REDD +

This satellite image shows Thailand. Brown areas indicate the absence of forest.

REDD + ( R educing E missions from D eforestation and Forest D egradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries , dt. About "Reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as the role of forest protection, sustainable forest management and the development of forest carbon stocks in developing countries ") is a since 2005 on the negotiations of the international framework Convention on climate Change (UNFCCC, United Nations framework Convention on climate Change debated) concept, with the protection of forests as a carbon sink should be financially attractive .

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , over 17% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions come from the forest sector . Particularly important for climate protection are the tropical rainforests and humid forests , whose carbon balance ensures very high storage.

The basic idea of ​​REDD + are performance-based payments for measurable and verifiable emission reductions through forest protection measures in developing countries . In the REDD + model, the carbon stored in the forests is assigned a monetary value so that forests have a higher financial weight in economic decision-making processes. The REDD + process envisages measuring or calculating forest emissions and then evaluating them. This is intended to create incentives for limiting forest destruction.

The development of REDD + in the UNFCCC negotiations

Development of the concept

As part of the UNFCCC negotiations, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica made a proposal for the first time in 2005 as to how the problem of deforestation could be countered through compensation payments under the Framework Convention on Climate Change . Due to the broad support that the proposal on “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries” (RED) received at the UN climate conference in Montreal in 2005, a two-year discussion and exchange process was initiated. The discussions that took place during this period raised a number of central questions, such as how to deal with land ownership rights and how the permanence of carbon sinks can be ensured.

The proposal by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica was also discussed at the 2006 climate conference in Nairobi . Numerous signatory states expressed concern that the specifications for creating the reference scenario ( baseline ), which is used to calculate the emission reductions, could not close possible loopholes. The selection of the areas to be included and the question of how suitable monitoring systems can be set up to reliably monitor and review changes in forest use were also discussed critically.

The expansion of the concept and its integration in the negotiations for a new climate agreement

At the climate conference in Bali in 2007, the concept was expanded to include measures to combat deforestation as well as efforts to reduce forest damage. “RED” became “REDD”, with the second “D” standing for the English term “degradation” (forest damage). This took account of the increasing awareness of the connections between deforestation and forest degradation: For example, a reduction in forest (deforestation) can lead to an increase in forest degradation. Forest degradation affects, among other things, the biological productivity and diversity of the forest and in the long term usually also leads to deforestation.

In Bali, the contracting parties also decided that forest protection should become part of the climate agreement to be negotiated by 2009 by introducing “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries "in the" Bali Action Plan ". The concept was thus fundamentally expanded and from now on also included the preservation of the forest, the expansion of carbon stocks and sustainable forms of forest management. Because of these new elements, the term REDD + has been used since then. With the climate conference in Poznan in 2008, the expanded concept was adopted in the official language.

The development of the concept and definition of central components

Due to the failure of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen , no global climate agreement could be adopted in 2009. The (internationally non-binding) result of the conference in the form of the Copenhagen Accords underlines the importance of combating forest destruction and lists the introduction of a “REDD + mechanism” as an important measure. In Copenhagen, the contracting states also agreed on key methodological building blocks for a future REDD + mechanism, including the establishment of national forest monitoring systems and individual requirements for measuring and reporting emissions reductions. REDD + countries were also asked to develop national REDD + strategies and to build up appropriate capacities. Furthermore, approaches are to be established in the countries to ensure the participation of indigenous groups and the local population in the measurement and reporting.

REDD + was further elaborated at the following climate negotiations. A significant step was taken in Cancún in 2010 with the adoption of the “ Cancún Agreements ”: the signatory states agreed on the so-called “REDD + Safeguards”, which are intended to prevent negative ecological or social impacts from REDD + activities. Among other things, it is intended to ensure that the REDD + measures do not lead to a shift in emissions and that the measures contribute to the preservation of natural forests and their ecological ecosystem services .

REDD + countries were also asked to establish appropriate Safeguard Information Systems with which information on compliance with REDD + Safeguards can be provided.

The phased approach

In Cancún, the contracting states also agreed on the so-called phased approach . This approach envisages three phases for preparation for REDD + and implementation of corresponding activities in developing countries:

• In phase 1, REDD + countries receive international funding from donor countries to develop a national REDD + strategy, to develop suitable institutions and the necessary capacities.
• In phase 2, REDD + countries are supported on a voluntary basis by international donors in the implementation of their national strategy and demonstration projects. The funds are linked to the success of the implementation.
• In the third phase, the actual implementation of REDD + takes place, in which the planned financing model comes into play. For the demonstrably reduced (or bound) emissions from the forest sector, REDD + countries receive funding from an international fund or the global carbon market. These activities should be completely measured, reported and verified according to the MRV ( Measurement, Reporting and Verification ) principle and remunerated on the basis of the calculated emission reductions.

A year later, at the 2011 climate summit in Durban , South Africa , the signatory states agreed on guidelines for establishing national safeguard systems. In addition, modalities for the creation of reference levels were adopted, which are to be used to calculate the emission reductions.

However, it was not possible in Durban to draw up specifications for the establishment of national forest monitoring systems and the specifications for MRV ( Measurement, Reporting and Verification ) could not be adopted.

The latter turned out to be the crux of the negotiations at the climate conference in Doha in 2012: A confrontation between developing and industrialized countries about how the information provided by developing countries should be verified prevented an agreement on MRV and national forest monitoring systems.

A major breakthrough came at the 2013 climate conference in Warsaw with the adoption of the “Warsaw Framework for REDD +” . With a package of a total of seven decisions, the contracting states laid down the essential framework conditions for the implementation of REDD + in developing countries. Significant details have yet to be worked out. The equally important and controversial question of how REDD + activities should be financed in the third phase has not yet been finally answered.

Central characteristics of REDD +

The causes of deforestation and the unsustainable use of forests are diverse and differ from region to region. While forests are being cleared in the Brazilian Amazon to create areas for soy cultivation and livestock farming for large multinational corporations , in Africa the excessive removal of firewood and slash and burn to create arable land are responsible for the loss of forest. In Southeast Asia , on the other hand, the production of palm oil , coffee and wood is one of the central causes. There are often indirect causes behind these direct drivers of deforestation, including inadequate governance , poor enforcement of land use policies, and unclear ownership.

Combating these indirect causes of reducing forest emissions is associated with major challenges for many REDD + countries. Another challenge arises from the concept of results-based finance , on which REDD + is based: Accordingly, the distribution of funds is linked to the achievement of concrete results in the form of reduced (or bound) tonnes of CO2 through forest protection measures. Thus, REDD + countries must meet the necessary institutional and technical requirements in order to be able to prove the results achieved. The fulfillment of these requirements is commonly referred to as readiness .

The “phased approach” adopted in Cancun (see above) should take into account the fact that numerous developing countries with large forest occurrences do not yet meet these requirements.

Status of implementation of REDD +

In view of the fact that a regulation for the financing of REDD + in phase 3 is still pending and the preparations for this phase have not yet been completed in most countries, most of the measures are currently being carried out in phases 1 and 2.

Phase 1

Readiness measures are currently being carried out in numerous countries. The World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD program are the two largest support initiatives for these measures.

UN REDD programs

The UN-REDD program was launched in 2008 and is a joint initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ), the United Nations Development Program ( UNDP ) and the United Nations Environment Program ( UNEP ). It currently supports around 50 partner countries in their REDD + readiness efforts. The program includes two support options:

1. UN-REDD partner countries are supported in the preparation and implementation of national UN-REDD programs.
2. As part of the second strand of support, REDD + partner countries have access to methods, tools and technical instructions.

Funding for both types of support was $ 172.4 million in June 2013. According to UN-REDD, USD 67.8 million has already been approved for national REDD + strategies in 18 partner countries.

FCPF Readiness Fund

With its Readiness Fund , the FCPF supports countries in their efforts to prepare for the implementation of REDD + measures. The Readiness Fund provides technical and financial support to 37 countries, particularly in:

• the development or further development of national REDD + strategies,

• the calculation of reference levels with which the current emissions are compared, and

• the establishment of national systems for measuring, reporting and verifying emissions, which are used to calculate the emission reductions.

• Build national REDD + management structures, including robust environmental and social safeguards.

Phase 2

REDD early movers

With its REDD Early Movers (REM) program, Germany is participating in the financial support of countries in phase 2. The program sees itself as bridging funding between the readiness phase (phase 1) and a future REDD + mechanism at the level of the United Nations . It is aimed at countries that have already successfully passed the readiness phase and combines carbon financing with the promotion of REDD + instruments. In order to receive support, the countries have to meet various criteria, including the establishment of an emission reference level, the establishment of a forest monitoring system and the identification of drivers of forest destruction.

Phase 3

FCPF Carbon Fund

The FCPF's Carbon Fund went into operation in 2011; it has a total financial volume of USD 390 million. Of the 37 countries supported by the FCPF Readiness Fund , five are to receive further support from the FCPF Carbon Fund . Based on the submitted Emission Reduction Program Idea Note , Costa Rica was selected in March 2013 as the only country so far for support from the Carbon Fund . In September 2013, Costa Rica and the trustee of the Carbon Fund , the IBRD , signed a letter of intent to negotiate a contract to purchase emissions reductions of up to $ 63 million.

The controversial question of funding REDD +

The negotiations on the establishment of a REDD + mechanism were characterized by intensive discussions on various individual aspects. Different positions on the design of the mechanism have emerged both among the states party to the UNFCCC and among civil society and environmental organizations. The question of financing REDD + is particularly controversial.

The proposal for a forest protection mechanism submitted by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica in 2005 already brought up potential financing through the global carbon market. Under such a financing model, emission reductions would become tradable emission certificates . This market-based concept is offset by financing from an international fund, which would be borne by money from the donor countries. Such a proposal was made by Brazil in 2006. In the course of the negotiations, various design proposals for both types of financing were developed and hybrid financing models were also developed. Despite the variety of financing concepts, the discussion is still characterized by a dichotomy between supporters and opponents of a market-based solution for the third phase of REDD +.

The main argument of the proponents of a market-based approach is the expectation of a greater potential for mobilizing private and public finance. Many market proponents also assume that a market-based approach is much more cost-effective than a fund solution. In the face of tight public funds, a market-based approach is seen by them as the most promising way to effectively curb the destruction of forests in developing countries.

Protests of the Mapuche against REDD + at the UN climate conference in Madrid 2019

However, the opponents of a market-based approach doubt that this can address the actual drivers of deforestation. They argue that a market-based approach is unable to drive the necessary policy reforms. In addition, a market-based approach and the trading of emission certificates is associated with the risk that the actual goal of the Framework Convention on Climate Change could be missed: If REDD + certificates are used to meet climate protection targets in industrialized countries, this could lead to the implementation of the necessary climate protection measures being delayed lead in these countries. Further concerns about a market-based REDD + approach relate to the methodological and technical difficulties associated with measuring, reporting and verifying emission reductions in the forest sector. In the case of a market-based mechanism, for example, the lack of permanence in emissions reductions and leakage could lead to far more devastating consequences than with funding through a fund.

The current negotiating text continues to provide for both financing models. Which concept will prevail also depends on developments in the negotiations in other areas. In particular, the negotiation processes on climate finance and the introduction of new market-based mechanisms could point the way for the further development of REDD +.

literature

• Volker von Bremen: Negotiating at eye level? Considerations for the consideration of indigenous ontologies in intercultural negotiations using the example of the REDD + mechanism . In: Hanna Heinrich and Harald Grauer (eds.): Paths in the Garden of Ethnology , Academia Verlag, Sankt Augustin 2013, pp. 223–247, ISBN 978-3-89665-632-2 .

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Solomon, S .; Qin, D .; Manning, M .; Chen, Z .; Marquis, M .; Averyt, KB; Tignor, M .; Miller, HL, ed. (2007). IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, KB Averyt, M. Tignor and HL Miller (Eds .)). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 7 July 2014. (Abbreviated as SPM-WG1, AR4).
2. ↑ ^{a b} Arens, C., Bohlen, M., Kreibich, N., Sterk, W., Wang-Helmreich, H. (2010): REDD Crediting vs. REDD Funds - How Avoided Deforestation under the UNFCCC Should Be Financed. JIKO Policy Paper 03/2010. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Wuppertal
3. ↑ Angelsen, A., Mc Neill, D .: The Evolution of REDD + . In: Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, WD, & Verchot, LV (2012): Analyzing REDD +: Challenges and choices . CIFOR.
4. ↑ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf#page=11 Copenhagen Agreement (Decision 4 / CP.15)
5. ↑ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf Cancun Agreement (Decision 1 / CP.16), see Appendix 1, para. 2.
6. ↑ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf Cancun Agreement (Decision 1 / CP.16), see para. 71 (d).
7. ↑ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf Cancun Agreement (Decision 1 / CP.16), see para 73.
8. ↑ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a02.pdf Durban Agreement (Decision 12 / CP.17)
9. ↑ Sterk, W., Arens, C., Kreibich, N, Mersmann, F., Wehnert, T. (2012): Sands Are Running Out for Climate Protection - The Doha Climate Conference Once Again Saves the UN Climate Process While Real Climate Action Is Shelved for Later. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy: Wuppertal
10. ↑ http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf Warsaw Agreement (Decision 9 / CP.19, Decision 10 / CP.19, Decision 11 / CP.19, Decision 12 / CP .19, Decision 13 / CP.19, Decision 14 / CP.19 and Decision 15 / CP.19)
11. ↑ UN-REDD-Program Regions and Partner Countries. ( Memento of the original from February 14, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the UN-REDD-Programs website 
12. ↑ BMZ (2012): REDD Early Movers (REM) - reward pioneers of forest protection - REM rewards successes in climate protection! ( Memento of the original from August 14, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 
13. ↑ FCPF (2013): The Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.