In this blog, published by CDKN, I identify key areas for activity in the next 12 months for those working towards a fair and equitable REDD+.

William McFarland, Acting REDDnet coordinator, ODI

Clarity on REDD+ finance is crucial for three reasons.

1. REDD+ countries are investing in REDD+ readiness processes that require significant investment, human resources and political support. Why? REDD+ countries want to make sure that they are ready to participate in a REDD+ mechanism, where they are paid to reduce emissions from the forest sector and land use change. Without certainty that they will be paid, momentum towards this goal could evaporate.
2. Private sector investment in REDD+ has been hailed as an essential source of the investment needed to generate the finance required to achieve emissions reductions at scale. This private sector investment relies on policy and legal certainty that does not exist in most REDD+ countries at present, but has to date been provided by developments under the international policy framework for REDD+. Lack of continued progress may reduce private sector appetite to invest.
3. In negotiations where developed countries have shown extremely weak commitment to reduce domestic emissions, strong financial commitments to REDD+ may help restore to the faith of developing countries in the process. Many recognise that REDD+ has multiple benefits for climate change mitigation, biodiversity, poverty alleviation and even adaptation efforts, so moving this along will make progress towards a number of global goals.

The current draft text from the AWG-LCA for adoption by the COP identifies a range of options for REDD+ financing. This is a useful outline of the range of sources of finance that countries might pursue, but it provides little certainty for REDD+ countries that any of them will materialise. Another stumbling block to the much-needed certainty for REDD+ countries is the commissioning of a ‘technical report’ on finance sources. This is to be considered at the meeting of the SBSTA in Bonn in June 2012, for report back at COP18.

It is too early to tell what this report will cover or what detailed financing options it might explore, but one thing is certain: it is likely to be a general, global level report, and is extremely unlikely to provide relevant information on the specific sources of finance appropriate for particular country circumstances and goals.

So, given that the issue of REDD+ finance is a crucial one, how can it progress in the absence of solid progress in Durban? Finance needs will be diverse, and depend on how a country is going to implement REDD+, what other goals they are also pursuing through REDD+(such as poverty alleviation), how ‘ready’ they are, and their existing multilateral and bilateral relationships with development partners.

One thing that has been agreed in Durban is that national ownership of REDD+ is essential for it to be effective and sustainable in the long term. There has also been agreement that, in the medium term anyway, REDD+ finance will need to come from a range of disparate sources. So, with the support of contributor countries, REDD+ countries should start thinking more strongly about what types of finance they want to attract to achieve their national REDD+ strategy, and how to go about doing that.

Brazil has been very effective at this, retaining strong national ownership over how it achieves emissions reductions and obtaining finance to support that effort. Encouragingly, Mexico also seems to be going in the same direction. At an event the other day I heard that Mexico is developing its national REDD+ strategy, and will then decide which sources of finance are most appropriate to achieve its strategic objectives, and will only then decide how to leverage the right type of finance.

Complete certainty over international REDD+ frameworks, and long term finance for REDD+ will not be found in Durban. But, there is hope that the operational structure of the Green Climate Fund will be endorsed, which will include REDD+ funding under the mitigation window and is expected to include a private sector window (under which REDD+ may also be eligible).

There is also hope that, with recognition of the broad range of sources of finance for REDD+ under the UNFCCC, countries can get on with the more important job of working out which sources are best for them. Once this is done, policy and legal frameworks can be put in place to leverage this finance. In the absence of an international agreement on emissions reductions for developed countries, this will go a long way towards providing the certainty to leverage the much needed private sector finance. This demonstrates that REDD+ finance is, truly, more than just the money on the table.

 Written by Kristy Graham, ODI

One of the main themes I took out of last week was that everyone is talking about linking different sectors and achieving multiple goals with climate change mitigation. There is also quite a bit of discussion about making sure that the mitigation and adaptation agendas are better aligned, particularly at the local level.

REDD-net has been working on these issues in relation to REDD+ all year. Our work on REDD+ and other sectors has examined how REDD+ can be designed in a way to not only address the drivers of deforestation, but to do so in a way that also contributes to the objectives of key economic sectors (including agriculture and energy), and of course development.

More recently, REDD-net has also been working on building better linkages between mitigation and adaptation in forests, and has particularly been looking at how REDD+ can be designed to contribute to adaptation goals at the local level.

Our side event, held on this topic explored this issue further from a range of different perspectives. Resham Danghi, from the Ministry of Forests in Nepal spoke on the topic from an adaptation perspective.  He highlighted how community based adaptation, which is being undertaken by many communities in Nepal has many similarities with REDD+ initiatives, and outlined the many synergies between community based forest management (which is likely to be pursued as a REDD+ strategy in Nepal), and adaptation actions. He also outlined the key challenges, particularly the knowledge barriers and the weak institutional capacity of the forestry sector, to really optimising the synergies that exist. Highlighting that the trade-offs and synergies were very site specific , he concluded by suggesting that strong engagement of local government was needed to mainstream coordinated planning, and that further capacity building was needed.

The following speaker, Erneus Kaijage, from the Clinton Climate Initiative in Tanzania, highlighted that it was the specific design and implementation of REDD+ that would determine its impact on the adaptive capacity of local communities. He suggested that REDD+ could be used to provide training and educational opportunities and that in Tanzania, there were many entry points for maximising the synergies, such as through community based forest management. He closed by suggesting that ensuring that REDD+ contributed to adaptive capacity would enhance community support for it.

Finally, Steve Panfil, from Conservation International provided a particularly interesting analysis of projects seeking validation under the CCB standards which were actively seeking to contribute to adaptation. Of the 43 validated, and 3 verified projects, 6 have been validated using the optional Adaptation Criterion. He discussed the types of adaptation activities that these projects were pursuing, with most focussing on alternative livelihoods and income diversification. He highlighted that improving the contribution of projects to adaptation goals would likely require additional guidance for project developers, as there seemed to be a low additional cost for early projects doing this.

Following the speakers presentations, discussions focussed on how to scale up activities from the project to larger levels, and how to strike a balance between locally driven initiatives and government led programmes.  The discussion demonstrated that there is a lot of interest in this topic and that as REDD+ policies are being designed, and projects being implemented there is the need for these synergies and trade-offs to be more explicitly considered.

The REDD-net side event and the key themes from the past week all really highlight that REDD+ must be designed in a way that is ‘climate smart’ (to borrow a phrase from the agriculture crowd). In order to be a politically, socially and environmentally sustainable mechanism in the long term, it must be designed in a way that contributes to mitigation, adaptation and development goals. I’m sure that the negotiators in Durban would agree with this, the challenge is now for all countries, is to make sure that this starts happening in practice.

Written by Kristy Graham, REDD-net Coordinator, ODI

For REDD+ to work, we need to recognise that the most important decision maker is the man with an axe, or the saw. It is that man that needs to be incentivised to change his behaviour without compromising his ability to meet his or her daily needs. REDD+ can only succeed if it is designed through effective involvement and participation by these decision makers. Sustainable management of forests will only be achieved if there is the will and ability by micro level decision makers and policy makers to make changes, and effective incentives are given to the man with an axe to keep trees standing.

Nigerian CSOs organised a side event at the COP17 at the Africa Pavilion; on Friday, 2^nd December 2011. This event was aimed at “Increasing Awareness on REDD+ Governance in Africa”. Its discussion focused on the contribution to addressing the key challenges for developing and implementing REDD+ mechanism in Africa; increasing awareness and capacity building for African stakeholders on REDD+ and promoting strategic governance frameworks on REDD+ to further enhance the UNFCCC negotiation processes at COP17. It was one of the many events that was organised to discuss issues of REDD+ and governance in Africa.

There is need for us to move from policy decisions on climate change to action on the ground i.e. from policy to reality.  Policy making around REDD+ is no exception, whether at sub-national, national, regional or international levels. REDD+ can only work if the communities have real and reliable incentives to conserve or sustainably manage the forests.  

There are many pressures on the man with the axe, which must be addressed for REDD+ to work. Questions must be asked – what makes him go to the forest to cut the trees? Is it to clear land for agriculture for cash crops? Is it to clear land to ensure that he can continue to produce enough food for his family? Is it for fuel wood? Is it to extract timber for sale, or for his own use? Is it because there are no alternatives for his household to obtain essential forest products?  

At the moment, there are various reasons why deforestation and forest degradation is continuing, in many areas they are the main source of community livelihoods. REDD-net has explored the extra-sectoral approaches on how deforestation is linked to various key sector of the economy in East Africa which include: Agriculture, food security and REDD+ in East Africa , REDD+ and energy for rural development in East Africa ,and  Water resources management and REDD+ in East Africa.

Immediate action on finance is needed to address then livelihood issues that are linked to deforestation and forest degradation. Finance needs to be delivered effectively and equitably to the man with the axe. REDD+ therefore will only be successful if it is implemented with a human face by moving from just mitigation action to ensure that it contributes to rural development.

As the negotiations here in Durban move towards advanced stages, the real decision makers continue with their business as usual scenario of deforestation and forest degradation. Therefore the policy makers must speed up the pace of policy decisions if we are to have forests remain standing. Delaying an agreement on REDD+ finance will leave the rate of deforestation unchecked.  The ‘man with an axe’ will not wait for finalisation of the policy decisions to stop deforestation and forest degradation. If we want real progress on REDD+, clarity and a strong signal on long term finance needs to be provided in Durban.

Written by David Mwayafu, REDD-net Coordinator East Africa, UCSD

With support from CARE International, the community established mangrove forests along the mudflats lining Da Loc and were awarded some of the country’s initial mangrove community forestry certificates. In addition to the protective functions the mangroves play in extreme climate events, they serve as a tremendous carbon sink. While this was not an underlying objective in the planting of the mangroves, which was foremost an adaptive strategy, it serves as a powerful ‘additionality’ contributing strongly to mitigation aims.

Adaptation and mitigation have long been treated in isolation at international levels, in sectoral planning and in academic discourse. At local levels however, they are often two sides of the same coin. As we resign ourselves to the need, not only to reduce our carbon emissions, but to adapt the way we live and sustain ourselves in the context of climate variability, it is becoming clear that the distinctions between them are blurred.  Moving forward we must seek to predict, to link and harness the synergies between these two approaches, and in particular entry points offered by REDD+.

As Bruno Locatelli, CIFOR scientist and leading researcher on the link between forests and climate change adaptation, notes, “Adaptation and mitigation can clearly work together in forest projects. Adaptation can increase the local legitimacy and acceptance of REDD+ projects, because adaptation is focusing on local needs, whereas mitigation is sometimes perceived as driven by global interests.” On the other hand, according to Locatelli, adding mitigation components to adaptation projects can bring new funding opportunities from carbon funds or markets.

The REDD-net side event on December 2^nd at COP17 on the synergies and tradeoffs between adaptation and mitigation echoed this.  Panelist Resham Dangi, Joint Secretary of Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, pointed out that while the potential for adaptation and mitigation initiatives to be mutually enhancing is compelling, the implementation of this and its effectiveness is highly context dependent.  Unraveling site-specific dynamics is no small feat, but will be necessary in efforts to strengthen the positive contributions of mitigation to adaptation and vice versa, as well as avoid negative tradeoffs between them.  Local communities understand the intricacies of local contexts better than outsiders do regardless of how much technical expertise they bring. The key to maximizing potential synergies between adaptation and mitigation lies with harnessing the capacities and wealth of knowledge at local levels.

Written by Regan Suzuki, REDD-net Asia Pacific Coordinator, RECOFTC

For further information on the main themes discussed, see the full blog.

In its mission to safeguard economic returns from the fuming tar sands of one of its wealthiest provinces, Canada has made itself foil to the best of intentions being showcased at Durban.  Day 1 of COP 17 has seen Canada crowned winner of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd prizes for the Fossil of the Day. This is for its poorly veiled plan to divorce itself of the Kyoto Protocol, for its continuing exploitation of the tar sands, and for its policy of playing ‘hardball’ in Durban, respectively.  By Day 3 even China is accusing Canada of undermining global efforts to combat climate change, damaging its reputation in the process.

Canada is not alone in the black sheep ranks at the COP. Japan, Russia and Australia are similarly indisposed to re-committing to the agreement unless, a miracle happen and the big polluters, namely the US and China, sign up. The United States came second place to Canada as Fossil of the Day on Day 2 for its unwillingness to accept targets that represent much more than business as usual until 2020. This dashes hopes of the Obama administration, essentially absolving them of any responsibility until long after Mr. Obama has left office.

In 2010, at Cancun’s COP16, I similarly reported my dismay at Canada’s backwards and antagonistic approach to the negotiations. I had hoped that the Canadian public would not allow a repeat performance. There is discordance between the negotiating position taken at Durban and polls suggesting Canadians to be among the most pro-environment people on the planet. Prompted by a recent blog by Stephan Lewandowsky referring to Canada’s media, and in particular the conservative National Post, as being willfully negligent at best and hostile at worst to action on climate change, I paid a visit to the website of the more progressive of the two national newspapers, The Globe and Mail. 

I was astounded to discover that, of the 75 headline stories on the newspaper’s site on Day 2 of the COP (the final one prior to the Kyoto Protocol ending), not one headline mentioned the international climate change negotiations taking place in Durban. While tips on winter travel overseas with pets made the daily highlights, not one in 75 headlines concerned itself with the COP.

What does this mean for forests and local communities? There is a pattern, which extends beyond political posturing in international fora. It represents a subjugation of environmental and social concerns, particularly for marginalized groups such as indigenous peoples (who are largely forest-based), in favor of powerful industry interests. To suggest there is no linkage would be wrong. The same conservative government led Canada to be one of only four countries to refuse to sign the United Nations Declaration of Rights for Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. It eventually did sign on, but only to be soundly condemned at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan last year for being obstructionist. There, it was the sole Party to call for removal of all references to UNDRIP in the negotiations towards the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.

 As a Canadian, I am deeply concerned. What next? Sadly, Canada is no longer negotiating in good faith, is undermining the process here at Durban and, as is being suggested by international civil society, needs to be politely asked to leave the negotiating table. Second, and much more difficult, is getting Canadians to turn off the hockey and pay attention.

Written by Regan Suzuki, REDD-net Asia Pacific Coordinator 

This should give the REDD+ crowd plenty to chew over by the morning of Forests Day on Sunday, and following on from my last post this means my Sunday morning speak will be more REDD+ finance, reference emission levels and safeguards, rather than my usual caveman mono-syllables.

Over in the Durban Exhibition Centre (DEC) – the designated stomping ground for us NGO types – there has been a bombardment of REDD+/forestry side events. Navigating this festival of intriguing events is a tricky task, and like Glastonbury it means you always miss out on star acts. Highlights for me so far have been:

• The Environmental Investigation Agency providing sobering reminders of the mammoth task afoot in improving forest governance (one slide showed entirely fabricated forest inventories approved all the way through up the Peruvian forest agency). This ‘Enforcement and Anti-Corruption Measures’ event led to a energetic debate on whether strengthening ‘on the ground’ enforcement penalizes the ‘little-guy’ when REDD+ should really be used to address corruption and criminal activity further up the value chain.
• CIFOR’s ‘How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground’ showed that REDD+ Developers are hedging their bets in light of future REDD+ market uncertainty. An interesting side-effect has been that some developers choose not to use the phrase ‘REDD+’ in their outreach to communities, as they don’t want to raise false expectations. This is a justified approach, and avoids a problem now being faced by many projects in limbo where previously promised carbon finance is not forthcoming. However it was highlighted that this reduces the ability to carry out full Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as communities are not told and therefore cannot agree to selling the carbon in their forests. As a sneak preview, this issue crops up in our ‘Are capacity building services meeting countries’ needs’ policy brief, which is launched here on Thursday 1^st December with UN-REDD.
• The ‘Status of monitoring, reporting and verification in setting up REDD+’ presentation within the CIFOR event stimulated challenge from the floor. These challenges were on what MRV should cover, and if countries are ‘jumping the gun’ on using large chunks of limited readiness funding on MRV, rather than addressing the massive forest governance challenges they face. Admittedly the last challenge came from yours truly. The sensible reply was that we need to strike a balance between addressing both MRV and forest governance, with the admittance that often MRV takes up donor readiness money because it is easier to show progress, as opposed to the greater difficulty in clearly showing forest governance results. I walked away feeling slightly worried that the need to show clear results for donor money may mean that the ‘high risk/high reward’ options get sidelined in favor of less ambitious aims.

My highlights list will have doubled or tripled in length by the time you read this and I’m sure my fellow bloggers inside and outside of RECOFTC will cover the issues they raise. For those of you at Durban we look forward to seeing you at RECOFTC’s Forests Day booth. If you aren’t here please keep tuned for more blog posts soon!

Written by Jim Stephenson, RECOFTC

Overall progress in negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, or a separate, binding emissions reduction agreement including the emerging economies (China, India, Brazil, Russia and South Africa), is likely to be slow.  Which in UNFCCC terms means that 2015 is likely to be the first window of opportunity for a deal to be agreed, so don’t hold your breath on that one.

Finance discussions, another integral part of the whole negotiations, will focus on the operation of the Green Climate Fund, however where the money is likely to come from, including solid commitments to provide funding, is likely to be sidestepped in Durban. So although the rules of operation for the Green Climate Fund may move somewhat forward, the actual implementation and long term clarity on climate finance is unlikely to.

So what does that mean for the REDD+ negotiations? There have been a number of recent articles and blogs on expectations for Durban, including from REDD+ country delegations, and they have been fairly measured in what they expect to be achieved over the next two weeks. Many highlight the opportunity for REDD+ to move forward on procedural issues, which are largely separate from the broader negotiations, however the constant caveat is that ground-breaking progress will be hindered by other negotiation tracks.

 Issues such as clarifying the guidelines on a reporting system for the social and environmental safeguards , which are specific only to REDD+, provide an opportunity to make progress regardless of stalemates in other areas.  Furthering discussions on the establishment of reference emissions levels, or reference levels may also provide an avenue for providing methodological guidance for the REDD+ agenda.

Similarly, the issue of REDD+ finance provides an opportunity to make some positive progress in Durban. As a result of discussions on this issue in Panama in October, there is now broad agreement that a range of sources of finance will be needed as REDD+ moves from readiness to implementation. A decision in this area is likely to leave the door open to include multilateral, bilateral and private sector sources of finance (including ultimately carbon markets), however without overall agreements on emissions reductions targets and mechanisms to achieve this, as well as on climate finance beyond the fast start period, the detail on where and how will be hazy. As always, the devil will be in the detail.

There are still a range of sticky issues requiring resolution for REDD+ to have sufficient clarity to really get off the ground. How other sectors such as agriculture and energy can be aligned to meet climate change and REDD+ goals to ensure coherent national priorities will be key for the long term success of REDD+. Similarly, sufficient commitment towards long term finance from developed countries, and international policy clarity will be needed to cement current interest from REDD+ countries and private sector involvement. These sticky issues are all things intricately linked to the wider negotiations, and therefore inherently difficult to resolve at the moment, given the broader context.

But it’s definitely not all doom and gloom. There is cause for optimism – REDD+ is happening on the ground, there are a range of innovative approaches involving local communities, the private sector, development partners and national and sub-national governments, using a range of landscape scale approaches and innovative financial transfer mechanisms. Durban will provide a good opportunity to showcase some of these successes, learn lessons from the challenges, and remind ourselves that REDD+ is only one part of the climate change agenda, and there is lots to learn, and many positive experiences from a range of initiatives, whatever their acronym.

Written by Kristy Graham, REDD-net Coordinator, ODI

In sum, the IPCC uses an average of a spectrum of different models for forecasting climate change scenarios. Of these, many use older, low resolution technology, or higher resolution models that continue to draw information from low resolution lateral conditions. The most advanced of the models (such as Japanese models simulating global climate at resolutions of 3.5–10 km) are considered to present the most accurate data. These are at the very highest end of the temperature scenario curve – higher than the IPCC’s ‘best estimates’ for temperature rise which range from 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius by end of the century. The discrepancy lies in the fact that the IPCC takes the average of these various models – an average which includes low resolution models and temperature change scenarios that are significantly lower than what the most advanced technology suggests. These assertions were presented in an academic paper by Shukla et al 2009 and then again in 2010, wherein he appeals for a revolution in climate prediction methods.  The point made by my friend from NASA was that the numbers that most of us; negotiators, politicians, industry, public at large, rely upon are drawn from a divergent pool of both the most advanced and relatively outdated models. It cannot be taken as state of the art knowledge.

This is simultaneous to a second ‘climategate’ with a series of illegally hacked emails written by University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit released on the internet last Tuesday.  This follows a previously seen pattern with private emails from scientists publicly disclosed immediately preceding major international climate meetings, in 2009, the COP15 in Copenhagen. The naysayers of climate change, leaking this private information, have done little to further their cause and would appear mainly to have undermined it. In virtually all accounts, particularly regarding the ‘errors’ in the 2007 IPCC report which were held up as evidence to disparage the credibility of global climate science, the scientists have been vindicated. Stephan Lewandowsky of the Guardian writes compellingly that climate change scientists have been in many national contexts ridiculed, threatened and otherwise sidelined by powerful political and economic interests.

I walk away from my conversation with the NASA scientist and towards the opening of COP17 tomorrow wondering whether the real scandal here is not the exaggeration of the threat of climate change, but rather a willful downplaying of what might otherwise be politically unpalatable.

Written by Regan Suzuki, REDD-net Asia Pacific Coordinator