Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

What came out of Warsaw on REDD? Part 1: The REDD decisions

Posted on 25 November 201314 October 2015
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Negotiators at the UN climate negotiations in Warsaw last week agreed a series of decisions on REDD. Ecosystem Marketplace reported at 20:30 on 22 November 2013, that, “Complete REDD package sails through the COP. It’s now a done deal.”

This is the first of a series of REDD-Monitor posts looking at the negotiations and decisions at COP19 in Warsaw. We’ll start with the decisions themselves. Negotiators in Warsaw came to seven decisions relating to REDD (listed below). The Cancun Mandate for REDD has now been completed.

Later in the week, I’ll look at some of the reactions to the REDD decisions that came out of Warsaw, and at some point I’ll try to work out what all of this might actually mean for people and forests. In the meantime, feedback, comments and suggestions are welcome.

In a press release, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that,

“Governments have shown their firm commitment to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Warsaw. They have delivered a set of decisions that will make a significant impact in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries and catalyze actions in this critical area of addressing climate change.”

The decision came in the context of the failure in Warsaw to address climate change. The best the UNFCCC could say in its press release at the end of COP19, was that the conference kept governments “on track towards 2015 climate agreement”. The process was not totally derailed, in other words.

Here are the REDD decisions, taken from the UNFCCC website (the titles in bold come from the REDD+ Safeguards Working Group, the titles in UNspeak are from the UNFCCC):

  • REDD+ finance (in the COP): Work programme on results-based finance to progress the full implementation of the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70 (pdf file, 75 KB);
  • Coordination of finance (in the joint SBI/SBSTA): Coordination of support for the implementation of activities in relation to mitigation actions in the forest sector by developing countries, including institutional arrangements (pdf file, 64 KB);
  • National forest monitoring systems (SBSTA): Modalities for national forest monitoring systems (pdf file, 55 KB);
  • Summary of information on safeguards (SBSTA): The timing and the frequency of presentations of the summary of information on how all the safeguards referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I, are being addressed and respected (pdf file, 19 KB);
  • Forest reference emission levels (SBSTA): Guidelines and procedures for the technical assessment of submissions from Parties on proposed forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels (pdf file, 85 KB);
  • Measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) of forest-related emissions (SBSTA): Modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying (36 kB) (pdf file, 55 KB);
  • Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (SBSTA): Addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (pdf file, 56 kB).

 

Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

Related

5 thoughts on “What came out of Warsaw on REDD? Part 1: The REDD decisions”

  1. WD says:
    26 November 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Thanks Chris – look forward to some analysis about what all this means and if it’s a good deal.

  2. Ashwin Ravikumar says:
    26 November 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Thank you for compiling this, Chris. It’s been difficult to actually get a sense of what this agreement means.

    The way it’s presented in the linked PDFs is still a bit hard to digest, because most of the “substance” actually refers to other/secondary documents.

    An *awesome* product, along with the critical analysis that I have no doubt you’ll be conducting soon, would be a summary of each of these domains with the original language of the agreements all in one place, so that a reader does not have to search for 2/CP.13, 4/CP.15, etc. in order to make sense of what they’re reading.

    Cheers

  3. Chris Lang says:
    26 November 2013 at 5:43 pm

    @Ashwin Ravikumar (#2) – Thanks for this. I’m probably going to look at each of the decisions in turn and write a post on each. The *awesome* product that you suggest is a good idea. Basically, every time the UNFCCC takes a decision, it has to remind itself that this isn’t the first time its made decisions relating to this topic. This has the unfortunate consequence that as time goes on, things get more and more difficult to understand.

    I could provide a list like this (which would include all the previous decisions referred to in the report):

    2/CP.13 is the Bali Decision on “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action”, available here.

    4/CP.15 is the Copenhagen Decision on “Methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries”, available here.

    Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of?

  4. AB says:
    26 November 2013 at 9:12 pm

    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for all your work summarizing the REDD-related decisions from Warsaw (and the analysis to come!). Just wondering if you can provide some info in your analysis on the position of the Papua New Guinean delegation that caused some delays/discontent in the finance negotiations (which I think you covered in previous tweets/retweets). Thanks.

  5. Ashwin Ravikumar says:
    26 November 2013 at 9:41 pm

    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for the response! Yeah, that’s similar to what I was envisioning. Really, just having hyperlinks in the decision texts would make things them so much easier to read.

    Look forward to hearing more from you on this!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

REDDisms

“Valuing a forest only for its carbon is like valuing a computer chip only for its silicon. The benefits for biodiversity and local livelihoods must not be viewed as add-ons, but as central to a successful REDD scheme.”

— Melanie Heath, Senior Advisor on Climate Change, Birdlife International, December 2010

Recent Posts

  • Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Peru cancels its World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund programme
  • The World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s latest hot air scam: Retroactive credits
  • Some questions for Frithjof Finkbeiner, founder of Plant-for-the-Planet

Recent Comments

  • Arthur Charles Claxton on Graeme Biggar, Director-General of the UK’s National Economic Crime Centre: “There is not a sufficient deterrent for fraudsters and there is insufficient recourse for victims”
  • Chris Lang on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • Sam on Blackmore Bond collapse: Financial Conduct Authority is “responsible for every penny lost”
  • barrywarden on Coronavirus notes #7: How the Colombian government is rolling back social and environment safeguards during the pandemic
  • Chris Lang on Why has the Financial Conduct Authority not taken down the website of the clone scam “Good Investment Advisors”?

Issues and Organisations

AB 32 Boiler rooms Bonn California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer Sustainable Forest Management The Nature Conservancy Ulu Masen UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2021 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!