantee for long term conservation that REDD+ offers (“permanence”).

Monitoring, Reporting and verification

www.projectcobra.org | Opinion

4 Project COBRA is supported by a three year grant from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme

Where must the money go?In the medium-term, most REDD+ payments will be for readiness and policy reforms, rather than proven emission reductions . These payments are not yet coming from regulated or compliant carbon markets, as those will provide funding only once emission reductions are verified. Thus, for its initiation, REDD+ depends largely on international aid money and the national budgets of REDD countries. The second thing we need to know is where must all this money go in order to benefit those who most deserve it? A key risk is that financial benefits from REDD+ projects will flow to government, private project developers and second party industries, instead of to the communities who have managed the land for generations. This might even benefit the industries responsible for the deforestation in the first place - look at Indonesia where Asia Pulp and Paper, one of the most prominent natural forest destroyers has become involved in the Kampar Peninsula project. The best way of rewarding local communities (transfer benefits to communities or directly to households; transfer cash or in-kind benefits) will depend on the specific local situation. The issue of payments remains delicate. In addition, it cannot be that, like as some have argued, REDD+ forces subsistence communities into the cash economy and wage-labour. To avoid this, farmers that reside in remote and inaccessible areas where cash is rarely used would better benefit from in-kind payments. There is also the question of whether benefits should be distributed based solely on the number of hectares protected or planted (i.e. does the biggest land owner get the most?) or based also on the needs of local communities? Thus the equal sharing of benefits has become one of the central issues in REDD+.In an ideal world REDD+ will lead to measures that stimulate the adoption of forest-conserving land uses, de-incentivise the conversion of forestlands, and incentivise increased production on non-forestlands.

A curious example comes from Guyana, where the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund (GRIF) had approved 7 projects with a total cost of 116.5 million US$. Nearly 70% of this was proposed to be invested in the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project, a 165MW hydropower dam at the confluence of the Amaila and Kuribrong rivers. One could argue whether such investments need to come from REDD+ money (does the dam indeed reduce deforestation?) and whether carbon emissions saved by this project are indeed “additional” (would the dam not have been realised without REDD+?) . In fact, the Amaila Falls project has become highly controversial and it has been argued that it causes deforestation and displaces local communities. Just recently a major donor withdrew from the project and the GRIF removed the project from their list. The REDD+ projects currently on the GRIF list are: 1) Institutional Strengthening (US$ 7M); Amerindian Land Titling (US$ 10.7M); 2) Amerindian Development Fund (US$ 6M); 3) Micro and Small Enterprise and Building Alternative Livelihoods for Vulnerable Groups (US$ 10M); Cunha Canal Rehabilitation Centre (US$ 2M); and Biodiversity Research Centre (US$ 4M).

www.projectcobra.org | Opinion

Looking to the future: will REDD+ be able to provide sufficient economic incentives for forest conservation?

5Project COBRA is supported by a three year grant from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme

A Challenging FutureThe scale of REDD+ and its technical complexity have led to considerable problems and delays in its implementation. According to the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) a transformational change beyond the forestry sector is required to fully realise the mitigation potential of REDD+. In the current situation this is likely to be hampered not only by other economic interests such as logging, mining and infrastructure and

plantation developments, but also by existing power structures. Thus, REDD+ continues to face huge challenges. Let’s hope that the REDD+ mechanism which was agreed upon in Warsaw will be strong enough to provide new economic incentives for forest conservation and also to stimulate the recognition of indigenous rights and public awareness about climate change.

References1. Angelsen et al. 20122. http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/can-redd-ever-become-green/3. Griscom et al. 20094. Angelsen, 20085.http://www.reddplusdatabase.org/6.see for example http://www.REDD+-monitor.org/2013/04/26/federation-of-small-farmers-in-peru-attacks-REDD+-no-REDD+-projects-no-carbon-trading/7. e.g. Fairhead et al. 20128. Angelsen et al. 20129. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121016005440/en/Community-Based-Mosaic-REDD-Project-Asia-Awarded-VCS10. http://www.globalcanopy.org/projects/community-mrv11. H. Koster (WWF Netherlands), pers. comm.12. http://www.friendsoftheamazon.org/carbon-cowboy.html13. Angelsen et al. 201214. http://www.REDD+-monitor.org/2011/03/01/guyana-%E2%80%93-amaila-falls-hydropower-dam-and-access-road/15. http://www.guyanareddfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=130

LiteratureAngelsen, A. (ed.) 2008.Movingahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. 156p.

Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D. and Verchot, L.V. (eds) 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., Scoones, I. 2012. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies39(2): 237-261

Griscom, B., Shoch, D., Cortez, R. And Virgilio, N. 2009. Sensitivity of amounts and distribution of tropical forest carbon credits depending on baseline rules. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany.

IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 996 pp.

Raygorodetsky, G. 2012.Do REDD Trees Make Forest Green?Blog by GlebRaygorodetsky in Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples, National Geographic News Watch: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/08/01/do-redd-trees-make-forest-green/

Poffenberger, M., Hartanto, H. 2013. Jakarta Post. Communities under REDD+. Opinion by Mark Poffenberger & Herlina Hartanto: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/03/04/communities-under-redd.html