The Decision to Create the REDD Mechanism - Research Paper Example

Introduction Climate change is a global issue, which has been on the forefront of major conventions held globally over the last few decades. The scourge has been precipitated by carbon emissions from green house gases and through deforestation. Deforestation is seen as one of the world’s major problems facing the world, especially in dealing with climate change. In order to combat global warming, forests must be saved from deforestation and degrading, we note that forests are by far one of the greatest challenges as well as opportunities facing the world in the 21st Century. Forests are the greatest global absorbers of carbon as they use it in the process of photosynthesis. However, when destroyed, forests have the ability to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Forest degradation and deforestation throws in as much as 12-15% of annual green house gas (GHG) emissions. This is relatively about the same amount contributed by the global transportation sector (Austin et. al 67). It is thus paramount that forests are protected as it is virtually impossible to deal with climate change without addressing the problem posed by deforestation and forest degradation; this is why forests must be seen as part of the answer in dealing with both climate change and GHG emissions. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been quite influential in the fight against deforestation and degradation as it provides a global podium for the protection of forests by appreciating their contribution to global warming(Colfer 64). In 1992, the UNFCCC negotiated mechanisms to provide for annual meetings referred to as Conference of the Parties (COP) which have been involved in formulating the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and (Forest) Degradation (REDD) and providing incentives to developing nations and ready and able of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (Colfer 64). The Decision to Create the REDD Mechanism The UNFCCC instituted the REDD framework with the primary objective of achieving a reduction in emissions through deforestation and degradation. Its basic idea is that countries willing and able to cut down emissions through deforestation should be adequately compensated for their efforts in order to inspire other nations to follow suit. The framework acknowledges that deforestation is part of the problem of climate change being experienced globally. Following the Kyoto Protocol agreement made in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, where nations signed an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, various other initiatives have been set up to manage green house gas emissions(Walsh 55)The Kyoto Protocol’s principal objective was to set targets for 37 industrialized nations, including the European community, for reduction of green house gas emissions of up to 5% of the 1990 levels for the period stretching from 2008-2012. While the Convention persuaded the industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions, the Kyoto Protocol mandates them to observe the set targets (Mathai 12). Following in on the footsteps of the Kyoto Protocol where carbon emissions were blamed for the environmental degradation being witnessed currently. Therefore, the attendees of the Kyoto Protocol saw the need for nations to establish measures aimed at reducing emissions which by extension touches on deforestation and degradation. Another milestones was attained at the Conference of the Parties (COP) eleventh session in Montreal in 2005 which saw Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica among eight other parties proposal of a new agenda; instruments for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (Walsh 59). Following general acceptance of the proposal by the Parties, the COP established a contact group and subsequently began the tasks of surveying options for REDD. This consequently led to massive proposals and recommendations being submitted to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) on measures to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and degradation. The large number of proposals tabled during the twelfth COP session held in Nairobi, Kenya in 2006 where further discussions into demonstrations were made. In 2007, the thirteenth session of the COP held in Bali, Indonesia decided on the demonstrations to be used and came up with an action plan. (Walter 202). The Bali Framework The Bali Road Map which encompasses the Bali Action Plan was adopted by nations present in the thirteenth COP as a two-year course of action towards finalization of the proper REDD mechanism to utilize, how the said mechanism would be and what it will entail before the fifteenth session of the COP to be held at Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009. The Bali forum incorporated the thirteenth conference of the COP and the third meeting of the Kyoto Protocol Parties (MOP 3). Moreover, the conference agreed to the adoption of the Decision 1/CP.13 which includes the formation of an spontaneous working group to look into other commitments for all members of Annex 1 under the Kyoto Protocol (Mundel 98). These members constitute thirty seven nations which vowed to reduce four GHG emissions, namely, carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride, nitrous oxide and methane. In addition, these nations committed themselves to reducing emission of hydroflurocarbons and perfluorocarbons which are products of the earlier four GHGs. Furthermore, Annex 1 nations vowed to reduce GHG emission by 5% from the levels found in 1990 (UNFCC 4). The working group was given the 2009 deadline to launch the Adaptation Fund and look into the scope and content of the Kyoto Protocol’s article 9 as well as the technological decisions on reduction of emissions from deforestation. The Bali Action Plan seeks to establish a comprehensive mechanism for realization of the convention’s aims by undertaking long-term collaboratory actions that go well beyond 2012 by addressing five main pillars. These pillars include enhancement of action and integration of the REDD mechanisms by nations on a global scope, augmenting international action towards mitigation of climate change by adopting measures aimed at reducing deforestation and degradation (Michael 143). In addition, the Bali Action Plan sort to establish a communal foresight for long standing collaboratory action in attaining global reduction of GHG emissions. Moreover, the Action Plan aimed at promoting action by the provision of financial aid and investment to stimulate action on reduction, technological cooperation and adaptation of set mechanisms (Mundel 145). Under the Bali Action Plan, member states acknowledge that the evidence of global are distinct; therefore, it is paramount that mankind reduces emission to cut down the possibility of severe effects of global climate change. In addition, The Bali Action Plan seeks to put more emphasis on the need for nations to address climate change, both individually and internationally. The Action Plan incorporates the consensus reached on the need for updated changes to be instituted in developed and developing nations, although no tangible numbers of emission reduction were agreed upon, the Action Plan acknowledges the importance of deep cuts in emissions on a global front (Bapna 75). However, suggestions were made to the effect that developing countries should cut down emission by up to 100% while developed nations should endeavor to reduce emissions by between 10- 40% by the year 2020. The Bali Action Plan set up mitigation measure on climate change, these include, establishment and implementation of nationally appropriate mitigation commitments by all nations deemed as developed and institution of nationally appropriate mitigation actions by all developing nations. Moreover, the Action Plan allows for collaboration in actions towards GHG emissions reduction through deforestation and degradation and systems to improve the catalytic function of the annual conventions (Bapna 98). The action plan categorically stated that if REDD was to be incorporated in the post-2012 framework, then the Parties had to decide on The Bali Action Plan is significant for the current negotiations of the REDD-plus module. The Bali Action plan saw nations pledging to establish approaches to their individual policies and methodologies of providing incentives to states that established meritorious actions against deforestation and degradation. Furthermore, the Action Plan saw developed nations pledging to help protect developing nations from the effects of climate change by facilitating movement of fresh, renewable energy to developing nations. This is done through the destruction of any barriers to the provision of financial incentives and transfer of technology to the developing nations (Filho 30). Moreover, there is a need for cooperation in research to develop innovative technologies, thereby creating a beneficial effect for both developed and developing nations. In addition, the Action Plan established mechanisms which enable climate friendly investments into developing nations and technical support systems for capacity building in cost assessments. The Bali Action Plan also seeks to assist nations to commit in matters pertaining REDD-plus and augmentation of forest carbon stock by developing nations (Bapna 69). The discussions on the proper REDD mechanisms spilled over to the fourteenth session of the COP held in Poznan, Poland in 2008, however, the COP fifteenth session held in Copenhagen in 2009, arrived at a complete package for the implementation of REDD. The Copenhagen session is fundamental in the REDD framework as the consensus marked a significant milestone in dealing with the global pandemic of climate change. The in order to arrive at a consensus on REDD framework, various proposals were analyzed along the lines of scope; which delves into what is being delivered by the proposal, the proposal’s reference level, which addresses how the proposals are to be measured, distribution patterns, which looks into where the money goes and to whom and lastly the financing aspect of the proposal is paramount. This aims to investigate the sources of finance for the framework (Walsh 32). Overall, effectiveness of any proposal is measured by its scope, reference level and financing and distribution procedures. Several modules on arriving at the most viable proposal have been employed, however, some of the modules incorporated a mix and match system where different options were merged to come up with a single concrete one. For instance, by incorporating deforestation and degradation into the REDD module, a better system was established than if the module only used deforestation in the scope resulting in RED. The timing was right leading up to the COP 15 in Copenhagen. There was enough momentum to make the REDD idea successful (Bapna 16). The Role of Indigenous People Between 20-24th April 2009, indigenous people’s representatives from Africa, Arctic, Asia, Caribbean, Pacific, Russia, Latin and North America met in Anchorage, Alaska for the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change. During this convention, which was hosted by the Dena’ina Athabascan people, the representatives expressed their solidarity as indigenous people living in most vulnerable areas to the effects of climate change (Mathai 18). The indigenous people reaffirm that there is an unmistakable correlation between the human race and its environment and express their displeasure at the alarming climate devastation occasioned by unsustainable living. They attribute the profound, adverse effects on their culture, human and environmental health, food systems, and economic feasibility on the increasing climatic changes witnessed presently all over the world. The world is now facing a climate crisis contrary to common belief that it is facing climate change (Griffiths 90). The indigenous people hence insist that an immediate end to the wanton destruction of forests is imminent. Through their knowledge in spirituality, sciences and practices, and their experiences and relationships with their native lands encompassing forests, oceans and all other natural resources, the indigenous people have a vital role to play in repairing the effects of climate change and protecting rain forests. Under the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the role of indigenous people in matters relating to climate change is clearly outlined; the indigenous people are involved in all decision making and processes aimed at dealing with the problem of climate change through deforestation and degradation (Mathai 20). Because REDD is being implemented in developing nations with tropics and sub-tropics, where indigenous people have been living for the last hundreds of years; the indigenous people role in using, managing and shaping these forests cannot be downplayed. The indigenous people have increased biodiversity through their traditional land usage and practices that have resulted in more diversified landscapes (Griffiths 94). Through REDD, huge amounts of money will be channeled to developing nations where its indigenous people will gain from the funds with an aim to enhancing the protection of forests from deforestation and degradation. However, some indigenous people oppose the REDD idea due to their past experiences where governments and companies refuse to take into account their roles in protecting the forests by implementing policies and programs without consulting them (Filho 29). A section of indigenous people are opposed to the treatment of forests as merely carbon storage structures, however, some appreciate the framework while demanding that their positions must always be included in both national and international policies for protection of forests. It is paramount that indigenous people comprehend the intricate details of REDD; its positive effects and any negative impact it will have on them to enable them be in a better position to negotiate and defend their privileges in the event that REDD frameworks target their territorial lands (Munden 1). The indigenous people’s role in forest protection from deforestation and degradation include programs and initiatives implemented by governments and non-governmental institutions and companies to foster a tree planting tradition among the indigenous people. Through routine tree planting exercises, the indigenous people will contribute to reforestation and the emergence of entirely new forests in their territories. In addition, indigenous people are at the forefront in detecting loopholes in frameworks aimed at forest protection. For instance, they are better served to note leakages in carbon trading, in forests available in their lands. While indigenous people advocate for forest protection as it also serves to protect their lands, they seek reaffirmation that their land titles and traditional land tenure will not be affected by measures aimed at saving forests in a move to curb climate change (Bapna 51). Various pilot projects have been established to enhance forest protection thus putting plans into action. These projects which were instituted under the REDD framework, aim at incorporating into viable action, all ideas and mechanisms arrived at in different conventions. The Amazon Fund The Amazon Fund is one of the early pilot initiatives aimed at reducing emissions through deforestation and degradation under the REDD initiative. The fund was created in 2008 by the Brazilian government aimed at mobilizing international funding through positive incentives in public-interest systems aimed at lowering deforestation and forest degradation as a measure of establishing sustainable forest management aimed at curbing climate change problems. The fund depends on donations, to raise funds for fundamental efforts in avoidance of deforestation which have already been achieved in the previous year (Michael 143). The performance in achieving REDD standards is assessed on an annual basis against average references of deforestation levels, which are adjusted every five years. The fund is managed by BNDES, that is the Economic and Social National Development Bank, which affords grants for funding projects, which play a part in prevention of deforestation and degradation as well as undertaking conservation projects, which foster sustainable use of the Amazon biome. We, however, note that up to 20% of the funds may be used to boost activities in other biomes, in Brazil, as well as other tropical forested nations. The Amazon Fund supports projects in areas such as management efforts towards public forests as well as other protected zones, sustainable management of forest cover and enforcement, close monitoring and environmental control measures (Michael 150). Furthermore, the fund boosts projects that encompass economic activities that result from sustainable utilization of forests in the Amazon biome and any ecological and economic zoning, agrarian regulations, which protect forests as well as territorial planning which is a significant in the eradication of deforestation traditions. In addition, the Amazon Fund is aimed at projects that promote conservation and sustainable usage of biodiversity found in the Amazon biome and elsewhere in the nation. All these measures are aimed at recovering deforested areas and allowing for development of new forests and reforestation of destroyed forests (Griffiths 68). Though the Amazon Fund was established by the government and is managed by a public bank institution, it is by extension still a private fund thus the direction for its application are set by a multi-stakeholder committee, the Steering Committee, which is h instituted in a triple chambered system with commissioners from all sectors including local governments, national ministries and other civil societies which include industries, scientists, aboriginal people and traditional communities (Griffiths 70). Here, decision making is through positive voting from all three chambers. Under these chambers, a Technical Committee consisting of up to six well recognized scientists who are tasked with assessing and verifying that emissions reduction claims from all projects and institutes an independent audit hired to measure the right application of the funds provided according to the laid down guidelines by the Steering Committee (Mundel 65). Development of the Amazon Fund was done rapidly moving from the first discussions in 2006 to its launch back in 2008. Brazil’s Plan of action formed the focal point for the Amazon Fund. The Brazil Action Plan aims at the prevention and control of deforestation in the Amazon. The Fund came at an opportune time as, since 1998, Brazil has been keeping an eye on deforestation on an annual basis. Between 2003 and 2005, this monitoring system incorporated a series of improvements to become a truly highly developed a tool in detection and control of deforestation (Mundel 76). Upon the eminence of 2007, Brazil had institutes a sophisticated framework of forest monitoring which includes monitoring via satellite done by the National Institute for Space Research which then compiled warnings on deforestation and annual measures on a real-time basis. This monitoring showed that deforestation was reducing meaning that Brazil already had viable building blocks in place, but it was apparent that more measures were still necessary to develop the remaining forests such as the Amazon into economic and social attractions. These efforts saw a substantial reduction in deforestation in the Amazon. However, it became apparent that such efforts aimed at reducing deforestation became more expensive thus it was difficult to institute successive reductions (Mathai 9). This led to the establishment of the Amazon Fund by the Brazilian government with the establishment of the Brazil Action Plan which aims at land tenure planning, environmental monitoring and control and implementing positive incentives for sustainable production. Under the Action Plan, illegal logging is prohibited and thousands of illegal land titles that affect the Amazon was confiscated. In addition, the government placed 20million hectares under protected land and established new legislation and policies aimed at protecting forested lands and other protected zones (Filho 33). Norway and the Protection of the Forests – Indonesia The Carbon dioxide Technology Centre (TCM), which was established in 2009 in Mongstad, Norway is due for completion in 2012. The plant is to incorporate two carbon capture technological plants with one advanced amine plant and the other being a chilled ammonia plant. Both of these chambers will be tasked with the capture of flue gas. The total capacity of carbon dioxide capture is 100,000 tonnes per annum, which is a significant measure in reduction of emissions and by extension curbing climate change by protecting the ozone layer from further depletion. However, this project’s completion was pushed forward to 2014, and is set to cost more than $990 million (CCBA 37). In Indonesia, on the other hand, long awaited measures to halt the destruction and degradation of forests, where forested areas the size of California suffer possible destruction. Environmental campaigners in Indonesia appreciate that a moratorium is, in fact, a positive change in the political front. The said moratorium seeks the establishment of at least two-year ban to logging activities in the nation’s forests which are termed as primary as they constitute forests that have not been encroached by human and zones that contain peat whose destruction results in expulsion of large amounts of pollution gases that contribute significantly to climate change (UNFCC 5). The movement, dubbed greenpeace, has stated that although this measure is substantial in the fight against deforestation and degradation, it is insufficient in protecting large forested areas such as the last habitats of tree species such as the orang-utan and the wild animals such as the Sumatran tiger. Greenpeace acknowledges that up to forty million hectares of forested lands are susceptible to destruction under the moratorium. The movement affirms that the moratorium signifies a fundamental switch towards the protection of forests, but more measures need to be established to permanently solve the problem posed by illegal logging and by extension deforestation and degradation. In Indonesia, millions of hectares are being destroyed; this also includes areas that are marked as protected on the nation’s map; therefore, the moratorium does not solve the problem, but rather represses it (Michael 150). Under the moratorium, the government aims at halting the destruction of forests and peatland by ensuring all approvals to clear forests are suspended; however, this measure does little to improve the situation as millions of hectares already remarketed for destruction are still under threat. In addition, the government affirms that forests which are rich in biodiversity are valuable; there is a need to protect degraded forests by undertaking tree planting exercises and promoting a tree planting tradition among the indigenous people of Indonesia. Moreover, peatlands, which are known to be substantial stores of carbon attributed to climate changes, are still under threat (Forest Watch Indonesia 13). Durban and the Way Forward for REDD The 17th session of COP to be held in Durban, South Africa on 30th November 2011, associates from the Durban Group for Climate Justice seek earnest rejection of schemes under the REDD initiative. The Durban Group emphasizes the negative impacts of REDD such as land grabbing and inclusion of REDD in carbon markers. It, therefore, advocates for REDD-like projects. They draw from previous experiences by supporting nations of the REDD and REDD plus, the UN-REDD initiative will initiate its initial “lesson learned” programme through a massive 12 paged publication focusing on lessons realized by UN-REDD countries in the Asia-Pacific regions (CCBA 42). The UN-REDD programme states seek partnership from other nations by insisting on the adverse effects of the REDD and REDD plus programmes to the indigenous people and their land ownership traditions (Leo and Huberman 20). The Durban Justice group, which is a global network of self-governing organization who are opposed to the REDD approach instituted by the corporations who participate in pollution and financing from northern governments and economists on the basis of carbon trading. From 2004, the Durban Justice group has held discussions where they analyze climate changes and members try to come up with real solutions to the climate change scourge. They appreciate that change to promote forests and reduce deforestation and degrading must come from the grassroots. They aim at mobilizing communities globally to resist carbon trading on a global front (Filho 33). In conclusion, the REDD mechanism provides mechanisms for compensation of governments, communities, institutions or individuals who are instrumental in reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. Through such action, forest management and maintenance becomes a viable economic decision and subsequently a sound decision for the environment. Funding towards REDD could be linked to carbon markets whereby organizations in developed nations meet their individual reduction commitments by transferring funds to forest- rich developing nations. Therefore, the carbon markets would produce sufficient funding for REDD. However, failure by REDD and REDD-plus could spell doom in the undertakings to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions through deforestation and degradation in developing nations (Michael 153). In order to be considered under the REDD program, governments and its people have to prove that carbon emissions are reduced through forests and any carbon emission is stored in the trees (Leo and Huberman 16). They also need to prove that without compensation, the efforts to ensure emissions reduction through deforestation and degradation would not be achieved. Education on the value of protecting forests is essential in the fight against global warming. While governments initiate projects, programs and strategies aimed at sensitizing its citizens on the devastating effects of deforestation and degradation, the indigenous people also play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity in the available forests and ensuring reforestation measures are implemented to mitigate the effects of GHG emissions (Angelson 201). It is paramount that incentives to encourage reduction of emissions through deforestation and degradation are increased in order to promote the establishment of frameworks aimed at reducing deforestation and by extension mitigating the problem of climate change. The developed world has a key role to play in reinforcing the REDD measures in the developing world by enhancing their pledges to provide incentives to encourage developing nations to undertake measures to deal with deforestation and degradation. Forests’biodiversity is instrumental in providing economic and social amenities to the world. Forests act as habitats for a wide range tree and wild life species such as a vast array of reptiles, birds, mammals and insects. The Amazon forest, for example, is home to one of the largest reptile species; the anaconda. In addition, forests play a vital role in rain making and preservation of water catchment areas, for instance, rivers and swamps. The REDD framework allows for participation of all sectors in the protection of forests by reducing deforestation and degradation (Angelson 202). Work cited Angelson, A. Realising REDD+ National Strategy and Policy Options. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research- CIFOR. 2009. Print. http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf Austin, K., Daviet, F. and Stolle, F. The REDD+ Decision in Cancun. World Resources Institute. 2010. Print. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/12/redd-decision-cancun Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA). The Juma Sustainable Development Reserve Project: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation in the State of Amazonas, Brazil. Juma, Brazil: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável – FAS (Project Design Document). Filho, W.F. Experiences of Climate Change Adaptation in Africa. Charlottesville: Rookwood Press 2005. Print. Bapna, M. Forests, Climate Change and the Challenges of REDD. World Resources Institute. 2010. Print. www.trust.org/alertnet/blogs/alertnet-news-blog/forests-climate-change-and-the-challenge-of-redd/  Leo, P. and Huberman, D . (Sept 2008). Making REDD Work for the Poor" (pdf). Poverty Environment Partnership. Retrieved 2009-11-23. UNFCC. Copenhagen Accord of 18 December, REDD: Agriculture and deforestation: What role should REDD+ and public support policies play?". Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. 2010. Print. Mathai, J. Seeing REDD over deforestation.2009. Print.  http://www.peat-portal.net/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=38&action=view&retrieveid=1060 Michael, R. REDD: the Last Chance for Tropical Forests?.IDLgroup. Retrieved 2009-11-23.  Walsh, Bryan. Green Banks: Paying Countries to Keep their Trees. Time Magazine. Retrieved 21 May 2009. Mundel, L. REDD and forest carbon: Market-Based Critique and Recommendations.. Munden Project. http://www.mundenproject.com/forestcarbonreport2.pdf  Retrieved 2009-11-23. Griffiths, J. Eight of these identify traditional agriculture or shifting cultivation as a major cause of forest loss. Oxford: Oxford Press. 2008.Print. Forest Watch Indonesia. The State of the Forest: Indonesia. UK: World Resources Inst .2002. Print. Colfer, C. J. P. Which Way Forward: "People, Forests, and Policymaking in Indonesia" (RFF Press. USA: RFF Press. 2002. Print. Griffiths, M. Indonesian Eden: Aceh's Rainforest. Louisiana. Louisiana State Univ Press. 1999. Print. Read More