Concerns Reducing_emissions_from_deforestation_and_forest_degradation

1 concerns

1.1 natural forests vs. high-density plantations
1.2 land tenure, carbon rights , benefit distribution
1.3 indigenous peoples
1.4 redd+ in carbon market
1.5 top-down design large international institutions vs. bottom-up grassroots coalitions

concerns

since first discussion on redd+ in 2005 , particularly @ cop-13 in 2007 , cop-15 in 2009, many concerns have been voiced on various aspects of redd+. cop has responded establishing safeguards redd+, although these criticized being generic, non-enforceable , summary rather specific set of requirements participation in redd+ mechanism.

prior full-scale implementation many challenges still solved. how redd+ approach link existing national development strategies? how forest communities , indigenous peoples participate in design, implementation, monitoring , evaluation of national redd+ programmes? how redd+ funded, , how countries ensure benefits distributed equitably among manage forests? finally, how amounts of reduced emissions , enhanced removals result of redd+ activities monitored?

natural forests vs. high-density plantations

safeguard (e): actions consistent conservation of natural forests , biological diversity, ensuring [redd+] actions (...) not used conversion of natural forests, instead used incentivize protection , conservation of natural forests , ecosystem services, , enhance other social , environmental benefits. footnote safeguard: taking account need sustainable livelihoods of indigenous peoples , local communities , interdependence on forests in countries, reflected in united nations declaration on rights of indigenous peoples, international mother earth day.

the unfccc not define constitutes forest; requires parties communicate unfccc on how define forest. unfccc suggest using definition in terms of minimal area, minimal crown coverage , minimal height @ maturity of perennial vegetation.

while there safeguard against conversion of natural forest, developing country parties free include plantations of commercial tree species (including exotics eucalyptus spp., pinus spp., acacia spp.), agricultural tree crops (e.g. rubber, mango, cocoa, citrus), or non-tree species such palms (oil palm, coconut, dates) , bamboo (a grass). opponents of redd+ argue lack of clear distinction no accident. defining forest in terms of tree cover - rather complex ecosystems , livelihoods of peoples interacting them – has long been used cover expansion of industrial-scale plantations. plausible explanation, arguably, commercial interests take precedence on environmental , social objectives in shaping of redd+ policy.

similarly, there no consensus on definition forest degradation. ipcc has come number of suggestions, again leaving countries option select definition convenient.

a national redd+ strategy need not refer solely establishment of national parks or protected areas; careful design of rules , guidelines, redd+ include land use practices such shifting cultivation indigenous communities , reduced-impact-logging, provided sustainable rotation , harvesting cycles can demonstrated. argue opening door logging operations in primary forests, displacement of local populations conservation , increase of tree plantations.

achieving multiple benefits, example conservation of biodiversity , ecosystem services (such drainage basins), , social benefits (for example income , improved forest governance) not addressed, beyond inclusion in safeguard.

land tenure, carbon rights , benefit distribution

according critics, redd+ extension of green capitalism, subjecting forests , inhabitants new ways of expropriation , enclosure @ hands of polluting companies , market speculators. so-called carbon cowboys - unscrupulous entrepreneurs attempt acquire rights carbon in rainforest small-scale projects- have signed on indigenous communities unfair contracts, view on-selling rights investors quick profit. in 2012 australian businessman operating in peru revealed have signed 200-year contracts amazon tribe, yagua, many members of illiterate, giving him 50 per cent share in carbon resources. contracts allow him establish , control timber projects , palm oil plantations in yagua rainforest. risk largely negated focus on national , subnational redd+ programs, , government ownership of these initiatives.

there risks local inhabitants , communities live in forests bypassed , won t consulted , won t receive revenues. fair distribution of redd+ benefits not achieved without prior reform in forest governance , more secure tenure systems in many countries. how can benefits redd+ distributed forest communities in just, equitable way minimizes capture of benefits national governments or local elites?

the unfccc has repeatedly called full , effective participation of indigenous peoples , local communities without becoming more specific. ability of local communities contribute redd+ field activities , measurement of forest properties estimating reduced emissions , enhanced emissions of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated in various countries.

in project-based redd+, projects unaccountable , dodgy companies have taken advantage of low governance.

indigenous peoples

safeguard (c): respect knowledge , rights of indigenous peoples , members of local communities, taking account relevant international obligations, national circumstances , laws, , noting united nations general assembly has adopted united nations declaration on rights of indigenous peoples; safeguard (d): full , effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples , local communities, in [redd+] actions (...) [and when developing , implementing national strategies or action plans];

indigenous peoples important stakeholders in redd+ typically live inside forest areas or have livelihoods (partially) based on exploitation of forest resources. international indigenous peoples forum on climate change (iipfcc) explicit @ bali climate negotiations in 2007:

redd/redd+ not benefit indigenous peoples, in fact result in more violations of indigenous peoples’ rights. increase violation of our human rights, our rights our lands, territories , resources, steal our land, cause forced evictions, prevent access , threaten indigenous agricultural practices, destroy biodiversity , cultural diversity , cause social conflicts. under redd/redd+, states , carbon traders take more control on our forests.

some claim putting commercial value on forests neglects spiritual value hold indigenous peoples , local communities.

indigenous peoples protested in 2008 against united nations permanent forum on indigenous issues final report on climate change , paragraph endorsed redd+; captured in video entitled 2nd may revolt . however, these protests have largely disappeared in recent years. indigenous people sit permanent representatives on many multinational , national redd+ bodies, though there room improvement.

indigenous peoples groups in panama broke off collaboration national un-redd programme in 2012 on allegations of failure of government respect rights of indigenous groups.

some grassroots organizations working develop redd+ activities communities , developing benefit-sharing mechanisms ensure redd+ funds reach rural communities governments. examples of these include plan vivo projects in mexico, mozambique , cameroon; , carbonfund.org foundation s vcs abd ccbs projects in state of acre, brazil.

redd+ in carbon market

when redd+ first discussed unfccc, no indication given of positive incentives support developing countries in efforts implement redd+ reduce emissions , enhance removals of greenhouse gases forests. in absence of guidance cop, 2 options debated international community @ large:

under market-based approach, redd+ act offset scheme in verified results-based actions translate form of carbon credits, more-or-less analogous market certified emission reductions (cer) under cdm of kyoto protocol. such carbon credits offset emissions in country or company of buyer of carbon credits. require annex countries agree deeper cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases in order create market carbon credits redd+, unlikely happen given current state of negotiations in cop, there fear market flooded carbon credits, depressing price levels redd+ no longer economically viable option. developing countries, such brazil , china, maintain developed countries must commit real emissions reductions, independent of offset mechanism.

since cop-17, however, has become clear redd+ may financed variety of sources, market , non-market. newly established green climate fund supporting phase 1 , 2 redd+ programs, , finalizing rules allow disbursement of result-based finance developing countries submit verified reports of emission reductions , enhanced removals of greenhouse gases.

top-down design large international institutions vs. bottom-up grassroots coalitions

while cop decisions emphasize national ownership , stakeholder consultation, there concerns of larger institutional organizations driving process, in particular outside of 1 party, 1 vote realm of multi-lateral negotiations under unfccc. example, world bank , un-redd programme, 2 largest sources of funding , technical assistance readiness activities , therefore unavoidable developing countries, place requirements upon recipient countries arguably not mandated or required cop decisions. body of research suggests that, @ least of 2016, redd+ global architecture has had limited effect on local political realities, pre-existing entrenched power dynamics , incentives promote deforestation not changed relatively small sums of money redd+ has delivered date. in addition, issues land tenure fundamentally determine makes decisions land use , deforestation have not been adequately addressed redd+, , there no clear consensus on how complex political issues land tenure can resolved favor standing forests on cleared forests through relatively top-down mechanism redd+.

while single, harmonized, global system accounts , rewards emissions reductions forests , land use has been elusive, diverse context-specific projects have emerged support variety of activities including community-based forest management, enforcement of protected areas, sustainable charcoal production, , agroforestry. although not clear whether these diverse projects genuinely different older integrated conservation , development initiatives pre-date redd+, there evidence redd+ has altered global policy conversations, possibly elevating issues indigenous peoples land rights higher levels, or conversely threatening bypass safeguards indigenous rights. debate surrounding these issues ongoing.

although world bank declares commitment fight against climate change, many civil society organisations , grassroots movements around world view scepticism processes being developed under various carbon funds. among of worrying reasons weak (or inexistent) consultation processes local communities; lack of criteria determine when country ready implement redd+ projects (readiness); negative impacts such deforestation , loss of biodiversity (due fast agreements , lack of planning); lack of safeguards protect indigenous peoples rights; , lack of regional policies stop deforestation. growing coalition of civil society organization, social movement, , other actors critical of redd+ emerged between 2008 , 2011, criticizing mechanism on climate justice grounds. during un climate negotiations in copenhagen (2009) , cancun (2010) strong civil society , social movements coalitions formed strong front fight world bank out of climate. however, concern has largely died down world bank initiatives have been more full developed, , of these same actors participating in implementation of redd+.

itto has been criticized appearing support above inclusion of forest extraction inside redd+ under guise of sustainable management in order benefit carbon markets while maintaining business-as-usual.