Author: Daniela Rey, ClientEarth

Aerial view of the Amazon Rainforest, near Manaus, the capital of the Brazilian state of Amazonas. Pic by Neil Palmer (CIAT).

Recent reports indicate that deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is not slowing down. In fact, it has jumped almost six-fold in the March-April period of this year, according to satellite images taken by the National Institute of Space Research. One factor which is contributing to this rise is the increasing demand for agricultural land to grow soy, cotton and other products – and new policies may propel this demand even further.

Brazil’s Congress voted Tuesday on proposed changes to Brazil’s Forestry Code. This Code was enacted in 1934 and amended in 1965 to help protect native Brazilian forests by limiting the amount of land a farmer can deforest. Regulations currently require landowners in Brazil to maintain 80% of their land as forest but the proposed changes will effectively allow more land to be converted for agricultural purposes.

The point of contention raised in recent reports was whether the current law impeded Brazil’s economic development and therefore needed to change. Environmentalists felt that changing the Forest Code to allow more land to be used for agriculture would be a disaster for Brazil’s rainforest ecosystems, while industries argued the changes were crucial to the country’s economy.

Deforestation and degradation in the Brazilian Amazon increasingly reflect market demands and private sector profitability, combined with a policy arena that, although averse to continued forest clearing, actively promotes activities that are among its principle driving forces.

Current government measures undertaken to reduce deforestation continue to be undermined by contradictory policies, particularly those within the agribusiness and mining sectors. The amendments to the Forest Code would exacerbate this trend.

The bill mandates that native vegetation must be conserved on private rural and farm properties, via creation of so-called Permanent Protection Areas to preserve “fragile” hillside and riverside areas, and legal reserves where native vegetation may not be touched. However, some small landowners will be exempt from the legal reserve requirement, according to the text of the bill. In addition, existing cultivation of some products including grapes, apples and coffee will continue to be allowed in areas designated as Permanent Protection Areas.

These exemptions recognize the current illicit practices that are driving deforestation, and which currently violate the Forest Code, but are not enforced.  Over the years, the vast majority of fines for illegal deforestation, when issued, have simply not been paid, despite recent increases in the value of those fines. The bill provides an amnesty for these illicit practices, and may encourage further deforestation in Brazil.

Moreover, the amendments to the Forest Code may have an important negative effect on Brazil’s capacity to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), an international policy approach developed under the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Brazil is also a key actor in the Interim REDD+ Partnership, currently chairing it with France.

Brazil’s main challenge in mitigating climate change is deforestation, which is responsible for up to 75% of Brazil’s CO2 emissions. Brazil has adopted a target for the reduction of deforestation of 80% in the Amazon and of 40% in Cerrado by 2020.

Thus far, the proposed changes to the Code have been approved in the lower house and will now proceed to the Senate for discussion and voting.

Daniela Rey blogs for ClientEarth, an organisation of activist lawyers committed to securing a healthy planet.

This article originally appeared in two parts. To see the articles in their original form, see article 1, and article 2.

Deforestation in Ecuador © stevemonty

Article by Guest Contributor: Natalie Antonowicz

During the second week of negotiations at Cancun, expectations for progress on the United Nations’ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) program declined. Delegates remained divided about rules on safeguards and finance, as well as the scope of REDD.

Overall, however, the second week of the Cancun Conference can be regarded as a success, in terms of the progress on REDD. In the agreement concluded in Cancun, “REDD is also part of the package and proposed mitigation actions [that] include conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks and sustainable management of forests”. The agreement “calls for the creation of national systems of monitoring and reporting actions that save forests, but also for sub-national monitoring and reporting as an interim measure”. Concerns for human rights, have also been integrated into REDD. The overall goal of the agreement signed at Cancun is to integrate and unify existing pilot projects.

While some consensus has been achieved at Cancun regarding social and environmental safeguards, as well as measures for ensuring transparency of funding, many concerns voiced by delegates have not yet been addressed. Topics related to REDD that remain to be decided upon include whether REDD ought to be financed via market-based mechanisms, and whether the Green Climate Fund will be used for REDD financing remains to be decided upon by the COP. Several Latin American states and NGOs remain concerned with whether the REDD program is able to adequately protect the rights of indigenous populations. Additionally, preventing corruption remains a central issue for REDD.

The agreements signed in Cancun represent the first time that REDD has been officially recognized in a United Nations climate change agreement.

Ms. Simona Gómez Lopez. Representative of the Indigenous peoples of Mexico. (Source: UNFCCC)

Article by: Ruth Brandt

The first week of the COP16 has come and gone, with barely a mention of REDD+ in the official negotiations. Some delegates attribute this to the fact that the REDD+ negotiating text is one of the more advanced ones, and that negotiators either want to bring other texts to a comparable level or just rather not open a nearly completed text to further negotiations.

A very different trend can be seen in the unofficial dealings – REDD-related side events abound, including a whole day dedicated to forests and climate change, and several reports dealing with various aspects of the REDD mechanism have been launched during the past week.

One issue that has been on the rise is the affect of the final structure of any REDD+ agreement on indigenous people. Before the beginning of the talks in Cancun the Bolivian ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon, condemned the REDD mechanism saying that “”Now they want to put a value on nature … this is what got us here in the first place”. A concern over the REDD mechanism however has long been voiced by grassroots organisations, who are not as easily accused of trying to throw a spoke in the climate talks wheels as representatives of the Bolivian government can be.

These concerns have, in the past week, made it into the official talks – in the opening session of the COP, Adelfo Regino Montes from Mexico spoke on behalf of the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC) saying that market based mitigation strategies, including REDD, threaten the rights of local communities, such as the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

However, as the actual negotiations on the REDD+ framework have yet to start in earnest, it is too soon to say whether stronger safeguards to protect the rights of local communities will indeed be incorporated into any agreement, or even whether their role in protecting forests will be officially recognised at all.

Article by Guest Contributor: Natalie Antonowicz

Deforestation in Capixaba, Acre, Brazil (Image source: visionshare)

Launched in 2008, The UN’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme aims to enable developing countries to reduce rates of deforestation via financial stimulation. Updated to REDD+, the program now encompasses conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. The program currently maintains nine pilot projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Ahead of the Cancun Conference, the Environment Committee of the European Parliament has called upon the EU to support REDD+. Stressing the role of forests in addressing climate change, the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for increased action against deforestation and forest degradation.

As described by German MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, deforestation represents a common responsibility, as “deforestation, illegal logging, burning off of the rain forests in Brazil, Indonesia and other countries cause about 6 billion tons of CO2 annually”, and is responsible for 25 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. This acknowledgement is key, as developed-developing country cooperation – and their clear commitment – are vital for the success of REDD.

At COP15, states did not agree on what type of finance ought to be used for REDD- related activities and initiatives. As such, it remains to be decided how a previously proposed fund for all climate activities would be managed, and whether REDD would be included in it. Additionally, varied proposals exist regarding the scope of REDD+, and clarification of this is needed. The same is true for social and environmental safeguards for REDD, which have been discussed at previous climate conferences, but have not been definitively agreed upon. Specifically, the issue of how to hold funders and recipients responsible for safeguards remains ambiguous.

Significant progress on issues related to deforestation and forest degradation is expected at COP16. While pundits remain doubtful about the prospect of reaching an agreement about accounting and financing, as it pertains to REDD, many are optimistic about general REDD-related progress at the conference, and some have gone as far as to dub the conference ‘REDD-COP’.

Ultimately, delegates must tie the loose ends, and settle outstanding debates about REDD and REDD+, to ensure that states are able to adequately address environmental issues arising from deforestation and forest degradation.

Authors: Sabrina Chesterman & Nyla Sarwar.

As the climate talks gain pace in Bonn, progress is being made on a new text, designed to resurrect chances of a global agreement in Cancun in December. Many, including outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, are still hesitant about Cancun being able to achieve a deal, which was originally supposed to have been reached at Copenhagen last December. One of the Mexican negotiators, Luis Alfonso de Albo, has used the coverage at Bonn to try and instill confidence in what may be achieved there, stating a climate deal is still ‘positive’.

The Bonn meetings have brought together key negotiating groups, including;

(I)              AWG-KP – to focus on further commitments by Annex I parties, based on text prepared by the Chair

(II)            AWG-LCA – to focus on preparation of an outcome to be presented to at COP 16, based on a new text by the Chair

(III)           Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – which will consider issues including national communications and reporting, the financial mechanism and capacity building.

(IV)          Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) – which will consider methodological issues, technology transfer and the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.

The Bonn discussions have entered their second week with many fundamental questions still remaining regarding the legality of the proposed agreement, emission levels and temperature goals.  The big white elephant in Hotel Maritim where the discussions are being held, lingering from Copenhagen, centres on the scale of commitments by developed and developing countries. The new text aims to ameliorate the huge bridge that exist between these groups and integrate the Copenhagen Accord with the 2009 versions of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP texts.

In regards to finance, the new text states that that all finance will be new, additional, adequate and predictable. Whilst developed countries have committed to a goal of mobilising USD$100bn/pa by 2020, there is still uncertainty about which countries will contribute towards this and how much. Discussions regarding the generation of private funds have seen suggestions of a potential international cap-and-trade system with auctioned permits. There have also been references to the creation of a Finance Board within the UNFCCC to manage the operators of the agency’s financial mechanisms (i.e the GEF and the Climate Fund), including the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund (CGCF). Disillusionment regarding funding is also created due to the texts reference to the Copenhagen Adaptation Framework (CAF), implemented through international collaboration. The CAF aims to undertake 11 activities (e.g. planning, vulnerability assessments, strengthening institutional capacities, building resilience, disaster risk reduction etc.) all of which require extensive funding.  Worryingly the text remains sparse on new market mechanisms, likely to be critical to galvanise funding, especially from private and public sector partnerships.  In addition, as the EU Commissioner for Climate Change, Connie Hedegaard, made clear last week discussing the monetary agreements in lieu of the destabilised Euro does not come at an easy time, especially with money having to be drawn from the public purse.  Therefore funding remains a sensitive yet pivotal topic, especially if alliances are to be bridged between different negotiating groups.

Some aspects of the text being prepared at Bonn remain unchanged from the text prepared at Copenhagen. An example includes the issues surrounding REDD and REDD+, which was hailed as one of Copenhagen’s successes. In addition, the text regarding technology transfer remains unchanged from last year, and this section is considered to deliver a major outcome. The text suggests that establishment of a Climate Technology Centre and Network – the mechanism to support and organise the transfer of technology, encourage collaborative innovation, and skills development for developing countries. It is expected to be funded by the overarching funding mechanism and could begin as early as January 2011. Leading on from technology transfer, discussions so far at Bonn regarding capacity building have been largely inconclusive with additional brackets added to the text, and wide disagreement concerning its funding, delivery mechanism and reporting. With key uncertainties remaining, negotiators at Bonn have a lot of talking to do this week if success is to be achieved in any of these areas and a clear path to Cancun is to be laid.

France has been a leading nation in climate change negotiations in the recent past. French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for a national carbon tax on global-warming pollutants. Generally, he recognizes that “We are on the road to failure…Time is not on our side.” He has even gone so far as to suggest the creation of a new international organisation to deal with climate change. But after major losses to his party in regional elections earlier this year, the government has been backpedaling on things like the carbon tax.

But running up to the Bonn Climate Change Talks (31 May to 11 June), France has continued to organize summits and partnerships striving to move forward the UNFCCC climate change negotiation process. Prime among these have been: 1. the Oslo-Paris REDD negotiating process and 2. the Africa-France Summit.

Paris-Oslo process was initiated by France and Norway to build on progress made at the Copenhagen last December towards an international mechanism to fund forest protection. The program — called REDD Plus, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation — will encourage rich nations to voluntarily finance forest-protecting projects while coordinating that aid to avoid waste and ensure transparency.

During the last meetings of the Paris-Oslo process on 27 May 2010 in Oslo more than $4 billion had been pledged by developing nations to kick-start international REDD+ efforts aimed at halting deforestation and restoring forests in developing countries. Effectively, the feeling is that with money on the table and the urgency to halt GHG emissions from the clearing and degradation of tropical forests, REDD+ should move ahead even in the absence of a new global climate agreement.  But there is some concern from NGOs that currently REDD+ lacks indigenous participation and transparency.

France has been taking an active role in brokering relations between Africa and EU-nations. The Africa-France Summit convened from 31 May to 1 June in Nice, France. The Summit addressed the theme of “climate and development.” A main goal of including reconciling climate change with development, poverty reduction, and food security was put forth. European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs, took part in the Summit. He was adamant that common solutions could come under the broader African-EU Strategic Partnership.

The UNFCC session in Bonn marks the resumption of the climate negotiations within the UN framework. France believes that the UNFCCC should remain central to the negotiations and benefit form the contributions of smaller initiatives, allowing advanced progress to be made on certain tracks of the overall discussion.

Now the world waits to see the effect of the talks France has helped to broker in past months.

On 11 March 2010 French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, opened an international conference on deforestation in Paris. The main focus of the International Conference on the Major Forest Basins was funding for REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, plus conservation, sustainable management of forests, and stock enhancement) activities during 2010-2012.

France and Norway are leading this effort to foster new climate partnership in 2010.

“Forests are in danger,” France’s Ecology Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, said at a press conference. France intends to play a major role in saving the world’s forests, Borloo said, thanks to its “expertise in science and forestry.”

“The idea is to establish a partnership of everyone who wants to be included [in safeguarding forests], stated Norway’s Environment Minister, Erik Solheim. According to Solheim, the initiative will be transparent and “it will be open to everyone, even if you don’t contribute one single dollar, even if you don’t have a single tree.”

The conference brought together representatives from 54 countries, representing the main forest basins in the world as well as potential donor countries. The major focus was on the collective pledge for nearly US$3.5 billion in initial funding for REDD+ over the period 2010-2012 by Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK and the US (made in Copenhagen in December 2009).

Not many details on this first conference are available, but there is expectation the throughout a series of conference mechanisms will be established to go through the United Nations, the World Bank, and bilateral channels. Norway has existing bilateral agreements, which may serve as a model in the process. For example, Norway plans to include up to $1 billion for Brazil from 2008-2015, up to $280 million for Guyana from 2010-2015 and about $83 million for Tanzania. But, each of these contributions schemes also come with strings attached, depending on performance.

During the Conference, participants engaged in three sessions on: pledges of initial funding and action for forests; coordination of initial funding and action for forests; and organization of long-term international action concerning REDD+. A second conference will be organized in Oslo, Norway, in May 2010

Many developing countries with forests to protect seem pleased with the arrangement of having France and Norway in a leadership role. Norway has a strong donor performance for forest issues, while France, and President Sarkozy in particular, has been an advocate for partnerships and open dialogue in REDD+ negotiations, before and after Copenhagen (e.g. France-Brazil initiative in November 2009).

Author: Kelly McManus

REDD+ Wildfire (Image by: B.G. Johnson)

Throughout COP15, forests have proven to be the one issue that all negotiating blocs can (at least generally) agree upon.  As we arrive at the end of the this historic meeting, a global deal on climate stands on shaky grounds but REDD+ remains stable, shaping up to be quite possibly, the single success story of the COP.

We may argue that REDD+ without broader emissions targets will fail to create net emissions reductions, and that further warming is a major threat to forests regardless.  These are valid points that must be addressed.  But nevertheless, late last night a REDD+ text was agreed to by negotiators to hopefully be signed today by the heads of state.  As one of the delegates of the contact party on REDD+ said of coming out of the session last night, “Compared to everything else, the REDD text is on schedule. Last night the contact groups reported back and you could almost detect the classroom envy as we were the goody two-shoes who handed in the assignment on time. There was a sense of history that this is finally when REDD became real.”

Why has REDD+ succeeded where everything else has failed?  Perhaps it has to do with the incentives, local to global, to maintain forests.  Perhaps it is the “+”-the fact that, beyond functioning as carbon sinks and stores, forests provide essential co-benefits including biodiversity, regional water cycling, cultural identity, and local livelihoods.  A carbon-centric view of forests might deem REDD+ in the absence of broader targets a failure, but it is only in taking a larger, holistic view of forests that REDD+ could have made it this far.   REDD+ has gotten the incentives right for the countries who needed to agree to it, and thus stands poised to become the largest coordinated effort to stop deforestation the world has seen.

The outcome of the rest of the day is, of course, of critical importance to the fate of the forests and the fate of, well, our world.  It is perhaps too soon to celebrate this small victory, and the larger and more ominous context of a failed global treaty in which this small victory may occur must not be disregarded.   Efficient, equitable, and fair implementation will be challenging, and long term finance must be secured. But I’d like to think that forests everywhere just breathed out a long, oxygen-filled, sigh of relief.

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Protesters demand respect for indigeneous rights in REDD negotiations (Image by: Matthew McDermott)

Since the beginning of the Copenhagen negotiations, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) mechanism has been seen as one of the most likely to reach agreement.  However, the nuances of the mechanism have caused concern over the rights of indigenous peoples and overall financing, among other issues.  In the first week of the Copenhagen negotiations these concerns caused an outcry for more stringent targets and foci for the REDD+ structure (for more on this, click here.)

The second week of negotiations has been plagued by contentious negotiations, halted meetings and walkouts.  Political pressure to come to an agreement in the next three days has increased with the arrival of over 110 heads of State at the Bella Center.  Amid the chaos of the negotiation process there have been some positive moves, especially with regards to provisions under a REDD+ mechanism.

Cara Peace, Tropical Forest Group’s Assistant Director for Policy, states that, “REDD is one of the few areas where significant progress has been made in Copenhagen.”  Two critical elements of REDD+ have come closer to consensus between parties in the last couple days.  Firstly, forests and those residing within forests need “early action” language to fast track financing to save forests immediately as possible.  Secondly, to move forward, national forest reference levels and timelines need be decided.  Both these issues have been addressed in late night meetings.

Once the text forces decisions on reference forest emission levels, it is suspected that generating conservation funding for tropical forests will become easier.  But this presents a difficult circle of distrust in the negotiations.  ”It’s hardly surprising that developing countries won’t commit to global targets for deforestation when rich countries haven’t yet provided the necessary financing for REDD,” said Nathaniel Dyer of Rainforest Foundation, UK.  So, which comes first to break a potential halt in the negotiations; developing county targets or financing promises?

To this point there has been an increased focus on involving private sector investment and input within the REDD+ institutional set-up.  But private sector investments require “signaling” that REDD+ will be viable, and that starts with development of binding targets.  Additionally, private finance seems to spur on heightened concerns by nations and those residing in forests that safeguards against false solutions that are non-additional and allow for leakage must be taken.

The Tropical Forest Group also reports that there has been some progression in the language used to specify indigenous people’s rights.  Though, key safeguards to protect indigenous people’s rights and limitations to forest conversion to plantations were moved from the operative section of the text to a non-binding preamble text.  But the text now makes explicit reference to protection of natural forests for the first time.

The length of the REDD+ framework continues to expand and contract, but at least there is movement and progress amongst otherwise halting negotiations in Copenhagen.  But will political pressures and the time crunch be too much for developing a strong REDD+?  Two more days….

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Deforestation and uncontrolled grazing leads to erosion (Image by: treesftf)

As negotiations continue, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Enhanced Carbon Stocks (REDD+) is viewed as one of the only mechanisms expected to be agreed upon during the ongoing climate change talks in Copenhagen.  But an excellent point is being made – a successful REDD+ program requires a strong global CO2 target.  Without a global objective, any framework agreed for REDD+ will continue to allow deforestation without a clear finish line in view.  So, before we can even approach the complexity of the REDD+ mechanism itself, we require: a CO2 limitation target, a full understanding of the carbon stocks and governance structures for forests, and a sense of the financial commitments available, among other things.  The debate around REDD+ has been focused on issues of methodology, local communities, and indigenous people, as well as finance mechanisms.

That is a lot to settle in the one remaining week of COP15!

Running up to Copenhagen, REDD+ was often lauded as a sort of silver bullet towards addressing large-scale CO2 output reductions.  Draft REDD+ text coming into Copenhagen included a global objective for halving deforestation by 2020 and totally halting net forest loss by 2030.  The UNFCCC had assumed that forests account for about 20 % of global CO2 output, but Dutch researchers recently reported that the maximum level is likely closer to 12 % (Van der Werf, et al., 2009.

Surprisingly, discussions of REDD+ do not appear to have been damaged too much by this report.   “Even with lower emissions, avoiding deforestation remains the cheapest and quickest way to realize huge reductions,” says Herbert Christ from the Congo Basin Forest partnership (CBFP), a platform of ten Congo Basin countries.

Sure, a global REDD+ objective can help the world stay at or below 2C warming, but this does not come free of charge.  It is vital that developed countries commit to the level of funding consistent with realizing the goals of a REDD+ plan.  All this week, the potential socio-economic outcomes of REDD+ have been discussed at multiple side-events to the official negotiations.  It is stressed that REDD+ can simultaneously reduce emissions and alleviate poverty through rewarding local communities for forest conservation efforts.  But realizing side benefits depends heavily on significant and reliable streams of funding.  And well, once funds are secured, how they are distributed and monitored is a major concern.

All aspects of the Copenhagen negotiation package require funding, e.g. technology transfer, adaptation, mitigation; thus, it is hard to imagine that REDD+ will come off fully-funded with ease.  The “Copenhagen Launch Fund” was announced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the summit of Commonwealth Leaders last week in Trinidad & Tobago.  But the proposed 10 billion USD funding (meant to come from donations by the UK and other developed nations) to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change is not enough, says Solomon Islands Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Colin Beck.

Throughout the week , this has been the ardent position of the developing nations.  Thus, when adaptation funding offered is barely ten-percent of what developing nations require (110 billion USD), how can REDD+ expect to be fully financed (by the 11 donor countries) in a totally separate pool of money?

However, there has been impressive movement by some developed nations on setting the framework of REDD+ and the associated Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).  Thursday, France clashed with other EU states in advocating strong baselines under this system for all nations.  French climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, called accounting methods proposed by EU nations most dependent on forestry “sloppy, and even fraudulent.”  He went on to state that “the EU cannot embrace fraudulent methods and then turn around and ask developed countries to accept something that they are not willing to impose on themselves.” Lalonde.  Coming up to Copenhagen, France worked with REDD+ countries (especially those of South America) to establish viable methods for that program as well (click here to read more).

There were a number of side events concerning REDD+ throughout this first week of COP15.  Many of these events highlighted REDD+ pilot projects in some of the 37 nations covered under the plan.  Naturally, the implementation of a final REDD+ system will be complex due to differences in country and local-level needs in forest conservation.  But the general idea to which many negotiators are distilling REDD+ to over the last days is a system whereby developing countries are rewarded with carbon credits for sustaining their forests.  The same concerns were voiced by nation after nation.  Primarily, concerns fall under two themes: 1) protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; and 2) distribution of funds from federal government to localities.

Throughout the week, Guyana stressed the need to implement standardized Readiness Preparedness Proposal (RPP) procedures for countries covered by REDD+.  There is an evident capacity gap in the understanding the extent of deforestation in many countries, especially when left to self-report.  There is temptation to overlook some illegal logging, and without GIS technology, it is difficult to be accurate; chances of non-additionality and leakage are extended as well.  To this point, Guyana has also discussed a National Inventory Process that would be supported and standardized under REDD+.

Though many countries seem convinced that they will benefit from the REDD+ program, indigenous voices continue to warn that money from national-level carbon credits might not make it to them.  In this view REDD+ is intertwined with human rights laws.  To this point there has been discussion of adopting “pro-poor policies,” that protect the most marginal of indigenous peoples.  Yet, that seems to be a cloaked way of calling for total national reform to protect indigenous people in 37 countries, some of which qualify as the most unstable in the world.  And well, some of those nations still hope to get credits for forest plantations that are not cut but used for generation of products, like palm oil.

So many loose ends seem apparent… So, the real question is—does REDD+ put the cart before the horse?  Are all the discussions tailoring details without a solid and viable holistic vision of REDD+?  Not to mention PINC?

For a more comprehensive overview of all proposals on REDD+ and PINC, see the Little REDD+ Book.