The Warsaw decision on summary of information on safeguards is staggeringly weak. Governments “should” provide a summary report every two years. Least developed countries don’t even have to do that if they don’t feel like it.
The Warsaw decision on national forest monitoring systems allows governments to decide for themselves how they define “forests”. A better way of undermining what little legitimacy REDD had is difficult to imagine.
Reactions to the Warsaw REDD deal are still coming in. Here are two very different reactions from two Indigenous Peoples organisations. The first, from the Indigenous Peoples Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative (IPCCA), is critical. The second, from the Tebtebba Foundation, is optimistic.
The Warsaw decision on coordinating REDD finance is not an agreement to coordinate REDD finance. It’s an agreement to hold a series of meetings, starting in 12 months’ time, about coordinating REDD finance. No institutional arrangements are established under this decision (unless a series of meetings counts as an institutional arrangement).
Simone Lovera is co-founder and executive director of the Global Forest Coalition, an international coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations. In this guest post, she describes the REDD deal that came out of COP19 in Warsaw as “the weakest text any international forest-related body has ever adopted”.