Forests in the UN Climate Regime Dr. Christina Voigt International Climate Change and Energy Law

Forests – People – Climate – Environment-Economy

1. Forests in the UNFCCC Not explicitly mentioned But: inclusion of emission by sources and removals by sinks (both include forests) Examples: ARTICLE 4 (COMMITMENTS) 1. All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall: (a) Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the Conference of the Parties, in accordance with Article 12, national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties;

(b) Formulate, implement, publish and regularly update national and, where appropriate, regional programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change by addressing anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, and measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change; (c) Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors; (d) Promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems;

2. Forests under the Kyoto Protocol: Developed Countries Annex I Parties: Article 3 3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land- use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8.

4. Prior to the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, each Party included in Annex I shall provide, for consideration by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, data to establish its level of carbon stocks in 1990 and to enable an estimate to be made of its changes in carbon stocks in subsequent years. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, decide upon modalities, rules and guidelines as to how, and which, additional human-induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks in the agricultural soils and the land-use change and forestry categories shall be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amounts for Parties included in Annex I, taking into account uncertainties, transparency in reporting, verifiability, the methodological work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the advice provided by the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice in accordance with Article 5 and the decisions of the Conference of the Parties. Such a decision shall apply in the second and subsequent commitment periods. A Party may choose to apply such a decision on these additional human-induced activities for its first commitment period, provided that these activities have taken place since 1990.

2. Forests under the Kyoto Protocol Developing Countries Non-Annex I Parties: ? CDM (Art. 12) limited to reforestation (non-forested land on 31. December 1989) and afforestation (non- forested land for 50 years) projects

3. Kyoto Forests in Developing Countries P: very few projects, accounting difficulties, permanence… Detailed and strict rules for non-permanence (tCERs) and baselines Simpler rules for small-scale forestry projects Demand-side limits: only 1% of Annex I Parties’ commitments can be achieved by using forestry-based CERs (EU excluded forest-based CERs) CDM: 2% of proceeds to Adaptation Fund Exclusion of forest conservation and avoided deforestation

4. Montreal 2005 – 2005: Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica proposal to include reduced and avoided deforestation in the CDM – Montreal (COP11 in 2005) provided a mandate (to the SBSTA) to establish a 2-year process with the aim of making a decision in Bali on the issue of developing countries’ forests – Montreal mandate was limited to reduced emissions from deforestatioin (RED) – Two suggestions: Extended use of CDM Financial mechanism decoupled from commitments of developing countries

5. Bali 2007 – 2007: Bali (COP13) Bali Action Plan and REDD-decision (2/CP.13) – Bali Action Plan: The COP… 1. Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing, inter alia: (b) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including, inter alia, consideration of: (iii) Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; (REDD+)

R - reduced E - emissions D - deforestation D - degradation from and forest + Carbon stock conservation, enhancement, reforestation and afforestation.

Side Also at Bali Announcement of the Establishment of the Norwegian Government’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (USD 500 m each year) Objectives: To work towards the inclusion of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in a new international climate regime; To take early action to achieve cost-effective and verifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; To promote the conservation of natural forests to maintain their carbon storage capacity. *** Very good timing Good coupling to Bali Action Plan Well perceived of other Parties Biggest contribution, so far

7. From Bali to Copenhagen ( ) SBSTA got mandate to develop the methodological basis Methodological discussion in SBSTA focused on: – MRV – Reference levels – Safeguards – National - subnational No discussion in LCA for the first 1,5 years (until May 2009) LCA discussion initiated by a (legal) proposal submitted by Norway on a ”Global REDD+ Mechanism” – Meetings in Bangkok, Barcelona and …. Copenhagen

Kyotoskogen 8. From Bali to Copenhagen (ctd.) Norway more and more active: – Norwegian pilot projects impacted on the negotiations – Meridian report on Option for REDD, March 2009 – Norway’s Legal Submission on REDD+, May 2009

Kyotoskogen 8. Copenhagen (ctd.) Methodological decision on REDD (4/CP.15)  Results-based  Identification of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation resulting in emissions and also the means to address these (para 1a);  Identification of activities within the country that result in reduced emissions and increased removals, and stabilization of forest carbon stocks (para 1b)  Measurement and reporting on changes in forest carbon stocks - Establishment of robust and transparent national forest monitoring systems (para 1d)  Development of guidance for effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in monitoring and reportin; (Combination: remote sensing and ground based carbon inventory  Reference level based on historical emissions, taking into account national circumstances  Focus on national approaches (to avoid carbon leakage) with opening for sub-national possibilities as intermediary solutions  Consistency with other Conventions

Kyotoskogen 8. Copenhagen (ctd.) Copenhagen Accord (2/CP.15): 6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries. Got very close to REDD decision: negotiated, but not adopted (political situation….)

Cancun REDD+ Decision (Text from Copenhagen) 1/CP.16 Pluss Objective: ”in the context of adequate and predictable support to developing countries, Parties should collectively aim to slow, halt and reverse forest cover and carbon loss…” Scope: all developing countries, all forest activities (para 70) Results-based Three phases (para 73): 1. Development of national strategies or plans, 2. Implementation of national policies and measures (incl. Results-based demonstration activities) and 3. results-based action, fully MRV’d National systems, with sub-national as interim Safeguards for biodiversity, forest governance and indigenous peoples (Annex I), not MRV, but ”system for providing information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected” ”Explore financing options..”: No agreement on funding….

A phased approach to REDD action allows for flexibility and immediate action until a long-term solution is in place ▪ REDD+ strategy implementation a)Grants for enablers b)Payments for emission reductions measured by proxies ▪ REDD+ strategy implementation – Payments for verified emission reductions and removals Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 ▪ National commitment to develop REDD+ strategy ▪ REDD+ strategy ▪ Multi-stakeholder consultation ▪ Minimum monitoring capability ▪ Safeguards ▪ Advanced monitoring capability ▪ Design a REDD+ strategy – Grant payments

10. Why Safeguards? REDD is about carbon Forests are more than just carbon Forests provide multiple ecological functions and people’s livelihoods Capacity of forests and resilience to store carbon depends on robustness of their ecological functions Avoided side-effects – co-benefits – multiple benefits Safeguards are necessary to maintain the environmental and social integrity of the REDD+ mechanism

11. Which Safeguards? Ecological and social Designed to ensure that multiple benefits are recognised and enhanced, while building transparent and effective governance structures Require respect for the rights of indigenous and local peoples thereby empowering those who are effectively the custodians of the forest, and avoiding social conflict Provide for civil society participation and ensure a sense of ownership

12. Which Safeguards? 1. Ecological

12. Which Safeguards? 2. Social Decision 4/CP.15: Recognizing the need for full and effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in, and the potential contribution of their knowledge to, monitoring and reporting of activities relating to decision 1/CP.13, paragraph 1 (b) (iii), Encourages, as appropriate, the development of guidance for effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in monitoring and reporting;

12. Which Safeguards? 2. Social

12. Which Safeguards? Decision 1/CP.16: 72. Also requests developing country Parties, when developing and implementing their national strategies or action plans, to address, inter alia, the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, land tenure issues, forest governance issues, gender considerations and the safeguards identified in paragraph 2 of appendix I to this decision, ensuring the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, inter alia indigenous peoples and local communities;

13. What are the Safeguards? – Conditionality? – Eligibility criteria (from phase 1 to 2 to 3?)? – No clear provisions to ensure that the safeguards are adhered to in practice – Safeguards “should be promoted and supported” when undertaking all REDD+ activities(1/CP.16 para 69) – Developing country Parties are requested, when developing and implementing their national strategies or action plans, “to address...the safeguards” (1/CP.16 para 72)

14. How to Safeguard the Safeguards? For REDD Carbon: MRV-system (Decision 1/CP.16 para 71 (b) and (c)) Measurement, Reporting and Verfification For Safeguards? No MRV system (Norway tried though…) – What else? – Transparency: Important to establish a system for tracking to which extent the safeguards are in fact implemented (information)

15. A system for information

16. Safguarding the Safeguards Decision 1/CP.16, para. 71(d), requests SBSTA to develop guidance for a "system for providing information on how the safeguards (…) are being addressed and respected".

17. Durban on Information System Decision 12/CP Agrees also that developing country Parties undertaking the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70, should provide a summary of information on how all of the safeguards referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I, are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities; 4. Decides that the summary of information referred to in paragraph 3 above should be provided periodically and be included in national communications, consistent with relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties on guidelines on national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention, or communication channels agreed by the Conference of the Parties;

17. Durban on Information System Decision 12/CP Also requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, at its thirty-sixth session, to consider the need for further guidance to ensure transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness when informing on how all safeguards are addressed and respected and, if appropriate, to consider additional guidance, and to report to the Conference of the Parties at its eighteenth session;

21. Durban - Financing Decision 1/CP.17 - Financing 65. Agrees that results-based finance provided to developing country Parties that is new, additional and predictable may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources;

Durban: Decision 1/CP.17: – Financing REDD (based on MRV) (para 64) – New, additional and predictable – Variety of sources (public, private, multilateral, bilateral) (para 65) – Market-based aproaches possible (para 67) 33

14. Durban 66. Considers that, in the light of the experience gained from current and future demonstration activities, appropriate market-based approaches could be developed by the Conference of the Parties to support results- based actions by developing country Parties referred to in paragraph 73 of 1/CP.16, ensuring that environmental integrity is preserved, and the provisions of appendix I and II to Decision 1/CP.16 are fully respected and should be consistent with relevant provisions of decision 1/CP.16, decision XX/CP.17 (SBSTA) and any future decision by the COP on these matters; 67. Notes that non market based approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests as a non-market alternative that supports and strengthens governance, the application of safeguards as referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I, paragraph 2(c.e), and the multiple functions of forests, could be developed;

15. Qatar Non-carbon benefits Work-program on results-based finance in order to: – Contribute to the ongoing efforts on results-based finance – Scale up and improve effectiveness of finance – Way and means to transfer payments for resulta- based actions – Ways to incentivize non-carbon benefits