In the next 24 hours we will know the details of how forests will be treated in the next global climate deal.
Over the past 2 weeks the draft deals for Reducing Emissions for Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) and Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) have changed a number of times. As far as I can tell it appears that we might get a good outcome for REDD and the worst possible outcome for LULUCF.
Earlier this year the draft text for the REDD deal contain several worrying proposals. If these proposals for REDD to be a logging, not forest protection mechanism, and the proposed text was adopted in the final REDD deal it could have resulted in large-scale climate, biodiversity and human rights disasters in developing countries.
Whilst some people, NGO’s and Indigneous peoples groups remain uncertain about the merits, intension and implementation of the REDD mechanism there has been an increasing sense of relief that the final draft text submitted to Ministers contained specific safeguards for the protection of Indigenous peoples rights and interests, safeguards that it should incentivise the protection of natural forests and the conservation of natural forests and biodiversity and it contained safeguards against the conversion of natural forests.
The draft REDD deal has been submitted to Heads Of States and they will have to make decisions on the overall aim of REDD, the funding sources for REDD and if it will be national or a sub-national approach when it is implemented.
There has been approx $3.5 billion pledge so far fro REDD, but economists have estimated that $15 billion – $25 billion is needed per year. So we are a long way from having sufficient funds to reduce the 20% – 25% of emissions that come for the deforestation and forest degradation of the world’s forests.
We can only hope that the safeguards for REDD are not weakened in any way by the Heads Of States and that if REDD is adopted it is adopted within a strong, fair, legally-binding and ambitious climate deal.
On the other hand the proposed rules for the mechanism for forests, woodlands and rural lands in developed countries could not be any worse. As I write this blog the proposed rules for LULUCF are being negotiated. I have heard that developed countries may not have to account for their emissions from forest management in the next climate deal. Developed Countries may also get to chose what baseline they want to use in their accounting for this sector. This means countries could pick or chose a baseline that allows them to have accounting results that are not realistic or reflective of the actual emissions that the atmosphere sees. I have also heard that the emissions from non-anthropogenic emissions may be ruled out. I can only hope that what I have heard so far is not correct or that the Heads of State fix up the LULUCF rules when they meet tomorrow and announce that developed countries will also commit to protecting and restoring their natural forests as well as helping developing countries to do the same thing.
Hopefully tomorrow is a good day for the world’s forests.
Gemma Tillack
Youth and Climate Change and Forests Campaigner
