Reflections on Copenhagen — REDD still has a pulse
Arguably one of the few positive news stories coming out of COP15 concerns REDD, or Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Forest Degradation, a framework which would allow developed nations to pay (mostly) developing nations to preserve their rainforests and so earn tradable carbon credits.
According to the IPCC’s most recent assessment report , deforestation accounts for around 20% of human-induced CO2 emissions globally — more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector. Much of this deforestation occurs in more southern latitudes and generally in developing countries.
The REDD concept was first introduced at COP13 in Bali after forestry and land-use change had originally been excluded under the Kyoto Protocol. The idea was to establish a mechanism that provided financial incentives for developing countries to reduce clearing of their natural forests. The finance would be provided by developed countries as a way of offsetting their own emissions. Since it’s conception, REDD has often stood to represent one of those rare gems in the global climate change response — namely, a piece of policy that both developing and developed countries agree on and where each party has something to gain.
Whilst the original focus was on reduction of CO2, it has since been acknowledged that REDD can and must deliver considerable co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. This has led to a rebrand of REDD into what is now known as REDD+, or REDD plus.
As with many areas of global climate policy, COP15 was supposed to represent the end of the REDD+ deliberations and the finalisation of a framework that would kick-start REDD+ projects worldwide. So what actually happen?
Whilst there was no deal on REDD+ as such, there was at least some assertive language on REDD+ within the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ (paragraph 6); there was final text from the ‘Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA)’ on methodological issues surrounding REDD+; and there was well worked up text from the ‘Ad-Hoc working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action’ on policy approaches towards REDD+. This included relatively strong language on various ‘safeguards’, such as reference to certain international human rights instruments; and there are some funding pledges totalling around $3.5 billion for REDD+.
None of this is legally binding at this stage, so REDD+ is still far from becoming the offset generating, wealth transferring nirvana that many believe it capable of. However, the outcome is positive on at least two contrasting fronts:
- For supporters of REDD+, there is clearly still momentum and it remains one of the few areas of policy where alignment between developed and developing nations is good. Progression of discussions around key principles and safeguards and the pledges of financial support should help improve pilot programs.
- For those with concerns about REDD+, in particular with the way some projects where being implemented and the sometimes unrealistic expectations of benefits, the COP15 outcome will surely represent a touching of the breaks. This is by no means a bad thing as all parties acknowledge it is important to get the framework right or else risk undermining the effectiveness of REDD+ and the confidence of those involved.
So perhaps the REDD+ result was not all that bad? Some progress has been made on the details, and interest from a diverse range of stakeholders is still high. It has bought some time to help ensure that REDD+ is sustainable in the long term. And it may allow for a reality check of what can and cannot be delivered by REDD+ as a climate change mitigation instrument as part of a broader international response to climate change.
