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

COP21 Paris snapshot #1: REDD

Posted on 11 December 2015

Last night at 21:00 a new version of the Draft Paris Outcome was released at COP21 in Paris. It’s down to 27 pages and has only 50 pairs of square brackets. That’s the good news. The rest is practically all bad news.

Of course fossil fuels aren’t mentioned anywhere in the text. The words “oil” and “coal” don’t appear. The word “gas” appears 24 times, but only in the context of “greenhouse gas emissions”, rather than the fossil fuel, natural gas.

The word “forest” appears four times, “forests” five times, and “deforestation” twice. The abbreviation “REDD” isn’t mentioned, but it appears as “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” twice.

REDD in version 1 of the Draft Paris Outcome

Here’s version of the “REDD paragraph” (Article 3 bis) as it appeared in the 9 December 2015 version (page 5):

[Article 3 bis] (REDD-PLUS)
 
1. Parties are encouraged to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of GHG as referred to in Article 4 paragraph 1(d) of the Convention.
 
2. Parties are encouraged to incentivize,[including by scaling up resources] the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to promote the conservation and sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries, while enhancing the non-carbon benefits; and to support alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaption approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, including alleviating poverty and building ecosystem resilience, in accordance with previous COP decisions related to forests.

On the evening of 9 December 2015, countries commented on the previous version (which had removed the word “mechanism”) of the draft text in a plenary session. (The more than three-hours-long plenary session can be watched here. Apparently the room smelled of chipboard and sweat.)

One after another countries from the Coalition for Rainforest Nations asked that the words “REDD-plus mechanism” be put back in text.

Climate Tracker took notes of the reactions to the draft text. Here are the reactions to the way REDD is mentioned in the text:

REDD in version 2 of the Draft Paris Outcome

On 10 December 2015 at 21:00 version 2 of the Draft Paris Outcome was released. Here’s the “REDD paragraph” (page 18-19):

Article 3 bis
 
1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gas as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention.
 
2. Parties may take action to implement and support, including by scaling up resources, policy approaches and positive incentives for 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; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention.

Here are the changes between the two versions:

  • Version 2 states that parties “should” take action to conserve and enhance sinks. (In version 1 they were “encouraged” to do so.)
  • Version 2 states that partis “may take action to implement and support” REDD. (In version 1 they were “encouraged to incentivize” REDD.)
  • In version 2, “scaling up resources” is no longer in square brackets.
  • In version 2, the words “policy approaches and positive incentives” have been added.
  • Version 2 states, “while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches”. (Version 1 stated, “while enhancing the non-carbon benefits”.)
  • Version 2 states, “as well as alternative policy approaches”. (Version 1 stated, “and to support alternative policy approaches”.)
  • In version 2, the words, “including alleviating poverty and building ecosystem resilience”, have been deleted.

REDD also appears in a paragraph about Finance (Page 6 – in the Decision part of the text, as apposed to the Agreement, which is an Annex to the Draft Paris Outcome):

60. Also decides that adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, shall be provided for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; pursuing the coordination of support to, inter alia, public and private sources, including the Green Climate Fund in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties;

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, President of COP21, says that the final text of the Paris Outcome will be presented one day late, on Saturday morning (12 December 2015).
 

  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Facebook

3 thoughts on “COP21 Paris snapshot #1: REDD”

  1. Norman Lippman, Living Story Foundation says:
    11 December 2015 at 11:29 pm

    The comments & questions you posted by Norman Lippman, Living Story Foundation (# 9) 11 December 2015 at 12:29 am, remain unanswered in your previous article & in your new articles: Snapshot #1 & Snapshot #2 where they increase in urgence. I’ve updated my comments slightly . RSVP ASAP.

    Chris Thanks again for your reply, you wrote, “You’re right, REDD could create the economic incentive for a land grab. Stopping this by putting rights in the REDD safeguards may sound like a good idea, but the UNFCCC negotiations on REDD safeguards are finished. How do you propose inserting text in a finished document?”

    Chris, The following might be a method for inserting text in a finished document. I present it mainly because it indicates that REDD may not be locked in stone. But I will ask you the question if not now, then how later to change REDD?

    Kate Dooley wrote, ”While the majority of countries do not want to see any reference at all to REDD+ in the text, the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, a group of rainforest nations led by Panama, want to establish a new REDD+ institution, which would centralise REDD+ finance. Brazil in particular is concerned that any reference to REDD+ could be seen as redefining REDD+ or requiring reinterpretation of the existing decisions.

    Chris, So given Brazil’s concern about “redefining REDD+ or requiring reinterpretation of the existing decisions”. It seems as if REDD could be, redefined “ or requiring reinterpretation”

    What organization or individual is being most effective at getting REDD reinterpreted at COP21 in regard to resource & human rights recognized & required?

    Chris, I am not an expert on UN negotiations & strategy, so I ask you, who monitors REDD the next logical question. If not by modifying REDD, then how do we get those safeguards and resource & human rights “recognized & required” prior to funding vs just having those rights “addressed” as REDD currently reads?

    What organization or individual has the most promising strategies for getting safeguards & rights recognized & required for forest peoples?

    Where can we find the best explanations of these strategies?

    I believe that many of us are wondering how to keep REDD from making the lives of forest peoples worse and seek the best strategies for ensuring that REDD does not do that. Thanks in advance

  2. KOLLEH BANGURA says:
    12 December 2015 at 8:06 am

    No. Because the Annexed 1 countries without saying prefer the volumtary markets on Carbon

  3. Chris Lang says:
    12 December 2015 at 4:27 pm

    @Norman Lippman, Living Story Foundation (#1) – Perhaps rather than insisting that I spend my time answering your questions, you should contact the REDD+ Safeguards Working Group.

    Good luck with inserting text about human rights into the REDD safeguards. Personally I think the safeguards are staggeringly weak, that REDD is neither going to protect forests nor address climate change. And I think REDD is the wrong mechanism for attempting to uphold land rights.

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

Recent Comments

  • Rachel De Moers on Verified hot air: how a popular carbon offset project in Peru has taken tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of companies and individuals but done nothing to prevent climate change
  • SusiM on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Forest offsets go up in smoke in California’s “forever fire”
  • Raymond sangster on EcoPlanet Bamboo’s investors were “significantly let down”
  • Nigel cross on Living Investments UK and Hyperion Management are boiler room scams that offered investments in teak plantations in Costa Rica. But will the UK authorities take any action?

Recent Posts

  • Blue carbon is “uncertain” and “unreliable” says new report
  • Forest offsets go up in smoke in California’s “forever fire”
  • Invictus Energy uses REDD to greenwash gas extraction in Zimbabwe
  • Brazilian Federal Prosecution Office gives Nemus 15 days to prove that it owns the land in the Amazon rainforest linked to its non-fungible tokens
  • Democratic Republic of Congo is auctioning 30 oil and gas blocks. Crypto initiative RedemptionDAO wants to buy “at least one block of land” and “co-create nature-based revenue streams with the Congolese people”

Recent Comments

  • Rachel De Moers on Verified hot air: how a popular carbon offset project in Peru has taken tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of companies and individuals but done nothing to prevent climate change
  • SusiM on The Carbon Credit Registry carbon credit “reformatting” scam continues: A company calling itself Williams & Gray is running a recovery room scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Forest offsets go up in smoke in California’s “forever fire”
  • Raymond sangster on EcoPlanet Bamboo’s investors were “significantly let down”
  • Nigel cross on Living Investments UK and Hyperion Management are boiler room scams that offered investments in teak plantations in Costa Rica. But will the UK authorities take any action?

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency 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 The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!