8 REDD+
82. REDD+ is a UN programme focussed on Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing
countries (REDD+). Emissions from the forest sector and changes
in forests count for over 17 % of global greenhouse gas emissions.[111]
REDD+ includes the UN-REDD programme, which creates a financial
value for the carbon stored in forests and offers incentives for
developing countries to reduce emissions from forestry. REDD+
goes beyond just avoided deforestation to include "conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks."[112]
83. According to the Center for International Forestry
Research the three main issues regarding REDD+ which needed to
be resolved at the Durban conference were:
- Funding for REDD+;
- Reference levels from which countries could start
their Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV); and
- Guidance on how to implement reporting of 'social,
governance and environmental' safeguards.".[113]
We address each of these in turn below.
Funding
84. It is expected that at COP 18 countries will
hold a REDD+ finance workshop and produce a technical paper on
the sources of financing for REDD+.[114]
Reuters reported that at Durban "most of the difficult decisions
[about finance] were put off until next year's climate summit
and few observers expect to see a REDD market emerge this side
of 2020."[115]
Prof. Jouni Paavola said that private finance had a crucial role
to play in delivering funds for REDD+.[116]
85. DECC acknowledged that the rate of progress of
REDD+ funding "has been very disappointing" and said
that there were difficulties in disbursing both private and public
funds to "REDD projects with real integrity". We note
that this difficulty is in large part the result of disparate
and often inconsistent legislation regarding forest governance
and property ownership in forested nations. The money was there,
but was not being spent. DECC added that while private funding
will "absolutely" play a crucial role in the long term,
it was even more challenging to unlock private sector funding
than public. [117]
86. We recommend
that DECC investigate why the disbursement of funds into REDD+
projects has been so disappointing. We recommend that the Government
support work to resolve such legislative anomalies that hamper
the deployment of finance at scale to tackle deforestation. The
Department should clarify what steps are being taken to prepare
for the REDD+ finance workshop at COP 18.
Reference Levels
87. Reference
levels are intended to be used by countries as the common baseline
against which to compare, for example, how much they can avoid
emissions by undertaking a specific set of management activities.[118]
These reference levels are used in the MRV system. Parties in
Durban agreed to a set of technical guidelines for ensuring that
reference levels had environmental integrity.[119]
Decisions to be made at Doha will include how to measure and monitor
emissions due to forestry within these technical guidelines. In
their evidence DECC asserted that they will push for biennial
reporting to start in 2014.[120]
The Committee supports this aim and recommends the Government
negotiate strongly to this end.
Safeguards
88. At Durban "a framework for systems of reporting
on the implementation of REDD+ safeguards" was developed,
but the content of those systems was not decided on. This work
will be continued at COP 18.[121]
Several non-governmental organisations criticised the wording
of the safeguards, calling them "weak" and "bad
news for millions of indigenous people".[122]
DECC stated that the guidance should be built upon safeguards
and reporting requirements that are "already covered by international
conventions."[123]
They added that progress needed to be made in Doha with regard
to "how forest nations would report against those safeguards."[124]
89. There are a number of countries critical to the
climate change challenge in relation to forestry that do not have
the governance procedures in place to participate in a global
carbon trading process. Sir David King reported that "a Government
that benefited its own members and their bank accounts somewhere
simply by the tradable commodity would not be brought into the
fold." [125]
In addition, the forest areas in some developing countries are
not under the control of the central government, which is a powerful
argument for the continuation of REDD+.[126]
90. We recognise
the importance of REDD+ in tackling emissions from forestry, particularly
with regard to developing countries where the forest areas are
not under the control of the central government. We recommend
that the UK and the EU press for stronger and more detailed social,
governance and environmental safeguards for REDD+ projects.
111 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Mitigation of
Climate Change: Introduction, 2007, p 105 Back
112
UN-REDD Programme, About UN-REDD+, www.un-redd.org Back
113
"3 sticking points to tackle on REDD+ in Durban, says facilitator",
Center for International Forestry Research, 15 November
2011, blog.cifor.org Back
114
"REDD+ finance, indigenous rights protections move forward
in 2012 with boost from Durban Negotiations", Environmental
Defense Fund News and Blogs, 7 February 2012, blogs.edf.org Back
115
"Private sector finance eyed for U.N. forest projects",
Reuters, 11 December 2011, www.reuters.com Back
116
Q 161 Back
117
Q 219 Back
118
Q 157 [Prof. Jouni Paavola] Back
119
UNFCCC, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action,
Fourteenth Session part four, 9 December 2011 Back
120
Q 221 Back
121
"REDD+ finance, indigenous rights protections move forward
in 2012 with boost from Durban Negotiations", Environmental
Defense Fund News and Blogs, 7 February 2012, blogs.edf.org Back
122
"Private sector finance eyed for U.N. forest projects",
Reuters, 11 December 2011, www.reuters.com Back
123
Ev 62 Back
124
Q 221 Back
125
Q 109 Back
126
Q 110 Back
|