Sample Materials for CSAT Paper -1 (G.S.) Pre 2013: "Environment and Ecology: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & Forest Degradation (REDD)"

Subject: Environment and Ecology
Topic: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation & Forest Degradation (REDD)

REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM DEFORE-STATION AND FOREST DEGRADATION (REDD) is a set of steps designed to use market/financial incentives in order to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from defore-station and forest degradation. Its original objective is to reduce green house gases but it can deliver “co-benefits” such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” implies a distinction between the two activities. The process of identifying the two is what raises questions about how to measure each within the REDD mechanism, therefore their distinction is vital. Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests and withdrawal of land from forest use. Forest degradation refers to negative changes in the forest area that limit its production capacity.

REDD is sometimes presented as an “offset” scheme of the carbon markets and thus, would produce carbon credits. Carbon offsets are “emissions-saving projects or programmes” that in theory would “compensate” for the polluters’ emissions. The “carbon credits” generated by these projects could then be used by industrialised governments and corpora-tions to meet their targets and/or to be traded within the carbon markets. However this perspective on REDD+ is contested and hotly debated among economists, scientists and negotiators. Recent studies indicate such an offset approach based on projects would significantly increase the transaction costs associated to REDD+ and would actually be the weakest alternative for a national REDD+ architecture as regards effectiveness, efficiency, its capacity to deliver co benefits (like development, biodiversity or human rights) and its overal political legitimacy.

In recent years, estimates for deforestation and forest degradation were shown to account for 20-25% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than the transportation sector. Recent work shows that the combined contribution of deforestation, forest degradation and peatland emissions accounts for about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the transportation sector. Even with these new numbers it is increasingly accepted that mitigation of global warming will not be achieved without the inclusion of forests in an international regime. As a result, it is expected to play a crucial role in a future successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

History

In the 1997 global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, policies related to deforestation and degradation were excluded due to the complexity of measurements and monitoring for the diverse ecosystems and land use changes. This exclusion resulted in the formation of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations. Participant nations included Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and other forest nations.

In 2005, at the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP-11), the Coalition of Rainforest Nations initiated a request to consider ‘reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.’ The matter was referred to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA). The United States challenged the proposal but failed in its attempts.

Later, at the 2007 Bali UNFCCC meeting (COP-13), an agreement was reached on “the urgent need to take further meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. The deadline for reaching an agreement on the specifics of an international REDD mechanism, at least as regards to its being implemented in the short and medium term, was set to be the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-15), which was held in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Main Actors

REDD activities are undertaken by national or local governments, dominant NGOs, the private sector, or any combination of these. It is being pushed strongly by the World Bank and the UN for setting up the bases for the carbon market and the legal and governance frameworks of countries receiving REDD. A number of NGOs, development agencies, research institutes and international organi-zations support developing countries that wish to engage in REDD activities. The World Banks’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the UN-REDD Programme, and Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative are such examples. The genuine actors of REDD, however, will be the populations whose livelihoods derive from forests. Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities will be the front liners of REDD, and the success of REDD activities will largely depend on their engagement.

There are many corporative and financial lobbies behind the push for REDD. The REDD”+” is more than just avoided deforestation and forest degradation, it also includes the possibility of offsetting emissions through “sustainable forest management”, “conser-vation” and “increasing forest carbon stocks”. This is because a REDD strategy need not refer solely to the establishment of national parks or protected areas; by the careful design of rules and guidelines, REDD could include land use practices such as shifting cultivation by indigenous communities and reduced-impact-logging, provided sustainable rotation and harvesting cycles can be demonstrated. Some argue that this is opening the door to logging operations in primary forests, displacement of local populations for “conservation”, increase of tree plantations.[6] REDD+ is another extension of green capitalism, subjecting the forests and its inhabitants to new ways of expropriation and enclosure at the hands of polluting companies and market speculators.

For example, at the global level, the International Tropical Timber Organization ITTO) – an intergovernmental body that includes 60 countries of producers and consumers of wood in tropical forests and the European Union, is a key actor in the push to approve REDD+. The ITTO has launched a thematic program on REDD and environmental services with an initial funding of US$3.5 million from Norway. In addition, the 45th session of the ITTO Council held in November 2009, recommended that efforts relating REDD+ should focus on promoting “sustainable forest management”. In this regard, this sector’s lobbying seeks above all to include forest extraction inside REDD under the guise of “sustainable management” in order to benefit from carbon markets while maintain-ing business-as-usual.

On the other side, Indigenous Peoples are an important side of the actors scenario that most of the times is ignored. The International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) was explicit at the Bali climate negotiations in 2007: “REDD/REDD+ will not benefit Indigenous Peoples, but in fact will result in more violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. It will increase the violation of our human rights, our rights to our lands, territories and resources, steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access and threaten indigenous agricultural practices, destroy biodiversity and cultural diversity and cause social conflicts. Under REDD/REDD+, states and carbon traders will take more control over our forests.”

Some grassroots organisations are already working to develop REDD activities with communities and developing benefit-sharing mechanisms to ensure REDD funds reach rural communities as well as governments. Examples of these include Plan Vivo projects in Mexico, Mozambique and Cameroon.

Active International Organizations

REDD has received strong support and push from international organizations and IFIs (International Financial Institutions). The World Bank presently plays an important role in the progression of REDD activities. As one of the financial contributors for the REDD program, the World Bank has created a $300 million fund, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). So far small grants of $200,000 have been disbursed. This fund is aimed towards initiating REDD activities in developing countries. In addition, another World Bank facility, the Carbon Partnership Facility (CPF), is expected to be used in areas like the power sectors, transportation, urban development and other areas related to energy efficiency where greenhouse gases are generated.

Although the World Bank declares its commitment to fight against climate change, many civil society organisations and grassroots movements around the world view with scepticism the processes being developed under these funds. Among some of the most worrying reasons are the weak (or inexistent) consultation processes with local communi-ties; the lack of criteria to determine when a country is ready to implement REDD projects (reddiness); the negative impacts such as deforestation and loss of biodiversity (due to fast agreements and lack of planning); the lack of safeguards to protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights; and the lack of regional policies to stop deforestation. During the UN climate nego-tiations in Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) strong civil society and social movements coalitions formed a strong front to fight the World Bank out of the climate.

The UNDP, UNEP and FAO set up the UN-REDD Programme, which is aimed at assisting developing countries in addressing certain measures needed in order to effectively participate in the REDD mechanism. These measures include capacity development, governance, engagement of Indigenous Peoples and technical needs. The first initial set of nine countries were Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Zambia. The total number of funds allocated by the UN-REDD Programme Policy Board to date is US$ 48.3 million, allocated to eight of these countries. The Programme also ensures overall guidance through its global activities on Measuring, Verifying and Reporting (MRV) systems, engagement of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities, and governance; the Programme aims for multiple benefits from REDD for livelihoods and ecosystems.

However, among other exclusions, the definition of forests currently adopted by the UN climate change convention (and therefore the UNDP, UNEP and FAO) contains a large loophole: it fails to distinguish between natural forests and plantations, including eucalyptus, pines, acacias, oil palm, and others. Biodiverse, natural forests could therefore be destroyed and replaced with plantations, but this would not be treated as “deforestation” because – according to the definition - the area would still be covered by trees. The lack of a clear distinction is no accident. Defining a forest simply in terms of tree cover - rather than complex ecosystems and the livelihoods of peoples interacting with them – has long been used as a cover for the expansion of industrial-scale plantations. The most plausible explanation, arguably, is that commercial interests take precedence over environmental and social objectives in the shaping of REDD policy.

Active governments

The REDD mechanism has been well received by some national governments. At the 2007 Bali Conference, the Norwegian govern-ment announced their International Climate and Forests Initiative, which provided $500 million towards the creation and implemen-tation of national-based, REDD activities in the nation of Tanzania. The Norwegian government will work closely with international organizations such as UN-REDD to promote REDD activities in the area. In addition, the Government of Norway and United Kingdom contributed $200 million towards the Congo Basin Forest Fund to aid forest conservation actives in Central Africa. Australia has joined the efforts to promote REDD mechanisms. Their $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative focused on developing REDD activities in the region, i.e., in areas like Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. The governments of Spain and Denmark have recently become donors to the UN-REDD Programme. There have been a few cases of corruption and bribery thus far. In late October 2010, Wandojo Siswanto, a lead delegate in Copenhagen and key architect of REDD, was arrested and charged with accepting bribes of up to US$10,000 from the director of PT Masaro Radiokom, a telecommunications company. In Indonesia, the forestry sector’s reputation has been referred to as “a source of unlimited corruption,” by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Answer of Question 1: C