7/28/2019 TWN_update8

1/3

122

REDD+: Discussions begin on non-market-basedapproaches

Bonn, 7 June (Kate Dooley) The contact groupon reducing emissions from deforestation andforest degradation (REDD+) under theSubsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological

Advice (SBSTA), met on Thursday June 6th, to

commence discussions on how non market-based approaches, such as joint mitigation andadaptation approaches could be developed, andto initiate work on methodological issues relatedto non-carbon benefits. Paragraphs 39 and 40 ofthe Doha decision (1/CP.18) requested theSBSTA to consider these issues.

There was wide spread support for theimportance of non-carbon benefits fromobservers, and both developed and developing

countries. With Indonesia, Cameroon, thePhilippines, Thailand and Ghana noting thatdifferent methodologies and approaches areneeded for non-carbon benefits. The EU andNorway said that utilising and monitoring non-carbon benefits is the prerogative andresponsibility of developing countries, while thePhilippines, the US and Brazil noted therelationship between safeguards and non-carbonbenefits needs to be clarified.

Observers emphasized participation for

indigenous peoples and the need to address thedrivers to deforestation and degradation, points

which Tuvalu reiterated. Indonesia supported theneed for non market-based approaches, withBolivia emphasizing they would like to see adecision with specific methodologies for nonmarket-based approaches in Warsaw.

After the Chair opened the session first toobservers, a representative of the Safeguards

Working Group defined non-carbon benefits as

positive social, governance, and environmentaloutcomes of REDD+ that are essential forachieving lasting emissions reductions. They are

important tangible benefits linked to safeguardsimplementation and they need to be incentivisedthrough all phases of REDD+. They stated thatguidance on assessing results will be needed ifcountries wish to receive payments for non-

carbon benefits, which can utilise proxies,community monitoring and guidance underother relevant processes, including theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD),FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility), UN-REDD, the FIP (Forest InvestmentProgramme), and the REDD+ SES (REDD+Social and Environmental Standards).

A member of the Accra Caucus on Forestsand Climate Change stated that non-market

based approaches to reducing deforestation andforest degradation can offer environmental,social and governance benefits (non-carbonbenefits) while reducing emissions. However,they noted with concern that in some tropicalforested countries, local forest basedcommunities are being blamed as the drivers ofdeforestation, based on analyses which under-communicates the role of the major industrialdrivers of deforestation. This can result inmeasures taken to counteract the drivers of

deforestation that target local forest basedcommunities. The Caucus recommended that allParties must adequately identify and address thedrivers to deforestation to prevent leakage and toensure that forest based communities do notbecome victims of REDD+.

The International Indigenous PeoplesCaucus on Climate Change (the IP Caucus)reminded governments that most of the worldsremaining forests are found in indigenouspeoples customary owned or managed territories.

They stated that non-carbon benefits should bedefined within a human rights framework, and

7/28/2019 TWN_update8

2/3

TWN Bonn Update No. 8 7 June 2013

2

non-market approaches should be supported inall aspects of REDD+. In addition, they putforward priority proposals to frame the non-carbon benefits, including establishingmechanisms for full and effective participationof indigenous peoples, in line with their right tofree prior and informed consent (FPIC);

encouraging governments to provide legalmeasures to recognize indigenous peoples in allstages of REDD+; to prevent forced evictionand relocation of indigenous peoples; and toestablish grievance mechanisms at the local,national and international levels.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)said that non-carbon benefits are necessary butnot sufficient to achieve emissions reductions -results based payments should therefore be

based on quantified emissions reductions. WWFsaid that the implementation of REDD+ canlead to a wide variety of economic social andenvironmental benefits. Parties should be expliciton the goal of the non-carbon benefits in orderto move forward with the work, keeping in mindthat not all benefits will be relevant to all partiesand their national circumstances.

The Chair then opened the floor to Parties, withthe US taking the floor to state that theyappreciated the opportunity to hear first from

observers. It noted that REDD+ brings a host ofbenefits in addition to mitigation, which goesbeyond the safeguards themselves. The US statedthat in the context of the UNFCCC the focusmust be on reducing emissions, which theybelieve can be achieved through non-carbonbenefits, and that non market approaches are anappropriate way to finance REDD+ if this in aParties interest and a Party chooses this channelof finance. The US noted that methodologicalissues specific to non market-based approaches

have not yet been identified, and they areinterested to explore if differentiatedmethodologies are needed for non market-basedapproaches.

Indonesia said they were pleased to seerecognition in terms of the complexity ofmethodological aspects related to non-carbonbenefits there are a wide range of non-carbonbenefits, which cannot be addressed with thesame methodologies as carbon benefits. It said

there is a need to understand how non-carbonbenefits will apply in the context of nationalcircumstance, so the discussion may take sometime.

For non market-based approaches, Indonesianoted the need to define what we mean by this,and that even in phase 3 (of REDD+) there is aneed for actions, which are not practical formarket approaches.

Tuvalu thanked observers for their comments

and noted that the point raised by the IP Caucuson participation is critical if we are determininga regime, which will reflect the rights ofindigenous peoples, we must reflect their viewsin discussions. It also noted the point raised bythe Accra Caucus on drivers of deforestation andforest degradation - we cannot addressdeforestation without addressing the drivers.

Tuvalu reminded other Parties that developedcountries are not the only consumers ofinternationally traded products which drive

deforestation with some developing countriesnow importing products which have causeddeforestation elsewhere, as a consequence ofdomestic actions to protect their own forests.

Japan noted that forests provide social andenvironmental benefits, but that measuring thesebenefits will be an additional burden for Parties.

Brazil sees the issue of non-carbon benefits asclosely linked with other issues, in particulardrivers and safeguards, and linked with other

forums such as the UNFF. It requested a veryclear conceptual discussion on non-carbonbenefits, in order to avoid reopening previousdiscussions and decisions. Brazil saw it asimportant to incentivise the multiple benefits offorests in order to incentivise the distribution ofresources, which will arise from carbon results.

Cameroon thanked observers for theircontribution and noted that in COMIFACcountries, the level of deforestation anddegradation is very small, so incentives are

needed which are not based only on reducedemissions. The work done to protect forests inthe Congo Basin region contributes tostabilisation of the climate, and so it would liketo see the international community give moreimportance to non-carbon results.

The Philippines said it was important to keep inmind that REDD+ objectives are in line with theobjectives of the Convention, which are notlimited to emissions reductions, but also includesustainable development. Non-carbon benefits

will address the underlying causes ofdeforestation. Broad criteria will need to be

7/28/2019 TWN_update8

3/3

TWN Bonn Update No. 8 7 June 2013

3

developed to define non-carbon benefits, and thelink to safeguards must be clarified.

Bolivia stated that it has engaged constructivelyin REDD+ discussions, despite its disagreement

with the current REDD+ approach, and it feelsthat it is now time for other Parties to engage in

the development of a non-market approach.Non-market approaches require a discussionabout approaches, finance and methodologies.Bolivia has proposed a joint adaptation andmitigation approach as a holistic approach toachieve sustainable development, and wants tosee a decision to move this forward at Warsaw,

with specific methodological guidance.

Bolivia noted that non market-based approachesmust form part of results based finance in orderto recognize ex-ante public finance delivered

through the GCF.

Norway agreed with previous statements thatREDD+ can provide important social andenvironmental co benefits to produce a triple

win and that the maintenance of standing forestsare contributing to these co benefits. Norwayobserved that it is in the national responsibilityand national interests to implement REDD+ in a

way that provides these co benefits. Norway seesthat we need to come to a specific understanding

of what non-carbon benefits are, before we canenter into a methodological discussion. It statedthat non-carbon benefits may be achievedoutside the Convention, through multilateral andbilateral arrangements and in other bodies.

Malaysia understands that non-carbon benefitsare needed and should be addressed alongsideand in the context of safeguards and otherongoing international Conventions. Practical andcost effective processes need to be in place toaddress non-carbon benefits based on national

experiences.

Thailand thanked observers for theirinterventions, noting their valuable experienceon these issues and suggesting a platform to getfurther observer views into the process. It noted

we need a clear definition of non-carbon benefitsto then explore whether methodologies can bedeveloped and policy incentives utilised.Monitoring non-carbon benefits remains aresponsibility at the national level.

Ghana noted that payment for environmentalservices (PES) can cover both carbon and non-carbon benefits, in order to achieve sustainableland use. Non-carbon benefits are intangible and

will need to be appreciated by quantifying themto recognize their contribution. Sustainableforest management, biodiversity conservation

and conserving forests are a huge cost andincentives are needed for the countries thatprovide these services in order to meet theiropportunity costs.

The EU stated that non-carbon benefits are animportant issue and crucial for the success ofREDD+ - to that end the EU provides specificsupport, which contributes to enhancing non-carbon benefits such as improving forestgovernance. It noted that countries decide their

own REDD+ strategies and action plans and canhighlight what they think is important. In termsof methodologies for non-carbon benefits, theEU sees that not only the safeguards, but alsothe principles in the Cancun decision reflect this.Methodological issues need to explore further

what role safeguards already play to stimulatenon-carbon benefits.

On non market-based approaches the EUthought it was possible within the currentREDD+ structure to have a joint mitigation and

adaptation approach and so it did not see theneed for specific additional guidance at theinternational level, as this was a pathway acountry could decide at the national level.

Bolivias intervention had been clear that theysee the joint adaptation and mitigation approachas an alternative approach to REDD+, and notsomething that fits within the principles ofREDD+.

The Chair concluded the session with six

countries still on the speaking list due to lack oftime. The group will continue to meet ininformal sessions and drafting groups to advancetheir discussions on a wide range of issues, inparticular monitoring, reporting and verification(MRV); additional guidance on safeguardinformation systems; the drivers to deforestationand forest degradation; and technicalassessments for reference emissions levels/reference levels.