International Initiatives

ALLIANCE OF SMALL ISLAND STATES(AOSIS) is anintergovernmental organizationoflow-lyingcoastaland smallIsland countries. Established in 1990, the main purpose of the alliance is to consolidate the voices ofSmall Island Developing States(SIDS) to addressglobal warming. AOSIS has been very active from its inception, putting forward the first draft text in theKyoto Protocolnegotiations as early as 1994. Many of the member states were present at the December2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference(COP15).Democracy Now!reported that members from theisland stateof Tuvalu interrupted a session on 10-December-2009 to demand that global temperature rise be limited to 1.5 degrees]instead of the proposed 2 degrees. AOSIS has 42 members andobserversfrom all around the world, of which 36 are members of theUnited Nations. The alliance represents 28% of thedeveloping countries, and 20% of theUN’s total membership.

Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

TheAsia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, also known asAPP, was an international, voluntary, public-private partnership amongAustralia,Canada,India,Japan, thePeople’s Republic of China,South Korea, and theUnited Statesannounced July 28, 2005 at anAssociation of South East Asian Nations(ASEAN) Regional Forum meeting and launched on January 12, 2006 at the Partnership’s inaugural Ministerial meeting inSydney. As of 5 April 2011, the Partnership formally concluded although a number of individual projects continue. The conclusion of the APP and cancellation of many of its projects attracted almost no media comment.Foreign, Environment and Energy Ministers from partner countries agreed to co-operate on the development and transfer of technology which enables reduction ofgreenhouse gasemissions that is consistent with and complementary to theUN Framework Convention on Climate Changeand other relevant international instruments, and is intended to complement but not replace the Kyoto Protocol.,Ministers agreed to aCharter, Communique and Work Plan that “outline a ground-breaking new model of private-public task forces to addressclimate change,energy securityandair pollution.”

Member countries account for over 50% of the world’sgreenhouse gasemissions, energy consumption,GDPand population. Unlike theKyoto Protocol(currently unratified by the United States), which imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the Partnership engages member countries to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, with no mandatory enforcement mechanism. This has led to criticism that the Partnership is worthless, by other governments, climate scientists and environmental groups. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that unrestricted economic growth and emission reductions can only be brought about through active engagement by all major polluters, which includesIndiaandChina, within theKyoto Protocolframework neitherIndianorChinaare yet required to reduce emissions.Canadabecame the 7th member of the APP at the Second Ministerial Meeting in New Delhi on October 15, 2007. Canada’s Prime MinisterStephen Harperearlier expressed his intention to join the Partnership in August 2007, despite some domestic opposition.

Aims

U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bushcalled it a “new results-oriented partnership” that he said “will allow our nations to develop and accelerate deployment of cleaner, more efficient energy technologies to meet national pollution reduction, energy security and climate change concerns in ways that reduce poverty and promote economic development.”John Howard, the formerAustralian Prime Minister, described the pact as “fair and effective”However, theWorldwide Fund for Naturestated that “a deal on climate change that doesn’t limit pollution is the same as a peace plan that allows guns to be fired” whilst the British Governments’ chief scientific adviser,Sir David King, in a BBC interview said he doubted the new deal could work without setting caps on emissions, but added it should be seen as a sign of progress on climate change.Compared to the Kyoto Protocol, which so far requires no emission reductions from India and China, the APP actively engages both countries through building market incentives to reduce greenhouse emissions along with building capacity and providing clean technology transfers. Proponents argue that this approach creates a greater likelihood that bothIndiaandChinawill, sooner rather than later, effectively cut their greenhouse emissions even though they are not required to do so under the Kyoto Protocol.

Areas for collaboration

The intent is to create a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international cooperation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost- effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices among the Partners through concrete and substantial cooperation so as to achieve practical results; promote and create enabling environments to assist in such efforts; facilitate attainment of the Partners’ respective national pollution reduction, energy security and climate change objectives; and provide a forum for exploring the Partners’ respective policy approaches relevant to addressing interlinked development, energy, environment, and climate change issues within the context of clean development goals, and for sharing experiences in developing and implementing respective national development and energy strategies. The Partnership’s inaugural Ministerial meeting established eight government/business taskforces through its Work Plan,posted on the APP website.1. cleaner fossil energy2. renewable energyanddistributed generation3. power generation and transmission4. steel5. aluminum6. cement7. coal mining8. buildings and appliances

Ministerial Meetings

The inaugural ministerial meeting was held at the Four Seasons Hotel and Government House inSydney, Australia on January 11 and 12, 2006.

Asia-Pacific Partnership Ministers agreed and released a:

• Charter that provides the framework and structure of the Partnership;

• Communiqué that highlights key outcomes from this meeting;and

• Work Plan that maps out an intensive agenda of work for the taskforces in the near-term.

Partnership Ministers met again inNew Delhi,Indiaon October 15, 2007, and released a second communiqueand admitted Canada as a Partner.The Ministers also met in Shanghai, China on October 26–27, 2009 where they discussed the accomplishments of the Partnership since the New Delhi Ministerial, and received the results of a report analyzing and evaluating the progress of the APP flagship projects.

Support

The Partnership has been publicly supported as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol by governments and business groups in some countries, particularly in countries where the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified. Many commentators have particularly welcomed the fact that the Partnership overcomes the impasse between developed and developing countries under theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changeand theKyoto Protocoland has led to India and China taking some steps to address their greenhouse gas emissions.Mexico,Russia, and several ASEAN members have expressed interest in joining the Partnership in the future.

Criticism

The Partnership has been criticized by environmentalists who have rebuked the proceedings as ineffectual without mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. A coalition of national environment groups and networks from all of the APP countries issued a challengeto their governments to make the APP meaningful by agreeing to mandatory targets, creating financial mechanisms with incentives for the dissemination of clean energy technologies, and create an action plan to overcome the key barriers to technology transfer.U.S. SenatorJohn McCainsaid the Partnership “[amounted] to nothing more than a nice little public relations ploy.”,while the Economist described the Partnership as “patent fig-leaf for the refusal of America and Australia to ratify Kyoto”. In the year since the Partnership went into effect, none of the parties have lowered emissions of greenhouse gases.Although it should be noted that under the Kyoto Protocol Australia is able to increase its emissions from 1990 levels to 108%.

Successes

Proponents of the Partnership have lauded the APP’s achievements since it’s inception in 2006. In its over three years, the Partnership has established a record of achievement in promoting collaboration between our governments and private sector in key energy-intensive sectors and activities. The Partnership has worked to develop and implement detailed action plans across key sectors of the energy economy, and to date has endorsed 175 collaborative projects including 22 flagship projects across all the seven Partner countries. These projects have, inter alia, helped power plant managers improve the efficiency of their operations, trained cement plant operators how to save energy at their facilities, assisted in pushing solar photovoltaics toward commercialization, and improved design, equipment and operations of buildings and appliances. The Partnership has been widely noted for its innovative work in public-private sector cooperation, and stands as an example of the benefits of international cooperative efforts in addressing climate change.

THE INTERNATIONAL CARBON ACTION PARTNERSHIP(ICAP) was founded on October 29, 2007, by a group of 15 governments in Lisbon, Portugal. ICAP is an international cooperation forum between states and substate regions aiming to link regional Emission Trading Schemes (ETS). ICAP is used as an open platform exchanging experiences and linking possibilities in specific linking topics likeMRV,carbon offsetsor Carbon-Leakage. It is a group of countries and regions that support carbon trading and are actively developing or have developed cap-and-trade systems. ICAP facilitates the linking of established and emerging cap-and-trade programs by promoting consistent regulatory frameworks across national borders.

History

The International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP) was founded on October 29, 2007. Leaders of more than 15 governments met in Lisbon, Portugal to launch the establishment of the International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). ICAP is made up of countries and regions that have implemented or are actively pursuing the implementation ofemission trading systems(ETS). ICAP includes members from the European Union and theEuropean Emission Trading Scheme(EU ETS),Western Climate Initiative(WCI),Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative(RGGI), and Australia, New Zealand and Norway. Japan and Ukraine are observers.The Californian Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared during the founding: “This first of its kind partnership will provide more incentives for clean-tech investment and economic growth while not letting polluters off the hook. And it will help renew the health of our planet.”

Many governments across the world have established or are developing cap-and-trade forgreenhouse gas emissions(carbon markets). They include the European Union’s trading system (EU ETS), the Norwegian trading programme, the New Zealand trading system (NZ ETS), the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the eastern region of the United States of America (USA), and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which includes western states from the USA and Canadian provinces.There is growing interest in other regions of the world in using carbon markets as a cost-efficient mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among others Japan, Mexico and the United States. Development and implementation of carbon markets requires cooperation, and further consideration of how the various markets can facilitate the transition to a globallow-carbon economy. The partnership provides a forum to share experiences and knowledge. Sharing and evaluating best practices will help ICAP members determine the extent to which their respective programs can be supported by, and or benefit from, the ICAP process.

ICAP was formed to contribute to the establishment of a well-functioning global cap and trade carbon market. ICAP provides the opportunity for member countries and regions to share best practices and learn from each other’s experiences. Linking current and emerging carbon markets at a global level establishes a level playing field for covered sectors and a consistent regulatory framework across national borders. Through this sharing, ICAP enhances the design of other market-based schemes by ensuring compatibility of design issues at an early stage. As a result, ICAP provides a forum to ensure capability of existing and emerging programs and enhances the promise for development of future linked carbon markets. To coordinate carbon market regulation an international clearinghouse should be installed. The International Carbon Action Partnership ICAP has already started preparing the linking of trading systems and could serve as a future regulatory body.

General Objectives

1. Sharing best practice and learning from each others’ experiences2. Ensuring that design compatibility issues are recognized at an early stage3. Facilitating future linking of trading programs.

Structure

ICAP is an open forum of governments and public authorities working on carbon markets through cap and trade systems. While all members and observers meet in person two times a year, the day to day work is carried out by the ICAP Steering Committee, supported by a Project Manager who is based in Berlin, Germany. The Project Manager is supervised by the Chair of the ICAP Steering Committee. British Columbia has been elected as Chair for 2009. To coordinate carbon market regulation an international clearinghouse should be installed. The International Carbon Action Partnership ICAP, founded in October 2007, has already started preparing the linking of trading systems and could serve as a future regulatory body.

Land use, land-use change and forestry(LULUCF) is defined by the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat as “A greenhouse gas inventory sector that covers emissions and removals of greenhouse gases resulting from direct human-induced land use, land-use change and forestry activities.”

LULUCF has impacts on the globalcarbon cycleand as such these activities can add or removecarbon dioxide(or, more generally,carbon) from the atmosphere, contributing toclimate change. LULUCF has been the subject of two major reports by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). Additionally,land useis of critical importance forbiodiversity.Land-use change can be a factor in CO2atmospheric concentration, and is thus a contributor to climate change.IPCCestimates that land-use change (e.g. conversion of forest into agricultural land) contributes a net 1.6 ± 0.8Gtcarbon per year to the atmosphere. For comparison, the major source of CO2, namely emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production amount to 6.3 ± 0.6 Gt carbon per year.This decision sets out the rules that govern how Kyoto Parties with emission reduction commitments (co-called Annex 1 Parties) account for changes in carbon stocks in land use, land-use change and forestry. It is mandatory for Annex 1 Parties to account for changes in carbons stocks resulting from deforestation, reforestation and afforestation (B Article 3.3)and voluntary to account for emissions from forest management, cropland management, grazing land management and revegetation (B. Article 3.4). The rules governing the treatment of land use, land-use change and forestry for the second commitment period are currently being renegotiated as part of the Bali Action Plan under the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).The most recent options for rule changes under consideration are summarized in a “Non-Paper” the co-chairs of the contact group on LULUCF (as of June 12).

Land use and biodiversity

The extent, and type of land use directly affectswildlifehabitatand thereby impacts local and global biodiversity. Human alteration of landscapes from natural vegetation (e.g.wilderness) to any other use typically results inhabitat loss,degradation, andfragmentation, all of which can have devastating effects on biodiversity. Land conversion is the single greatest cause ofextinctionofterrestrialspecies. An example of land conversion being a chief cause of the critically endangered status of acarnivoreis the reduction in habitat for theAfrican Wild Dog,Lycaon pictus.)Of particular concern isdeforestation, where logging or burning are followed by the conversion of the land to agriculture or other land uses. Even if some forests are left standing, the resultingfragmented landscapetypically fails to support many species that previously existed there.

REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION AND FOREST DEGRADATION(REDD)is a set of steps designed to use market/financial incentives in order to reduce the emissions ofgreenhouse gasesfromdeforestationandforest 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 fromdeforestationandforest 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.REDDis 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 corporations 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 thatmitigation of global warmingwill 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 theKyoto 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 theCoalition of Rainforest Nations. Participant nations includedPapua New Guinea,Costa Ricaand 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 BaliUNFCCCmeeting (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 inCopenhagenin 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 organizations support developing countries that wish to engage in REDD activities. TheWorld Banks’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, theUN-REDD Programme, andNorway’s International Climate and Forest Initiativeare 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 andfinancial lobbiesbehind 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”, “conservation” 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, theInternational 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 maintaining 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 communities; 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 negotiations 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 government announced their International Climate and Forests Initiative, which provided $500 million towards the creation and implementation 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).

Key Questions

A number of questions are being discussed and will inform the decisions on REDD at the upcoming 16th Conference of the Parties to theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They include: Example of forest structure mapping done during ground survey. Similar data are used as a baseline forMonitoring, reporting and verification of forest coverand allows to follow up carbon stock volume in time.The Structure of Funding MechanismsTying REDD into a broader system of carbon trading could allow developed countries or private firms to offset their own emissions and meet emissions reductions targets. However, some developing countries, such as Brazil and China, maintain that developed countries must commit to real emissions reductions, independent of any offset mechanism. Will it be based on current emissions levels or historical deforestation rates, a business-as-usual scenario? Will countries with different forest covers and historic deforestation rates hold different interests in the way the reference levels are constructed? Involving countries with high forest covers and low historic deforestation rates will be necessary to reduceperverse incentives.Distribution of BenefitsHow can the benefits from REDD be distributed to forest communities in a just, equitable way that minimizes capture of the benefits by national governments or local elites?

• Participation ofIndigenous peoplesand Forest-Dependent Communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of REDD activities, and respect for their human rights

• Strategies to prevent “carbon leakage”, caused by the displacement of deforestation to other areas

• Achieving multiple benefits, for example the conservation ofbiodiversityand ecosystem services (such as watersheds), and social benefits (for example income and improved forest governance).

Concerns

• The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful emission reductions at home.

• Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon markets. However, they could also facilitate ambitious emissions targets in a post-Kyoto agreement.

• Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold forIndigenous Peoplesand local communities.

• There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.

• The risk is that baselines are set unrealistically by developing country authorities and it’s not actually accurate around the forest’s carbon stocks

• There’s risks the local inhabitants, the communities that live in the forests, will be bypassed and they won’t be consulted and so they won’t actually receive any revenues

• Some projects are unaccountable and dodgy companies are taking advantage of the low governance.

• Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without apriorreform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems in many countries.

REDD-Plus

• In 2007, at the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Bali (COP-13) an agreement was reached called theBali Action Plan. As defined, its aims are directed toward forest conservation, sustainable forest management and the enhancement of carbon stocks.

• REDD-plus calls for activities with serious implications directed towards the local communities, indigenous people and forests which relate to reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Therefore this will involve enhancing existing forests and increasing forest cover. In order to meet these objectives, policies need to address enhancement of carbon stocks by providing funding and investments in these areas.

• In 2009, at COP-15 in Copenhagen, the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009 was reached, noting in section 6 the recognition of the crucial role of REDD and REDD-plus and the need to provide positive incentives for such actions by enabling the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.The Accord goes on to note in section 8 that the collective commitment by developed countries for new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, will approach USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012.For an effective REDD+ mechanism

The complexity of the issue could be better reflected in the way the question of agriculture is approached for the REDD+ mechanism at the international level. Although intensification – in other words the increase in productivity per hectare - is a key variable for long-term forest conservation, the problem cannot be resolved by this alone. The scientific findings previously presented all indicate that there is no simple, unequivocal relationship between changes in agricultural systems and tropical deforestation. However, the major trend to follow undoubtedly remains the increase in yields, without however basing this increase primarily on the provision of chemical inputs that increase the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions.One solution could theoretically lie in the rapid dissemination of a type of intensive agriculture in certain countries or regions – notwithstanding numerous problematic consequences, for example geographical specialisation implying a restrictive approach to the conservation of natural resources for the developing world. This option tends to maximise use of favourable agricultural conditions in certain regions, in order to indirectly preserve other countries or regions with less favourable conditions (a strategy known as “common agricultural pools”). It remains to be determined how a REDD+ mechanism could represent an incentive for this global strategy, in the sense that areas that are unsuited to agriculture would see an economic advantage in reaping the benefits of REDD+ and minimising their agricultural areas, and vice versa for other regions.

Necessary Public Support Policies

Public support policies are necessary. This may be understood in at least four different ways.

(a) Fostering changes in agricultural technologies First, it means that we must not count on spontaneous changes in technologies that may contribute to forest conservation objectives. Farmers show a strong tendency to adopt extensive systems when land is abundant in order to compensate for the scarcity of other factors of production such as labour and capital. Consequently, counting on the spontaneous innovation and adoption of new agricultural technologies implies accepting an increase in clearing while forest resources are abundant, and waiting until this resource is almost depleted before farmers attempt to remedy the problem! A certain number of macro tools must therefore be implemented, for example management of the industry, taxation applied to the agricultural sector, or the creation of an area network with agencies responsible for disseminating technologies among their potential users.

(b) Harmonising sectoral public policies The second way to interpret the need for public support policies amounts to accepting the importance of harmonising measures that have a direct or indirect impact on forest cover. These are the “forest-related policies”, which include all sectors of activity that have a significant impact: trade, taxation, infrastructure, regional control, and programmes encouraging human migration, etc. A strategy that is limited to just one sector of activity – here, agriculture – and not harmonised with the other sectors of activity, such as the construction of road infrastructure, would at best produce mixed, temporary results, and at worst be doomed to failure. Admittedly, some would argue that the “price signal” a carbon market would produce is itself capable of guiding decisions favourable to reducing emissions and therefore the harmonisation of policies if this harmonisation will lead to the objective being met. This idea is somewhat disconnected from reality, however, and political economy as well as governance issues must also be part of the analysis.

(c) Adopting the PES principle The third way to interpret public support policies is central. Indeed, some major opportunities exist for giving the principle of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) the position it could well deserve in the future. The beneficiaries of an environmental service establish voluntary contracts with the providers of this service (who control the natural resource) and condition their rewards on the maintenance of the service. In the case in question, PES would consist in measures aimed at conditioning support for the adoption of sound agricultural technologies on the absence of excessive forest clearing on nearby land. Farmers and landowners would thus benefit from the possibility of using technologies capable of increasing their production and income, and at the same time the adverse consequences of forest clearing could be minimised. In other words, the principle is to benefit from REDD+ funding for an ecosystem service (climate regulation through CO2 emissions reductions), in order to foster an agricultural revolution that would serve the interests of poor populations suffering from undernourishment on the one hand, and on the other, would avoid losing precious time in meeting the food challenge (substantially higher global food production by 2050). PES would therefore make it possible to set up contracts aimed at covering the costs of investment and of the transition towards new agricultural technologies.

(d) Acting on global demand The fourth way to interpret the need for support policies refers to the issue of demand for agricultural products. When production increases, demand also tends to rise in response to lower prices. This is known as the “rebound effect”. It is based on the behaviour of consumers and their tendency to increase their consumption when purchasing power enables them to do so. It seems there are few remedies to this, since it is undoubtedly unrealistic to restrict consumers in their consumption choices. It is sometimes suggested that action should focus on diets throughout the world, in both developing and developed countries in order to bring demand per capita into line globally, for example by attempting to reduce the share of dairy products and meat. Another alternative envisaged consists in setting up systems that would subject agricultural products to a kind of tax based on their carbon content but the implementation of such a system is still considered to be highly problematic.

THEMAN AND THE BIOSPHERE PROGRAMME(MAB) ofUNESCOwas established in 1971 to promote interdisciplinary approaches to management, research and education inecosystemconservation andsustainableuse ofnatural resources.The MAB programme’s primary achievement is the creation of theWorld Network of Biosphere Reservessince 1977. This World Network is more than a listing -biosphere reservesexchange knowledge and experiences on sustainable development innovations across country and continent borders - they exist in more than 100 countries all across the world. Biosphere reserves are areas that are supposed to develop innovative approaches, test them and share the results; more importantly to combine many different approaches in a vast diversity of policy and management fields, towards a balanced relationship between mankind and nature.

In order for an area to be included into the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, work on the ground has to have started, appropriate information about the region gathered, the population needs to have agreed. Nominations then are prepared and submitted to UNESCO by national governments, in most cases throughMAB national committees. Benefits gained from being part of the network include access to a shared base of knowledge and incentives to integrate conservation, development and scientific research to sustainably manage ecosystems.

Owing to the MAB programme’s focus to improving mankind’s relationship with nature, MAB has gradually been seen asUNESCO’s, and as one of theUnited Nations’s most important responses to international dialogues such as the 1992United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) and theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD). Ahead of the 1990s, the MAB programme was a research programme organized along 14 large research projects addressing ecosystems such as mountain areas, arid lands, etc.

During the initial years of the MAB programme, the designation of biosphere reserves focused on research questions and on environmental conservation. Hence, there are several national parks among the areas included in the network - these mostly encompass isolated wilderness with outstandingbiodiversityvalues. In the early 1990s, the MAB programme’s focus shifted to promoting interactions of mankind with nature in terms of sustainable living, income generation and reducing poverty. In biosphere reserves, nature is not isolated from man, but it is conservedthroughusing it. Hence, they are places where livelihood is sustained - even urbangreenbeltscan be found among the biosphere reserves.

In 1995, the secondWorld Congress of Biosphere Reservesheld inSevilleformally defined and designated a set of objectives and procedures governing the recognition of potential biosphere reserves based on this strategic thrust (Seville Strategyand theInternational Guidelines). Criteria have been set to ensure that the objectives of the programme will be met. A regular evaluation of biosphere reserves is obligatory. Therefore, many biosphere reserves which had been included during the 1970s and 1980s have in the meantime either been withdrawn from the World Network or redefined so as to remain relevant to this new setting. All relevant decisions in the MAB Programme are taken by an intergovernmental committee, theMAB International Co-ordinating Council(ICC): The 38 members of the ICC are government representatives which are elected for a four-year term by the UNESCO General Conference. The Secretariat of the MAB Programme is located with UNESCO Headquarters Paris. To date, 580 biosphere reserves in 114 countries have been included in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Courtesy: various websites