EDF Talks Global Climate

States Should Welcome REDD+ into International Aviation Carbon Offset Program

Sectoral scale REDD+ programs meet or exceed proposed CORSIA offset

aircraft-landing-reach-injection-47044-700x325

Source: pixabay.com

Two important climate change initiatives are advancing and their future success looks more and more intertwined. The Carbon Offset Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) of the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO) is approaching the end of a policy-making phase to finalize environmental criteria for offset programs – which will be necessary for airlines to meet the international aviation sector’s climate commitments. At the same time, many countries striving to conserve their tropical forests are looking for sources of funding for large-scale programs for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+).

ICAO recently hosted a seminar in Montreal on carbon markets. The seminar occurred as ICAO Member States are considering draft Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for implementing CORSIA, including environmental integrity criteria for offset programs and emissions credits. With some countries having submitted their observations on the proposals this week, and more slated to do so by April 20th following a series of regional seminars on CORSIA, the 36-member ICAO Council aims to finalize and adopt the SARPs this June. ICAO’s CORSIA Resolution directs the Council to establish, with the technical contribution of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), a standing technical advisory body to make recommendations to the Council on the eligible emissions units for use by the CORSIA. While the Council is establishing this body, proponents of different programs like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and REDD+ will be informing decision makers about their ability to supply high-integrity offsets.

Why REDD+ is a great solution for CORSIA

REDD+ is the only sectoral set of policy approaches to be featured in the Paris Agreement, which will govern global climate action starting in 2021. REDD+ received special recognition by the world’s climate policy makers, for two reasons. First, dramatic reductions in emissions from deforestation can play a key role in the battle to avert dangerous climate shifts. Second, the world’s nations have set out a multilaterally agreed framework for measuring these reductions, ensuring that forest protection proceeds with environmental/biological and social safeguards, providing basic guidance for market-based transfers of these reductions, and ensuring environmental integrity through accounting and transparency. The UNFCCC’s 2013 Warsaw Framework for REDD+ and related UNFCCC Decisions set a precedent for these programs to proceed at jurisdictional or national rather than simply project scale in order to develop and enforce policies to address deforestation at a large scale, prevent leakage of deforestation, and avoid double claiming of emissions reductions.

Parallel to the development of the Warsaw Framework for REDD+, the World Bank, nine donor governments and TNC created the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) to help tropical forest countries prepare plans to reduce deforestation nationwide, and to pilot results-based payments for those reductions. These countries are succeeding in reducing emissions from deforestation – and payments for their results could be issued by the end of 2018.

The guidance provided by Warsaw Framework for REDD+ and the upcoming results of the FCPF are two important reasons why REDD+ should be a source of offsets for CORSIA. As the FCPF is demonstrating, REDD+ that meets the UN’s multilaterally agreed Warsaw Framework is achieving real results, and deserves to be a source of offsets for CORSIA.

A recent analysis of REDD+ by Climate Advisers demonstrates how REDD+ programs implemented under the Warsaw Framework meet CORSIA’s draft Emissions Unit Eligibility Criteria. Another just released study by Climate Advisers discusses why REDD+ is a good option for airlines needing to meet their CORSIA obligations.

What are other potential offset suppliers for CORSIA?

During an ICAO seminar held in February in Montreal, potential offset suppliers gave short presentations of their programs to an audience of about 200 people. Reviewing the workshop program, one can’t help but notice a big focus on the CDM. The CDM’s existence is not guaranteed in the new post-2020 climate regime for many reasons. But one prominent factor is the risk that if the CDM actually did achieve real reductions, those reductions could be claimed both by the host country in the context of the Paris Agreement, and by an airline in CORSIA. That would negate the climate benefit of CORSIA. Flawed CDM credits should not be allowed to crowd quality REDD+ credits out in CORSIA.

But can REDD+ actually supply CORSIA? EDF researched this question and found that the answer is yes – even when doing proper accounting to ensure no double counting. Another interesting finding is that if REDD+ is used, many emerging markets could see net economic benefits. See, for examples, analyses by Climate Advisers of net benefits for Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru.

Making a match of REDD+ and CORSIA

Evaluating CORSIA’s draft Emissions Units Criteria, REDD+– under the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ or the FCPF– meets or exceeds them. Sourcing offsets from REDD+ offers more than just environmental benefits. In addition to generating significant potential supply of emissions reductions, REDD+ activities can also generate significant economic and social co-benefits, in addition to offering higher regulatory certainty than other mechanisms. CORSIA policy makers would be well advised to acquaint themselves with REDD+ – the only sectoral program for the new Paris climate regime agreed upon by 193 countries.

Also posted in Aviation, Deforestation, Uncategorized / Leave a comment

New report shows landscape of finance for REDD+ and climate action in forests

Shutterstock

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund and Forest Trends identifies the sources of funding currently available for REDD+ and climate action in forests, and analyzes the challenges and opportunities for accessing and coordinating this finance. Designed to serve as a resource for negotiators, policymakers, practitioners, NGOs, and others involved with the implementation of REDD+ and climate action in forests, the report aims to contribute to scaling up, coordinating, and allocating funding in a timely, efficient, and effective manner.

The report, “Mapping Forest Finance: A Landscape of Available Sources of Finance for REDD+ and Climate Action in Forests”:

    • Describes the sources of finance available for each phase of REDD+ —Readiness (Phase 1), Implementation (Phase 2), and Results-based Finance (Phase 3) – and related climate action in forests by detailing each finance source’s: type, mechanism, eligibility requirements, scale, access process, scope, and challenges.
    • Presents information that is both historical and forward looking so as to provide context and inform future decisions when it comes to planning REDD+ implementation and supporting financial strategies combining a diversity of funding sources. The Green Climate Fund, for example, recently announced a pilot program for forest sector results-based payments. Additionally, while not yet an available source of results-based finance, transfer-based payments (TBPs) are a potential source of viable funding for performance based results. Parties in the UNFCCC are currently negotiating internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) as a part of Article 6.2, which will determine the exact nature of TBPs in relation to REDD+.
    • Reveals many challenges with and opportunities for accessing and coordinating finance for REDD+ and climate action in forests at the international and national level. Key challenges identified include minimizing the gap between what is available and what is needed for each REDD+ phase; developing cohesive national visions that can be translated into usable investment plans; allocating funding appropriately according to cross-sectoral and coherent national finance strategies; and aligning requirements and criteria under funding sources for consistency and coherency of requirement processes so to facilitate access and disbursements.
    • Highlights challenges specific to forest landscape restoration (FLR), such as the high costs associated with addressing degradation and promoting sustainable management of forest landscapes, when compared to activities for reducing emissions from avoided deforestation. This challenge creates the need for more comprehensive national REDD+ visions that include activities to address the barriers for sustainable management of forests and enhancement of carbon stocks; and
    • Describes the opportunities for both accessing and coordinating finance, which range from exploring viable, complementary sources of market-based REDD+ finance for Phase 3 to redirecting sources of funding for agriculture, for example, to finance REDD+ activities.

The report also reflects how many finance sources are able to fund multiple phases of REDD+, considering that REDD+ phases often overlap and operate simultaneously, as seen in the infographic below which shows the sources of finance and funding mechanisms for the three phases of REDD+. Such a comprehensive landscape of complementary and/or synergistic sources of funding can contribute to defining efficient and coherent financial strategies for REDD+ design and implementation.

The report, produced with support from IUCN as part of ongoing efforts to accelerate action on REDD+ through forest landscape restoration, is timely as the coordination of financial support for REDD+ and climate action in forests will continue to be a top agenda item at the upcoming Bonn intersessional, having featured prominently during COP 23. During the COP, country negotiators – as a continuation of REDD+ focal point meetings held since COP19 – resumed discussions on the coordination of support for the implementation of activities in relation to mitigation actions in the forest sector by developing countries, including institutional and financial arrangements. Negotiators debated the potential need for additional governance arrangements for improving the coordination of support for REDD+ funding and implementation. Additionally, side event and panel participants, country representatives, and others involved with REDD+ and climate action in forests expressed concerns over the availability, sustainability, and coordination of funding for results. Yet, negotiators could not agree on a decision and the co-chairs decided to continue negotiations during the next meetings to be held in May 2018.

The report aims to contribute not only to upcoming UNFCCC conversations pertaining to improving access to and coordination of finance for REDD+ and mitigation actions in the forest sector but, by clarifying the challenges with and opportunities for adequately accessing and coordinating funding for REDD+ and climate action in forests, will also contribute to ensuring that funding is made available and disbursed in a timely, efficient, and effective manner.

View the report at edf.org/mappingforestfinance.

Also posted in Deforestation, Forestry / Leave a comment

Agriculture negotiations reach agreement at COP23

Photo by UNClimateChange

In what could be the iconic decision of COP 23, negotiators in Bonn agreed to new future negotiation processes to “jointly address” a number of new agriculture topics, overcoming longstanding hurdles that had blocked progress on the topic in recent years.

Why is this important?

Emissions from agriculture are expected to continue growing as the world’s population continues to expand and diets change with rising incomes.

However, a recent journal article by Griscom et al. published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found activities under the agriculture and grasslands rubric, such as management of fertilizer use, could achieve roughly 6% of needed emission reductions to stay below a 2 degree temperature change. To realize that potential though, farmers need new tools and incentives.

Additionally, farmers are expecting to find their jobs of growing our food harder as climate change makes weather patterns more unpredictable, and makes climatic events such as droughts and flooding more frequent and intense. Farmers will also need new methods and technologies to make their farms more resilient and adapt to the new conditions.

Agriculture has been discussed for years, but progress had been stymied by disagreement related to potential trade implications on key commodity exports, whether to prioritize adaptation or mitigation in the agenda, and UNFCCC process-oriented concerns on what could and couldn’t be negotiated based on the last agriculture decision.

What’s in the decision?

The negotiators agreed to have the Subsidiary Body for Science and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) review issues associated with agriculture by using workshops and technical expert meetings.

Using both the SBI and SBSTA to review a topic “jointly” is not a frequent negotiation strategy pursued by negotiators. That’s because the complexity of the negotiation rises exponentially when a topic is jointly negotiated rather than negotiated in a single process. But this process was used for the set of policy approaches for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+), which ended up being the only sector with its own article in the Paris Agreement.

Regarding topics in agriculture that the processes might first consider, they include:

  • How to assess adaptation, adaptation co-benefits (code for mitigation), and resilience
  • How to improve soil health, soil carbon in grasslands and croplands, and related water management
  • How to improve nutrient management – e.g. more efficient fertilizer use
  • How to improve livestock management systems
  • Studying the socioeconomic and food security issues associated with climate change in the agriculture sector
  • Any of the previous topics discussed in a set of workshops in recent years

Importantly, the negotiators also left other agenda items to be added as needed, which let countries see flexibility in the future to add a topic of more relevance to them.

 What is the timeline for the process?

The decision asks for reports back in three years at COP 26 in 2020. If the process is successful, countries should then have more knowledge and methodologies at their disposal to take action in their respective agriculture sectors in the post-2020 climate regime. At the moment, there is no clear guidance for them on how they might take such action, nor are there incentives for them to do so.

With this momentous decision on agriculture at COP 23, we now have a great opportunity for making our food supply and farmers’ livelihoods more resilient while also contributing to mitigating climate change.

Also posted in Agriculture, Bonn / Leave a comment

Part II:  Amazon Hydroelectrics, the UN Climate Treaty and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – will greed and corruption derail the international climate negotiations?

Santo Antônio Dam under construction in the state of Rondônia, Brazil, 2009 | Photo: Wiki Commons

Brazil’s climate change negotiators are trying to throw the best hope for at-scale finance for stopping deforestation under the bus to ensure a big payday for bogus carbon credits from Amazon dams and other Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects  — benefitting the scandal-plagued national power company Eletrobrás at the expense of the Amazon. (See EDF and Brazilian partners report.) There are far better ways to combat climate change.

A Better Mousetrap

One of the best examples of how to do it, ironically, is what Brazil and Amazon states have actually done in reducing Amazon deforestation since 2004. Government ramped up enforcement, recognized indigenous territories and protected forests for other communities, and consumer goods companies like Walmart told their suppliers they needed zero-deforestation commodities. The result was a 70% reduction in deforestation by 2016 that kept 3.65 billion tons CO₂ out of the atmosphere – on the order of what the European Union achieved, only in one developing country. But positive incentives for forest protection called for repeatedly in legislation never materialized, so pushback from the big ranchers’ and farmers’ caucus in the Congress has put all of these gains at serious risk, and deforestation started to tick up again.

There is a lot at stake here, for the atmosphere as well as the forest. New research shows that much more cost effective climate change mitigation than anyone suspected – 11 billion tons of CO2 per year till 2030 — can come from “natural climate solutions”, mostly from stopping tropical deforestation and forest degradation. This is almost 40% of the mitigation needed by 2030 to have a 66% or better chance of keeping warming below 2°C, according to the authors.

Bringing jurisdictional reductions in deforestation and forest degradation into carbon markets could generate the funds that Brazil needs to end Amazon deforestation and effect the transformation to low-carbon sustainable agriculture. 

Reducing and ultimately stopping large-scale deforestation is fully feasible. We know this because Brazil and the Amazon states have done it. They have taken reductions targets below historical levels, and made world-leading reductions while increasing cattle and soy production – historically the major drivers of deforestation (Figure 1).  Making emissions reductions at the scale of a state or region or country is much more like the EU or California cap-and-trade systems than an offset project. It’s actually systemic climate change mitigation. Bringing jurisdictional reductions in deforestation and forest degradation into carbon markets could generate the funds that Brazil needs to end Amazon deforestation and effect the transformation to low-carbon sustainable agriculture. Transparent accounting, rigorous double-entry bookkeeping to avoid double counting, and fair benefit sharing will be critical to making it work, but are also completely feasible. Doing sustained, large-scale deforestation reduction would also allow Brazil to call for more ambitious goals for other big emitter countries, and create cost-effective opportunities to make that happen. A revamped CDM could then channel funds to the least developed countries that most need them.

Figure 1. Brazil annual Amazon deforestation, soy and cattle production 1996 – 2016 (source: Stabile, M. 2017. Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM); Brazil National Space Research Institute – INPE/PRODES; Brazilian Geographical and Statistical Institute – IBGE PPM and PAM, Amazon Fund.

Operation Car Wash and Chico Mendes

So why wouldn’t any country with a lot of forest to protect, and potentially a lot to gain from it, want to continue a winning streak? Well, as Brazil’s experience shows, there’s a lot less opportunity for corruption in reducing deforestation than there is in, say, building dams. Carbon credit for Amazon dams fits right in with the massive corruption, “Operation Car Wash”, super-sketchy side of Brazil. World-leading emissions reductions from controlling Amazon deforestation are an example what we could call the Chico Mendes side of the country. Brazil has always had these two sides. Corruption is endemic but so is innovative public policy. Brazil’s world-class AIDs program, which has kept infection rates far below other early hotspots; the sugar cane ethanol program that gave Brazil the biggest flex-fuel automotive fleet in the world; internationally recognized high-tech remote sensing monitoring of deforestation; and former President Lula’s poverty reduction programs are all examples.

Brazil has an exceptional opportunity to become an economic/environmental innovator and global leader of truly transformative impact – a 21st century environmental/economic superpower — if it succeeds in creating real economic value for living forests. What Acre Governor Tião Viana calls “the low-carbon, high social equity economy” shows the way to zero deforestation, sustainable commodity and family farmer agriculture, and sustainable, prosperous forest communities.

Which side of Brazil’s Jekyll-Hyde political character will win? When Chico Mendes was alive, most people would have probably picked the Car Wash side. Along with ever-increasing numbers of Brazilians, I’d pick Chico’s side.

Both sides are on display at the international climate negotiations, where Brazilian negotiators are pushing hard for deeply flawed CDM projects including Eletrobrás’s Amazon dam boondoggles. Which side wins won’t only affect Brazilians. It will make a real difference to the atmosphere, and to us.

Also posted in Brazil, Deforestation / Leave a comment

Amazon Hydroelectrics, the UN Climate Treaty and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – will greed and corruption derail the international climate negotiations?

Belo Monte Dam under construction on the Xingu River in the state of Pará, Brazil in 2013 | Photo credit: Letícia Leite-ISA

Brazil’s climate policy theater: Brazil climate negotiators fight for carbon credit payout for scandal-plagued national power company Eletrobrás and Amazon mega-hydroelectrics, block carbon finance for ending Amazon deforestation.     

Behind the headline-grabbing news about Brazilian political corruption, Brazilian climate change negotiators are busy pushing proposals that could seriously damage important new climate change agreements – and shut the door on much-needed finance for stopping deforestation.

New market mechanisms in the UN Paris Agreement and in the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for Civil Aviation (CORSIA) could provide money Brazil needs to protect its rainforest, including protecting heavily threatened indigenous territories twice the size of California. The new mechanisms could also help other tropical countries stop deforestation. That would be great news for the global atmosphere and for the people who live in the forests.

But Brazil’s negotiators are dead set against it. Instead, they’re fighting hard to preserve the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a relic of the Kyoto Protocol. Global climate change champions California and the European Union have largely or entirely shut the CDM out of their markets because they’ve concluded, rightfully, that its claims to environmental integrity have lost credibility.

Brazilian negotiators say the CDM is the gold standard for environmental quality, and reducing deforestation is too risky for carbon credit. A new report by EDF and Brazilian partners – along with a plethora of other analyses — reaches a different conclusion.

Bogus Carbon Credit for Amazon dams

The CDM was created in 1997 by the Kyoto Protocol to allow emissions reductions projects in developing countries to generate tradeable carbon credits, called “Certified Emissions Reductions” (CERs), which, the Protocol specifies, could be used by industrialized countries to help meet their emissions targetsduring the years 2008-2012. But since new targets for these countries didn’t take effect under the Kyoto Protocol, CER prices plummeted for lack of buyers. Brazil has a big portfolio of projects that are generating currently zero-value CERs that could turn into real money if the new market mechanisms of the Paris Agreement and CORSIA accept CDM credits. No wonder they like the CDM.

Three Amazon dams – Santo Antônio, Jirau and Teles Pires – are Brazil’s biggest CDM projects, and say a lot about what’s wrong with the mechanism.

Starting in 2012 affiliates of Brazil’s state power company, Eletrobrás, registered the mega-hydroelectric dams in the Amazon as CDM projects. They said that the dams would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that would have otherwise happened, and that since they were big, risky projects, they wouldn’t be financially viable unless they got the carbon credit. The CDM approved the dams, issued millions of CERs for them, and stands ready to issue hundreds of millions more.

Carbon Credit for Corruption?

But, a little later, these dams were implicated in the “Operation Car Wash” investigation, probably the largest corruption investigation in the world. The investigation first uncovered bid rigging, bribery and kickbacks worth billions of dollars in state oil company Petrobrás. It has now convicted scores of politicians and top executives at Brazil’s biggest companies. Eletrobrás executives engaged in exactly the same schemes in the three Amazon dams and other projects, according to whistleblowers. One former officer of an Eletrobrás subsidiary has been sentenced to more than forty years in prison for bribery, money laundering, obstruction of justice, tax evasion, and participation in a criminal organization, and similar charges are pending against others.

Eletrobrás’s stock price crashed as a result. US investors brought suit against the company, now pending in federal court in New York. They allege that Eletrobrás publicly claimed it was keeping clean books and building legitimate energy projects, while in fact concealing massive corruption and kickbacks. The dams ran up billions in cost overruns (allegedly to pay the bribes and kickbacks) at the investors’ expense.

Meanwhile, while it told the CDM that carbon finance was crucial for the dams to go forward, the company went ahead and built the dams.

Certified Emission Reductions market price crashed after the end of 2012 | Source: eex.com

The dams are operating today with basically zero carbon finance, because the CERs became virtually worthless after the end-of-2012 the price crash. If the dams in fact caused any emissions reductions, they did it without money from the CERs – so they  would have happened anyway. But, in fact the dams never caused any emissions reductions – the decision to build them was political, not economic. Opportunities for bribes and kickbacks were by all indications a key factor. It’s not surprising Eletrobrás and affiliates never told its investors that it needed carbon credit for the dams to pay off – the credits were just icing on the cake.

In 2016, KLP, one of the world’s largest investment funds, managing over $36 billion in pension funds in Norway, decided to exclude investments in Eletrobrás, citing “unacceptable risk of gross corruption. According to the company's financial reports to US authorities, Eletrobrás contracts with suppliers have been overbilled during a period of almost seven years, with the excess funds paid out to Brazilian politicians, political parties and company executives.”

That the CDM approved the dam projects at all is a serious indictment of its rules. Lots of other analyses have concluded that this mechanism needs serious overhaul or phase-out. See my next post for a better approach to international collaboration on climate change mitigation.

Also posted in Brazil, Deforestation / Leave a comment

How will forests be on the “menu” at UN Bonn climate talks?

The 2017 UN climate talks will take place from November 6 to 17 in Bonn, Germany | Photo: Pixabay

This year’s global climate conference (COP23) is upon us and will be an interesting mix of Fijian diplomacy and Kölsch beer. As I do every year, in this year’s pre-COP blog I lay out what will be happening during the COP related to REDD+ in the negotiations and what I hope to hear about in the hallways and many side events.

The COP23 conference is expected to be a working COP as parties make the necessary progress in rule writing to meet the 2018 deadline of a final rulebook. There will also be a lot of news about non-state actors – the private sector, states like California, and other non-federal entities – being discussed as a reaction to Trump’s reckless decision to leave the Paris Agreement.

For a good overview of how we are doing in with respect to the climate change and forest sector, I suggest reading this year’s New York Declaration on Forests report. It includes a good review on progress in the private sector (or lack thereof) and funding for forest conservation – and activities causing deforestation.

But, back to the UNFCCC …

REDD+ in the negotiation agenda

After a year’s hiatus from the COP agenda, REDD+ will make an expected brief appearance in the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) agenda the first week during discussions about the “coordination of REDD+ finance”. This is a leftover item from the Warsaw REDD+ Framework decision, when parties agreed to not create a “REDD+ Committee” to coordinate REDD+ finance as some parties wished, but rather annual informal and voluntary meetings during the mid-year subsidiary body negotiations (SBs) for 4 years to share experiences about REDD+ financing. Many of the attendees from parties to observers would agree that these informal meetings were of little value.

In this COP, negotiators are scheduled to reevaluate whether to continue the SBs or create the REDD+ Committee. I doubt there will be interest in either of them. However, the agenda item could be used as an opening to push a party’s or coalition’s not completely related proposal for financing REDD+, such as a centralized registry for REDD+ transactions.

REDD+ related negotiation items: transparency, NDCs and market

Much of the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ addressed transparency. After following initial discussions in the broader transparency agenda item that is part of the APA, many parties and negotiators are worried that those negotiations might dilute what was achieved for REDD+. Transparency in REDD+ thus far includes the Lima REDD+ Information Hub where countries submit their National REDD+ Strategies, Reference Emission Level (REL) submissions, Safeguard Information System summaries, and results. The process established for reviewing the RELs, which includes a technical assessment and publication of that assessment, is very important. The fact that the new US negotiator for transparency is the former REDD+ negotiator for the US, however, could be very helpful to ensure no dilution occurs.

Many of the party submissions on producing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) mentioned the land use sector explicitly, and REDD+ implicitly. The more detail related to the inclusion of the land use sector in NDCs the better, but it might be hard for negotiators to come to agreement on the extent or nature of those details.

The market negotiations under the SBSTA will continue; those on Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement and Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) are particularly relevant. More explicit guidance on no double counting/claiming is needed to ensure environmental integrity for REDD+ and ITMOs that might come from any other sector or project. REDD+ in itself, however, does not need explicit language in Article 6.2.

Other noticeable REDD+ financing developments

The Green Climate Fund recently approved guidance and $500 million for REDD+ results based payments, which I expect to be discussed substantially during the COP. Although the amount is not sufficient, the methodologies the GCF agreed upon will be relevant to other REDD+ finance decisions in the future.

Private finance for advancing deforestation free commodities is another hot topic and I expect to learn more concrete details about the andgreen.fund that was announced earlier in the year. Specifically, I’d like more clarity on how they will be defining jurisdictions advancing in becoming deforestation free, which is a requirement of the fund to determine what private sector actors will be funded.

This year’s report on New York Declaration on Forests provides extensive insight on the current state of forest finance. The report reviews the billions of pledges, commitments, and amounts spent to advance REDD+. More interesting is the amount of “grey” funding available from public subsidies and private sector investment for the land sector. The amount of “grey” funding greatly exceeds direct REDD+ funding and needs to be changed or channeled to activities that support forest conservation.

Indigenous Peoples in the negotiations

Indigenous territories have rates of deforestation eight times less than external forests.

Indigenous Peoples are hoping for a decision on the Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge platform that will support the inclusion of them and their solutions to mitigating and adapting to climate change. A number of parties from Ecuador to Canada are prioritizing and supporting this platform. While interested in all agenda items, Indigenous Peoples will also probably focus on the NDC negotiation to ensure that the need to include them in the development and revision of the NDCs is explicitly mentioned. Many party submissions on the topic included the need for NDCs to discuss how they consulted Indigenous Peoples and other groups in their development.

Indigenous leaders from the Amazon basin will be promoting a new scientific analysis which found, that from a regional level, indigenous territories have rates of deforestation eight times less than external forests. Hopefully, parties will take note of this and include more overt references to the importance of supporting and including Indigenous Peoples in decisions.

Reporting on progress by countries implementing REDD+

While not formally on the negotiation agenda, I expect a number of countries at their pavilions or in other events to present the final versions of their National REDD+ Strategies. Parties have already submitted 25 Reference Emission Levels (REL) and I expect a few more to arrive during the COP or before the end of the year. Discussions around best practices in REL construction and lessons learned will be a popular topic – amongst the technical people at least.

The richest presentations and discussions related to REDD+ will likely happen on November 12th during a set of panels on forests as part of the Action Agenda, now called the Marrakech Partnership for Climate Action. During this event, I hope to hear more about how the private sector is implementing the 700+ deforestation-free related commitments they’ve taken, but largely have yet to implement.

A “working” COP

Many expect no big decisions on forests – like a Warsaw Framework for REDD+ – to be agreed upon at this COP. However, I would like to see a decision on the platform for Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge, which would be helpful for REDD+.

The parties should make progress on advancing the markets, NDC, and transparency negotiations that are indirectly related, but no less important, to REDD+. Decisions on those topics at the COP next year, as mandated in the Paris Agreement, are essential for continuing the implementation of REDD+ and unlocking necessary finance.

Also posted in Bonn, Deforestation, UN negotiations / Leave a comment