BY DR. PETER WOOD

There has been much talk about the potential for the Cancun climate talks to produce a decision on REDD+. Although no-one expected that all the details would be worked out, it was widely thought that there would be a basic decision establishing a framework for REDD+, setting the stage for further development under SBSTA.

However, there are a number of fundamental issues that remain unresolved that hang in the balance, including environmental, social and governance safeguards, monitoring reporting and verification of safeguards, and the inclusion of logging in natural forests.

Keeping Safeguards Safe

One of the main issues that has been discussed in the REDD negotiations is the need for environmental, social and governance safeguards, widely deemed fundamental to ensuring REDD+ leads to permanent reductions in deforestation and forest degradation while averting deleterious impacts. While some countries are pushing for the inclusion of language that would ensure that safeguards are upheld, there is significant pressure to weaken this with discretionary terminology. An additional prerequisite to ensuring the integrity of REDD is that these safeguards must be subject to monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), but this has also encountered resistance.

There are a number of benefits associated with the inclusion of strong safeguards that are subject to MRV, including:

• Ensuring a level playing field (all countries meeting the same international standards, so countries with a strong commitment to poverty reduction or biodiversity protection will not be at a disadvantage);

• Increasing the likelihood that REDD+ will benefit local communities, and thus attracting their support;

• Improving transparency, enabling information sharing and encouraging learning from experience;

• Building confidence in the integrity of REDD+ actions, thus attracting greater financial support;

• Ensuring consistency with other international objectives (e.g. the Millennium Development Goals; Convention on Biodiversity, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).

Without monitoring of safeguards, it will be difficult to know whether safeguards are being upheld, rendering them ineffective and meaningless. Safeguards prefaced with discretionary language and based on self-reporting would be like a seatbelt made out of bungee cord- just enough to provide a false sense of assurance, but not enough to prevent catastrophe.

Natural Forests: Our Best Bet

A major misconception reflected in media coverage of the issue is that REDD+ is about “preserving” or “protecting” forests. While this is what many NGOs would have liked REDD+ to be about (along with upholding the rights of forest-dependent peoples), the way the text on REDD+ has evolved suggests that this will not necessarily be the case. The lobbying positions of many governments has betrayed an overall bias towards forest management, and it is entirely possible that this is what the bulk of REDD activities will involve. This catch-all term can mean anything from setting areas of forest aside as reserves, to all-out industrial logging. Thus, it is absolutely essential that “management” be disaggregated to reflect what should and should not be eligible for funding under REDD+: extractive forest management (i.e. logging) in natural forest can only decrease this capacity and must be excluded from REDD+. While it is unlikely that a decision at Cancun will address such technical details, it is absolutely essential that “sustainable management” be defined in a way that excludes forestry activities known to be highly emissive.

UN-REDD recently produced a paper that takes stock of scientific literature addressing the biodiversity and carbon benefits of natural forests, an essential read for anyone interested in REDD+. It concludes that there is “strong evidence that the carbon stocks of intact forests are more resilient than those of degraded or fragmented forest” and that “this evidence lends some additional support to the rationale for a safeguard on the conversion of natural forest, already justified in terms of emissions reduction.” As logging in tropical forests is a known precursor to conversion, this should also be extended to degradation as well.

What’s so great about an intact natural forest?

• They are at the pinnacle of their carbon carrying capacity (both above and below ground), and are best able to withstand the effects of climate change, drought and natural disturbances such as fire;

• They offer the broadest array of ecosystem services, beyond carbon storage (e.g., water catchment, erosion control, provision of habitat for disturbance-sensitive species, and non-timber forest products such as medicine and food for forest dependent peoples);

• They are the least vulnerable to unregulated access, and minimize governance challenges associated with roaded areas.

Allowing management in natural forests under REDD+ presents several risks. First, it will allow for the introduction of new roads into intact areas. Regardless of “sustainable management” or “reduced impact” intentions, this opens up new areas to unregulated logging, agriculture and poaching, adding further stress to already limited monitoring resources. Second, funding the continual expansion of industrial logging in natural forests drives down the price of timber, and undermines efforts to develop economically viable management of second-growth forests.

While protection of intact natural forests offers the safest bet for REDD+, this will only address the small amount of forest fortunate enough to remain unlogged (less than a quarter of the world’s forest remains intact). As pointed out in a recent letter from dozens of scientists to the leaders of Norway and Indonesia, REDD+ must ensure that the conservation value of logged forests is also maintained and restored. If not, there is a risk that they will be written off as “damaged goods” and made eligible for conversion to plantations. As stated by the scientists, “all remaining primary forests must be protected, but any tract of forest should be assessed for its current and potential future conservation value.”

The importance of natural forests must also be reflected in the definition of the term “forest” itself. Currently, the definition used by UNFCCC does not differentiate between plantations and natural forest, or even between standing forests and areas that have been completely cleared, a grave error that has recently been highlighted in a resolution adopted by the Association for Tropical Biology & Conservation, one of the largest scientific organizations dedicated to the study of tropical ecosystems. Again, this may appear at the surface to be a technical issue that can be worked out later, but it presents a fundamental decision regarding how REDD+ is going to affect the world’s forests.

Reducing Demand

All of our efforts to combat deforestation and forest degradation will be for nothing if our levels of consumption remain at their current unsustainable levels. No amount of “sustainable management” or ecolabeling will get us out of this unavoidable fact. REDD+ must include a clause to reduce overall demand- not only for forest products, but also agricultural commodities grown on cleared land, including biofuels. This is a vital part of avoiding leakage within REDD+, as unless demand goes down, logging and other pressures will only move to areas less able to withstand exploitation.

Meaningful Engagement of Civil Society

After witnessing how the REDD+ Partnership has played out over the past year, civil society actors are understandably wary of processes that are not inclusive and transparent. REDD+ must recognize that forest dependent peoples and stakeholders need to be engaged in the design and implementation of REDD+, and given adequate time and resources to respond to developments in a meaningful way. Further, an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism must be established that is easily accessible to all. Proper implementation will require oversight by a multi-stakeholder body, and civil society has a major role to play in this, including ensuring fiscal transparency and robust monitoring of safeguards and performance.

Next Steps

With governments charging ahead rapidly with REDD+ along several parallel processes (UNFCCC, UN-REDD, FCPF, the REDD+ Partnership), civil society’s resources have been spread thin while attempting to keep track of the many developments, diverting time and money away from important on-the-ground work. Adding to the strain is the large number of REDD+ projects that have sprung up all over the tropics, many of which have confirmed fears of what REDD+ might look like in the absence of strong safeguards and independent oversight. It is thus in everyone’s interest to have good “REDD rules” established. However, many civil society actors have indicated that if current efforts to undermine the strength of the mechanism win the day, this could be worse than having no agreement at all.