By Climatico Contributor: Nick Oakes

REDD+ technicalities agreed, finance not. (Source: Oxfam International)

Recalling last week’s benchmarks for the success of REDD+ negotiations at COP17, we can take each in turn and assess state of the negotiations on each topic. As expected, much of the discussion has been focussed on the MRV text (and addendum) from the SBSTA, which has now been presented to the COP for adoption this week.

There’s agreement that forest countries should be able to choose whether to use Reference Emission Levels (RELs) or Reference Levels (RLs). Forest countries will also be permitted to use RELs or RLs in different regions and aggregate up to a national level, allowing some much desired flexibility to the mammoth task of national accounting of forest carbon.

On the verification of emissions reductions, the text does not specify a body that is responsible for the verification. This could be forest countries, donor countries or third parties. Given the political element to verification – namely the protection of national sovereignty – it seems likely REDD+ could proceed down the same lines as the CDM, meaning forest country bodies approved by the UNFCCC will verify emissions reductions, although we will probably have to wait another year before there is clarity on this issue.

The text puts forward requirements for the reporting of safeguards. Controversially, and attracting criticism from many observers, it does not do enough to measure how safeguards will be respected, and in the event that they are not respected, detail the punitive measure faced by those in violation of those safeguards.

The concern here seems to largely relate to social safeguards – ensuring the rights of local communities are respected and penalties enforced, and their inclusion in the benefits of REDD+. The current text asks only that forest countries submit information on how they are implementing safeguards, which can be compared against standards set for their implementation. It does not require that forest countries submit information on the impacts of REDD+ on local communities, or to put it another way, whether the safeguards that have been implemented are fit for purpose. As Louis Verchot, climate change scientist at the Centre for International Forestry Research noted, “what has been put forward here are standards for reporting, not standards for performance, and we need to see decisions on performance standards to move forward with REDD+.”

The AWG-LCA has drafted a note on the outcomes of a number of working groups, but for the REDD+ working group, tasked with looking in to finance options, the text, unsurprisingly, does not show much in the way of material progress. At the moment the text seems to simply push back a decision on finance by asking the secretariat to provide financing options before the thirty-eight meeting of the SBSTA.

The remainder of COP17 will see the final adoption of the text presented to the COP by the SBSTA, possibly with some more clarity on a timescale and focussed discussions on the possibilities for finance options. With much of the technicalities agreed, however, getting REDD+ off the ground is now intimately dependent on reconnecting it back with discussions of international agreements and finance, to which the remainder of COP17 will be devoted.

By Climatico Contributor: Nick Oakes

Baby steps for REDD+ set to take place in Durban. (Image source: Nick Seers)

REDD+ is one of the building blocks for a new international agreement, and like other blocks, such as finance and technology transfer, it is one that many observers are hoping will become operational relatively soon, perhaps even in absence of a post-Kyoto agreement and the merging of the AWG-LCA with the AWG-KP.

There are four forums/themes in which REDD+ will be discussed at Durban. Most of the discussions so far have taken place within the AWG-LCA and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), whilst there have also been discussions in the AWG-KP, and the talks across multiple bodies on the common theme of finance. Briefly analysing each of these forums/themes will indicate some benchmarks for success and the likely outcomes at Durban.

Safeguarding the safeguards

In the Cancun agreements the SBSTA was tasked with building the methodological rigour needed to operationalise a REDD+ mechanism. The SBSTA called on Parties to submit guidance on three issues that need to be addressed for COP17: (1) the systems needed to provide guidance on how safeguards are addressed; (2) modalities of forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels; and (3) modalities for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV).

Turning first to the submissions on protection of safeguards, these are outlined in Annex I to the Cancun Agreements. They cover a range of topics, from national level policy promotion and consistency with the Convention, to ensuring there are results-based approaches and that relevant stakeholders’ needs are addressed.

There seems to be agreement that the systems for monitoring safeguards will be designed nationally. This means that the UNFCCC process will issue only guidelines on how to build the systems, whilst the systems themselves are constructed by each Party. Norway, however – perhaps resonant of broader developed country sentiment – suggests that Parties should submit information on how the systems are designed, as a means of quality control.

MRV still lurking

Turning to the forest reference levels and MRV – the former of which is a subcategory of the latter, and so probably better presented as one topic rather than two – some Parties have pointed to the lack of clarity on the definition of forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels. One suggestion is that the former cover REDD, while the latter cover REDD+. Establishing guidance used for construction of a reference level moves discussion on to baseline measurement, a key component necessary for operationalising a REDD+ mechanism.

A slight sideshow to this discussion is the inclusion of Development Adjustment Factors (DAF) in the reference levels. These are planned activities that cause deforestation or degradation in the future. It seems that many countries will push for their inclusion in reference levels at COP17, but the definitions and terms of usage may be more difficult to define post-COP, given that DAFs will doubtlessly be highly politicised.

On the principles of an MRV regime, these are broadly in agreement, in that it should be separate and independent from systems created to monitor safeguards, whilst reiterating they should be “non-intrusive, non-punitive, and respectful of national sovereignty and legislation.” Some countries have noted that much of the groundwork is in place for MRV principles, given its primacy at Cancun last year.

Some ad-hoc submissions

The AWG-LCA has continued working on a draft text within an informal REDD+ working group. However, given that the content of this text will be largely contingent on the outcome of the SBSTA, the exact nature of the draft text without agreement on the SBSTA’s submissions is somewhat unclear. Nonetheless, it is possible that if the essential elements of a decision are agreed, at the very least a draft decision on REDD+ could emerge.

With the AWG-KP, however, there is far less of a focussed discussion. It has been agreed that land-use, land-use change and forestry will be considered as an emissions source under the Kyoto Protocol (KP), but little has been negotiated on the subject of REDD+ within the KP.

One submission from a variety of forest countries outlines a possible means of including a REDD+ mechanism within the KP. However, given the amount of work going in to REDD+ outside of the KP, and that the continuation of the KP is by far the largest uncertainty at the talks, there is little chance this proposal will receive much attention.

Financing REDD+

Finance will undoubtedly be raised across a number of forums. For example, it seems to be agreed that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) will have a distinct REDD+ facility, whilst the majority of funding to date has come from Norway, via its own bilateral mechanisms.

It’s probable that forest countries will seek funding from a number of sources as a prerequisite to agreement on other issues, but as a theme itself there is little holistic oversight. In this sense finance has been more of a country-by-country approach, each individually seeking sources of funding. As a result, we are likely to see a push by forest countries to solidify funding commitments from multilateral sources, such as the GCF, whilst simultaneously coveting bilateral ties.

COP17 will undoubtedly result in Parties edging closer to approving the technicalities needed to get a REDD+ mechanism up and running, but given the complex, inter-linked nature of the mechanism’s connections to the overarching discussions on targets and legal nature of a successor to Kyoto, agreeing – possibly even formalising – the technicalities of a REDD+ mechanism and focussing discussions on finance is the most that Durban is likely to achieve. 

Manmohan Singh (source:wikimedia.org)

Manmohan Singh recently argued that annex 1 countries should provide 0.5% of GDP to help developing countries reduce emissions, and that India would not collaborate with inspection of their emissions unless this rose to 0.8%. It seems that conditional bargaining chips are all the rage these days in climate negotiations, after the EU’s offer of “a 20% reduction, or 30% if everyone plays nicely”.

Dr Singh’s plan is quite ambitious – Obama’s climate change envoy Todd Stern has already dismissed it out of hand. India’s climate change gurus have been taking an ear-bashing from Hillary Clinton this week, marking another rise in tensions between the US and India over emissions reductions.

Stern argues that India should fix a year for peak emissions and make sure that its emissions reductions are “MRV-able”, but as mentioned above, India demands increased amounts of cash if that is to happen. This does seem a little bit unreasonable. 0.5% of GDP seems like a fair deal given the various estimates of the costs of mitigation and adaptation for developing countries that have been flying around.

Something has to give somewhere, and you can bet that the horse trading will carry on right until the COP. It will be interesting to see how this pans out over the next few weeks, with only a few months until Copenhagen, and countries leaving themselves ever less wiggle room.