REDD+ Partnerships, Processes, People…

Talks about talks about REDD are underway again. Two days before the Tianjin round officially began, the REDD+ partnership met to discuss how to pay for REDD+ readiness, how effective multilateral efforts have been so far, and the latest happenings with country-level work. 

So what’s new? Benoit Bosquet of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility reported that a planned analysis, looking at how multilateral institutions can link up for REDD readiness efforts, has not begun for lack of available consultants.  Now that is a little puzzling – if there’s one thing the world is certainly not short of, it’s REDD consultants.

Duncan Marsh of The Nature Conservancy – the lead agency in the RAFT program – reported that REDD+ partnership efforts to coordinate financing for readiness is a “useful first step.” The formation of the REDD+ partnership is itself a progressive step, of sorts. But, according to Chris Lang of REDD Monitor, and most civil society organizations following this topic, it’s a step down a narrow, private track with severely restricted access. The workshop on Saturday reinforced this impression as discussions on multistakeholder engagement were very much an afterthought. Others are reporting a general lack of confidence in the ability of the joint chairs of the partnership – both from the Asia-Pacific region – to move the agenda forward. Moreover, for many developing countries, the focus on the REDD+ partnership risks subverting the carefully-balanced process in the UNFCCC negotiations.

 There has been some notable practical progress with readiness programs. Over the last year, the UN-REDD work in Vietnam has got ‘boots on the ground,’ moving on from strategy development to the testing of field activities – particularly with the process for obtaining (or not) Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). RECOFTC was involved in developing a toolkit for evaluating this process, which will hopefully lead towards a more efficient and effective process by the time countries are ready to implement their national REDD+ strategies. Vietnam’s movement on FPIC is an important step forward for addressing civil society concerns about the social impacts of REDD+.  Other countries need to catch up.

Ben Vickers, RECOFTC

Leave a comment


  1. Sounds like more government interference in the private sector. Without profit no research and development takes place. Without it we would have no modern medicines, no cars, no airplanes and no modern conveniences. These were all brought to you by companies who wanted to make a profit and paid thousands of employees enough to afford such “luxuries” of life.

  2. REDD and REDD+ are means on making the environment a commodity that can be bought by the rich at the expense of the poor. We need to move away from this manner of ‘protecting’ our common heritage by selling it ot the highest bidder.

    We instead have alternatives based on the international legal duty of developed States, who have done the most damage through the most pollution in the past, to compensate developing States. Sustainable development is the answer and it should be based on the developed States willingness to give up more to compensate for the past. They could start by allowing developing countries patent or royality free access to all green technology; committing to cutting and cutting their emissions; and transferring cash to developing countries that have been exploited for centuries. Duties to do these things exits, they just need to be enforced.

    If you have a rise in murder in a country, you don’t change the laws to allow or accmodate murder, you enforce the laws to ensure murders do not take place.

  3. With folks like George Monbiot saying there is no hope of progress in the talks, I suggest it is time for some lateral thinking. That means thinking away from the dominant paradigm of using the market and tax regimes to force a reluctant international capitalist system to mend its destructive ways of Growth and Human & Natural Resource exploitation. For example banning forest clearing and destruction and making direct payments to communities to conserve nature. Is this what REDD+ proposes?

    Following from Monbiot’s analysis of the UK economy
    I suggest circulating a simple draft first step agreement which:

    1. Recognises goods, in some categories (as per Appendix I), being far in excess of human needs and which also demand large inputs of energy to produce and use have been produced and their production should cease forthwith.
    2. States shall proceed to limit the use of such goods to reduce energy demand.
    3. States shall proceed to convert factories producing such goods to alternative uses including recycling materials from goods withdrawn from use and producing climate friendly products.
    4. States shall prohibit the mining of metal ores where metals can be gained from recycling.
    5. States shall prohibit international trade in identified goods.

    Appendix I
    Motor cars (excluding busses)
    Air Conditioning units
    Monster scale agricultural machinery
    and more

    How this would affect a city in Thailand is discudded at:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: