Friday, March 29, 2024

Top Social

Simplifying REDD-Plus Design and Implementation

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation or “REDD+” in short, is a global climate change mitigation mechanism designed and encouraged by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The aim is to provide incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, promote the conservation, management and enhancement of forests; and encourages investment in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.
The overall vision for REDD+ is that developing countries will significantly reduce their forest and land-based emissions, as a result of incentives from a performance-based REDD+ mechanism, while achieving national development goals in a sustainably and equitably. [Side note: the little ‘+’ sign has a history of its own; there is in fact, a ‘++’ as well!]

Important REDD+ decisions under UNFCCC have been adopted progressively since the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC dubbed “COP13” in Bali, Indonesia in 2007. Since then, two of the most important decisions have been made: the “Cancún Agreement” reached at COP 16 in Cancún, Mexico (2010) and which set the stage for a nationally driven three-phased approach to development of the REDD+ mechanism; and “The Warsaw Framework” (COP 19 in Warsaw, Poland in 2013) which finalized and adopted important decisions that constitute the complete “REDD+ Rulebook” on how REDD+ ought to be implemented.

Fast forward to the Paris Agreement of December 2015. This is the most recent binding global climate change agreement adopted by 195 countries at COP 21 in Paris, which raised the profile of forests in ways never seen before. Whereas modest progress had been made in the series of discourse leading to COP 21, the Paris Agreement represented a key shift. At the COP 21, some of the most heavily forested countries in the world pledged to fight deforestation and promote forest conservation. Previous REDD+ debates focused more on how much money countries would earn for conserving forests rather than on the steps they would take to tackle deforestation. In other words, the priority question was: what is in it for me? as opposed to: why do I need to do it? Put another way, developing countries did not see saving the forests as being beneficial in its own right, and often approached it from the point of view of doing the rich countries a favor for which they must be paid dearly. It is not surprising therefore that they continued to resist discussing forest protection at the international level and any decisions agreed in the meantime were at best half-hearted. In Paris, nations finally achieved consensus. Article 5 of the Paris Agreement encourages countries to implement and support REDD+, as well as activities related to “the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.” Suddenly, developing countries had a more proactive role to play towards reduction of harmful atmospheric emissions, in a way that supported their development pathways, with support funds available as a sweetener.  For many developing nations, land use, land-use change and forestry account for the majority of their greenhouse gas emissions. That makes this sector a logical opportunity for them to meet the Emission Reduction (ER) commitments they agreed to.

But there is a snag: implementing REDD+ is an elaborate and costly process. Taking a REDD+ project from inception of the project idea, design, implementation, validation, through to registration and subsequent issuance of Emission Reduction (ERs) certificates is much like making a legal argument in a court of law. The project developer (the defense) uses various tools (arguments and evidence) to prove to the jury (an independent verifier/validator) that the proposed project has real, tangible, measureable and verifiable benefits through reduction of carbon emissions or creation of new carbon sinks. If the arguments and evidence presented are convincing according to the provisions of the carbon certifying standard “beyond any reasonable doubt,” a validator (the jury) submits to the judge (the carbon certification standard) that the “accused” (project) is innocent (of the charge of purporting to offer positive carbon benefits). The judge subsequently declares the accused “not guilty” and permits the registration and issuance of ER certificates which can then be traded (story for another day!)

The process of proof relies on the presentation of FACTS which can withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny – with little room for conjecture or unsubstantiated assumptions! In the words of Charles Dickens, THE ONE THING NEEDFUL in REDD+ project development is..

'NOW, what I want is, Facts… Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else….This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!… In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!... It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic… You are never to fancy…’ [Sigh]

Therefore, although REDD+ is an excellent way for forest-adjacent communities to participate in, while benefiting from forest conservation, few communities have the wherewithal - financial or technical – to successfully develop a project to completion. To date, there are relatively few successful REDD+ projects. Resolving the stringent technical and methodological issues frequently requires the services of a technical intermediary that understands the intricacies involved. C&E is one such intermediary which provides expertise in training and capacity building on the impacts, challenges and opportunities in natural resource management activities including REDD+ project development.

Charles Dickens. Hard Times for These Times. Intr. William W. Watt. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958