Would you cREDDit it?

I must apologize. I seem to have given the impression that the Cancun talks started on Monday.  My mistake; at least as far as REDD+ is concerned the negotiations only start tomorrow.  For the last five days parties have been arguing over which text to begin with.

As this briefing from FIELD sets out, there were broadly four different REDD+ texts available to negotiators after Tianjin; the Copenhagen version (with minor tweaks at Bonn in June), the Bolivian bracketed text, the Saudi bracketed text, and a version prepared by the Chair.  The latter version had no formal status as an accepted text, but it is this version that parties have now finally chosen as the basis for their negotiations over the remaining days of COP16.  This is the best option.  There is limited divergence from Copenhagen.  The Chair also cleverly skirted the issue of REDD+ finance (which could not possibly be agreed at this meeting) by stipulating that finance clauses refer only to readiness activities.  By doing so, the question of market-based mechanisms, for actual REDD+ implementation, is no longer immediately relevant.  The question will still have to be faced eventually, of course, but this text defers it for at least another couple of years.

Tony La Vina, former chair of the REDD+ discussions, agrees that this is the best approach for now.  As he says, there is quite a difference between finance through markets, and commoditisation of carbon.  The former does not imply the latter, which is at the heart of the concerns of the five Latin American countries.  This is still a distinction which is hard to explain, or to understand.

The question remains; what exactly counts as readiness activities?  Would a decision based on this text mandate just endless workshops, meetings and baseline calculations?  Or would it allow funds to be channeled to practical, useful forest-based activities? This is a question for tomorrow.  Negotiators have left it late.  They are going to have a tough weekend.  But at least they can now begin.

Posted by Ben Vickers

Leave a comment

1 Comment

  1. I wonder if the conference realizes that 2011 a.d. is the UN sponsored International Year of the Forests ?

    In SE Asia fire is the the major cause of forest degradation.Despite an agreement some 10 years old on limiting smoke haze – mainly from forest burning the situation shows no sign of improvement.

    Can the talks produce agreement on measures to deal with this?

    When it comes to forest clearing can they agree to put a cap on the amount of palm oil and natural rubber that is traded internationally, as increasing production of these 2 commodities is a majr driver of native forest clearing?

    Other products could be identified for trading bans e.g tropical timber for English garden furniture.

    More widely how about a ban on trade in shark fins? Remember fossil fuel drives the boats that fish these out of the water, throwing the de-finned sharks back to die in agony.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: