3
3 The International Debates on REDD
On the front and back cover: Amerindian motif of frog by Jean La Rose.
2012 © INDIGENOUS RIGHTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rainforest Foundation–US and Amerindian Peoples Association (APA) Organizer: Marina Campos Authors: Marina Campos and Christine Halvorson Contributors: Jean La Rose, Laura George, Carlos Calvo, and Tessa Lee Design: Scott W. Santoro / Worksight Created by: AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION
Supported by:
Licensed by:
This means that the texts in this publication are under a Creative Commons license (www.creativecommons.org), which opens intellectual property rights. In practice, this license allows the texts of these booklets to be reproduced and used in derivative publications without previous authorization from the editors (Amerindian Peoples Association and Rainforest Foundation US), but with some criteria: they can only be used for non-commercial purposes; they must cite the original source; and in the case of derivative publications, they must also be licensed in the Creative Commons. You can: Share—copy, distribute and transmit the Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Booklets Remix—adapt the Indigenous Rights and Climate Change Booklets for your community’s use
Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute credit as follows: Indigenous Rights and Climate Change, Amerindian Peoples Association and Rainforest Foundation US (with link). Noncommercial—You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
I NTR O D U C TI O N Over the past few years the topic of climate change has dominated a lot of the news and national discussions in Guyana. Communities have heard a lot about REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and the LCDS (Low Carbon Development Strategy), but may not know what they mean and more importantly how they affect your life. Moreover, community leaders have told us that they need more information about REDD+ and LCDS, but fewer technical explanations. This series of booklets seeks to address these issues. As the owners of forest lands, how could REDD+ and other similar initiatives impact you? What are the risks, and the potential benefits? The Rainforest Foundation—US and the Amerindian Peoples Association believe it’s important for indigenous leaders to be informed about these issues, and more importantly, to understand how they relate to your livelihoods and your control of land and resources. These materials are arranged as a series of booklets that can be used by you, as trainers, to prepare for your community-based workshops. Each booklet will address a different topic and will contain basic information about that topic and also some ideas about questions to be addressed during your workshops. Together, the booklets will form a binder, so you can easily use them when they are most suited to your workshop. Booklet 1 provides guidance and support for trainers who will be carrying out workshops in their communities and regions. Booklets 2–6 deal specifically with climate change and forest issues. Booklet 2 lays out the general concepts behind climate change and REDD+. In the third booklet, we talk about the international negotiations on climate change that have been taking place over the past few years, and that have set the stage for what is currently taking place in Guyana and elsewhere. We talk in greater details about the REDD+ schemes in Guyana in booklet 4. It’s important for you and your communities to know your rights to your lands, and to consultation and participation. Therefore, booklet 5 discusses indigenous rights in Guyana and internationally. Social safeguards are explained in booklet 6; they are critical and will need to be upheld in order for any REDD+ or other climate change initiative to work. You, as trainers, are the people for whom these materials were designed. We plan to update these materials every year, so your opinions and suggestions are essential to making this tool more appropriate to your needs. Let’s get started!
If you do adapt the booklets, please send us a copy! We hope to make these available in different languages and adapted to the different realities of different countries.
1
The International Debates on REDD
INTRODUCTION
3
Now that we have looked at the basic technical information related to climate change, it’s important to understand the international political debate around climate change. International discussions on climate change have been taking place since the early 1990s and are more important every year. It’s essential to understand how and why climate change became such a “heated debate,” because what gets discussed and agreed upon internationally will in turn affect Guyana and your community.
HOW THE NEGOTIATIONS ON CLIMATE CHANGE BEGAN In 1992, countries around the world gathered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to discuss several issues related to the global environment. At that time, several world leaders and scientists were already concerned about global warming and climate change. During the meeting, they agreed to create an international body to discuss and address solutions to climate change. This international body is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Practically all countries (also called “parties”) in the world are members of the UNFCCC, and its mandate is to create a global agreement on how countries should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in order to avoid a potentially catastrophic future for us and our planet. Since then, the UNFCCC and its negotiators have tried to come up with different international agreements in which countries would voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In 1997, the UNFCCC approved an agreement to reduce the greenhouse emissions of developed countries, called the Kyoto Protocol. Through this protocol, the industrialized countries (also called Annex I countries) that signed the agreement would be obligated to reduce their emissions between the years of 2008 and 2012 to about 5% below their 1990 level of emissions. All countries in the world with exception of the United States have endorsed (ratified) the Kyoto Protocol. This means that 37 industrialized countries have therefore agreed to reduce their emissions between the years of 2008 and 2012. The Kyoto Protocol expires in December 31, 2012. Presently, several discussions are taking place to define what should happen after 2012, such as whether the agreement will end or will still be valid. In case it remains valid, they also have to agree on a new target for developed countries to cut their emissions. The reasoning behind pushing only developed countries to reduce their emissions has to do with one of the core principles of the UNFCCC: “common but differentiated responsibilities.” Although all countries are responsible for contributing to climate change (common responsibility), some are more responsible than others (differentiated responsibility). This is because, historically, developed nations started burning fossil fuels for their industries long before developing countries, so developed nations have contributed much more to climate change. It was therefore decided that, at this point, only developed countries needed to commit or agree to reductions, and developing countries would not need to. Therefore, Guyana, as of now, does not have an international obligation to reduce its emissions. Grating Cassava—Kokerite, Region 1.
3
Most agree that the 5% decrease in emissions agreed upon in Kyoto is a very small reduction, and that we should work to achieve much higher reductions. Scientists around the world believe that to prevent such significant changes in our climate as would result in a disastrous future, the average temperature of our planet should not increase by more than 2oC. To avoid a 2oC increase, they estimate that we must reduce global emissions by 50-95% by 2050. These estimates come from a group of internationally respected scientists called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or simply the IPCC. They function as a group of “doctors of the planet.” They are responsible for giving the “diagnosis” of the planet’s situation in terms of climate change and a “treatment”, or recommendation as to what should be done to minimize (mitigate) the problem. Thus, the IPCC produces and shares scientific research reports on changes in world climate, the increasing emission of greenhouse gases, the use of fossil fuels, the importance of standing forests, and the consequences of deforestation on climate. As you can imagine, their findings have strong political and economic implications. Current international negotiations To move the negotiation process forward, countries agreed to meet every year at an event called the Conference of the Parties, known also as COP. During the COP meetings, government representatives negotiate amongst themselves. Indigenous peoples and NGOs can attend, but cannot participate directly in the official negotiation sessions. Instead, they gather in various caucuses (smaller meetings) to discuss amongst themselves and then they meet with the government representatives and pressure for the inclusion of topics of concern in the final text of the agreement, such as ensuring that all initiatives must respect indigenous peoples’ rights. Because the Kyoto Protocol only lasts until 2012, negotiations for a new agreement began in 2007, and were supposed to be concluded during the COP-15 in Copenhagen in 2009.1 However, the countries were unable to reach a binding (obligatory) agreement in Copenhagen. Governments are unfortunately unwilling to make the necessary commitments because reducing emissions can be costly, could reduce economic growth, and will mean significant changes in how things are done. There are big divergences and differences in opinion between developed or industrialized countries (called Annex 1) and developing countries (called the “Group of 77”, or G-77), mostly around the issues of which countries should reduce their emissions and by how much. At the end of the 2009 meetings, government negotiators came up with the Copenhagen Accord. This accord (document) was unfortunately crafted behind “closed doors” by a small group of countries headed by the United States, and did not have a clear reduction target, as was hoped for. The Copenhagen Accord did recognize the importance of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. More relevantly for tropical countries, it mentioned the importance of creating complementary mechanisms to the reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol, such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), to further 1 Guyana was represented at the meeting by President Jagdeo; head of the NTC Yvonne Pearson was also there.
4
The International Debates on REDD
reduce global emissions (see booklet 2 for more details). In 2010, at the last COP meeting, the COP-16, held in Cancun, Mexico, (Guyana was also present) the importance of supporting actions related to REDD+ gained stronger recognition, and countries agreed to incorporate REDD+ schemes into the strategy to combat climate change. The result of this meeting was a document called the Cancun Agreement in which it was established that REDD+ initiatives will take place. A very important part of this agreement is its recognition of the importance of respecting indigenous rights within the REDD+ process and its mention of compliance with the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights. However, many important questions remain unanswered. For example, it’s not clear how and from where the money for REDD+ schemes will come. The climate negotiations continued in 2011 with COP 17 in Durban, South Africa. The 193 participating nations agreed to a complex and technical set of documents which addresses the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol; sets forth a formal structure for a Green Climate Fund and allows for new market mechanisms to combat climate change; as well as other decisions related to REDD+. The second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol will begin in January 2013, immediately following the expiration of the first commitment period in 2012. However, targets and timetables for emissions reductions have not been agreed upon yet. Moreover, out of the Annex 1 countries, just the EU, Norway and Switzerland will sign the second commitment. Canada, Japan, and Australia, which all ratified the first KP, have showed little interest in signing on. The length of this second commitment will be decided at the next COP 18, in Qatar in 2012. In Durban, countries agreed to negotiate a new global treaty to reduce emissions by 2015. Given current global emissions, climate scientists have determined that if mandatory reduction commitments are not raised, average worldwide temperatures could increase by at least 3.5 degrees Celsius in the next decades. A further problem is that even if a stronger treaty is agreed to in 2015, it would only come into force in 2020, which may be too late. The only advance made at Durban on the Green Climate Fund was related to the Fund’s design and governance. Starting in 2020, the Fund is supposed to funnel 100 billion dollars annually in assistance to developing nations to help them reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. The tricky part is that no commitments were made at Durban as to where that 100 billion a year would come from. The parties simply agreed to set up a “work plan” for mobilizing such funds from both private and governmental sources. And 2020 feels a long way off. The issue of finding financing for REDD+ was one of the most controversial debates in Durban. In the end, all parties agreed that public and private financing is needed. The final text of the agreement opens the door for market-based financing for REDD+. However, no offset mechanisms have been created yet. Many environmental organizations believe that the REDD+ text agreed to in Durban represents a step backwards for the conservation of the world’s rainforests. The Durban negotiations fell short of agreeing on a robust reporting system for ensuring that strong environmental and social safeguards for REDD+ schemes are being implemented (more on safeguards issues in booklet 6).
5
Technical bottlenecks At international negotiations, there are three major technical themes underlying the unsolved issues that are preventing REDD+ programs under the UNFCCC to move forward. Let’s understand these issues a little better: 3 Financing: This part of the debate centers on where the money to pay for the implementation of REDD+ initiatives would come from. This is one of the most controversial debates. Currently, there are two possible solutions being debated. The first would use public government funding from developed countries who donate that funding to an international fund that could then provide REDD+ funds to developing countries after they prove they have decreased their deforestation rates. The second option would use private funds through carbon markets. As mentioned above, the Durban negotiations opened the possibility of mixed financing from both private and government funding sources. 3 Scale: Some countries defend the theory that REDD+ initiatives could involve locallybased projects (a protected area, an indigenous territory, or a town) and could take place at sub-national levels (states, provinces, or in the case of Guyana, in one or many regions. However, most countries support the idea that REDD+ should happen at the national level in order to avoid the possibility that deforestation suppressed in one region simply gets transferred to another region in the same country (a concept also known as leakage). The REDD+ text agreed upon in Durban mentions that subnational forest baselines may be used as an interim measure.
3 Baseline: Another contentious debate surrounds the idea of what reference levels for
deforestation should be used to determine if a country is indeed decreasing its deforestation rates. In simple terms, a baseline is the level or measurement of deforestation that will be used for comparison in determining whether or not a country is indeed reducing its deforestation and forest degradation rates. There are two basic ways to measure whether or not a country has reduced deforestation: 1) Establishing that deforestation rates should be reduced relative to past deforestation rates called a historical baseline. This seems to make sense, but would favor countries that historically had high rates of deforestation, like Brazil and Indonesia, because they would be “rewarded” for their past deforestation. It could also encourage other countries to increase their deforestation rates before they begin any REDD+ programs. In addition, the adoption of a historical baseline measurement system for countries like those in the Congo basin or Guyana, with large forest cover and a history of low deforestation rates, would fail to put pressure on these governments to maintain low deforestation rates in the future. 2) The other option for measuring deforestation rates involves creating a scientific computer model that ‘predicts’ future deforestation scenarios based on infrastructure (such as road building and paving), governance policies, population growth and agriculture production, and compares that with the current situation. In this case, countries with high or low rates of deforestation could create a model and predict how much they will be reducing their emissions. This would is referred to as using a future or projected baseline. The greatest challenge for either of these baseline measurement methods is how
6
The International Debates on REDD
Deforestation in tropical rainforest/RFUS Archive.
to harmonize different deforestation and forest conservation scenarios in various countries without generating perverse incentives. Although these multiple technical issues remain unsolved, it’s the political implications of the climate change debate that are really paralyzing the negotiations. Let’s analyze the situation and the major problems:
There was no detailed agreement at COP 17 in Durban on how countries should develop their forest reference emission levels (baselines). There are several good reasons for developing accurate projected baselines, including that they would give countries room to develop, especially in countries with historically low deforestation rates. That way, the “bad guys” who have deforested already aren’t rewarded instead of the “good guys” who have kept their forests standing. Baselines would also make sure that REDD is global to avoid international leakage. There are also dangers associated with using estimated future deforestation levels (projected baselines). For one, there’s the possibility that countries could be paid for doing nothing, if the projected future deforestation levels are unrealistically high, and would never have actually taken place in the real world. Also, if baselines are combined with an offset market, Northern countries could continue to pollute while supporting false “reductions” in deforestation—thus allowing for a net increase in deforestation and emissions. POLITICAL bottlenecks At has become clear that to reduce global emissions by 50–95% by 2050, developing countries would also need to have mandatory or compulsory reductions. This is the biggest problem in the COP debates; some developed nations say that it would not matter if they cut their emissions drastically if developing countries do not commit to reducing theirs as well. Developing countries, on the other hand, argue that they have not contributed to climate change on the same magnitude, and, therefore, the obligation to address the problem of climate change lies with developed countries. One of the biggest differences is between the United States of America and China. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but, because it’s considered a developing country, it currently has no obligation to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. The United States says that if China does not have to reduce its emissions, they will not do so either, because reductions from developed countries alone will not stop our planet from getting warmer. Today, these two countries alone are responsible for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, so without their participation any agreement will not be effective. As we can see, a global agreement on how to address climate change that satisfies the needs and political positions of all countries is far from being reached.
7
B eyond technical issues: Ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples and other forest communities During the last COPs meeting several groups of NGOs and indigenous peoples organized and protested for the inclusion of indigenous rights as part of any international agreement. The Cancun Agreement states that REDD+ mechanisms should be put in place to counter climate change. The agreement includes a reference to the importance of promoting and securing indigenous rights and mentions the need to follow the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which is an improvement. However, currently, there is still no international agreement that sets forth how REDD+ initiatives should be accomplished, and the importance of the requirements eluded to in the Cancun Agreement can easily be watered down. Despite this, several initiatives are already being shaped at local, national, and international levels, as is the case for Guyana. In a later section, we will summarize some of the most important ones. As we discussed earlier, the UNFCCC is currently seeking to include REDD+ in its programs in order to mitigate carbon emissions at little cost and at the same time generate funds for conservation initiatives in tropical forests. It’s expected that REDD+ will form part of the agreement that would be implemented after 2012 (the year that concludes the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol). Because indigenous peoples have rights to a lot of forested lands, what is decided in terms of REDD+ will have an impact on you and your community. The debate will continue in 2011 with the COP-17 in Durban, South Africa. Meanwhile, global emissions continue to rise and the reality of climate change and the threat it poses to all of humanity becomes more apparent every day. REDD+ ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE There are various REDD+ programs and initiatives already taking shape at the international level, while the main framework to be agreed by the UNFCCC is still being worked out. We will now discuss the basics of the most important programs and analyze how they may impact Guyana. World Bank: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, known as FCPF, was launched in December 2007 during the COP-13 in Bali, Indonesia as an attempt to get countries “ready” for REDD+ schemes on the national level. There are a total of 37 mostly tropical countries around the world that applied and have been selected to be a part of the initiative. This includes tropical countries in Asia, Africa, Central and South America. In the Amazon Basin 5 countries are part of this initiative: Bolivia, Colombia, Guyana, Peru, and Suriname (as of October 2011). Donor countries, which include all industrialized and developed countries in the global North, have given money to make this happen, adding up to more than US $150 million. This initiative has received a lot of criticism from civil society and in particular from indigenous groups because it was not originally designed in a participatory manner. The participants’ committee (also referred to as the PC) now includes civil society and indigenous representatives as observers. In theory, the structuring and implementation of the FCPF initiative in each country should happen with the full participation of all differ-
8
The International Debates on REDD
Group discussion—APA GA 8.
ent sectors of society, especially indigenous groups. However, this has not been the case in most countries, and compliance with this requirement has been weak. REDD+ countries have to develop a “readiness preparation plan” (referred to usually as an R-PP) explaining how they are going to reduce deforestation. This document is supposed to be constructed in collaboration with all different stakeholders. The inclusion of indigenous peoples in this process is critical, as they occupy and use the majority of forest lands in all tropical countries. However, what we have seen so far is that the majority of these plans have been written inside government offices with very little or no participation of indigenous peoples and other civil society groups. Once their R-PP is approved a country is eligible to receive a grant of about US $3–6 million to put the plan into action. This is a process that should take about 3 years. Once they Aishalton Wapishana Culture Group, Guyana/APA Archive. have carried out their plan, a country would be ready to sell carbon credits. Guyana is one of the FPCF countries. Its R-PP was submitted in 2008, revised in April 2010, and has been approved despite the fact that indigenous peoples did not fully participate in this process, contrary to the procedures set forth by the FPCF.
9
any funds at this moment. As the Programme increases its resources, these partner countries might be eligible to receive funds to implement their own national REDD+ programs.
UN-REDD Programme In September 2008, another international initiative to foster REDD+ actions in tropical countries was created by the United Nations. It’s called the UN-REDD Programme and it’s a joint program between several UN agencies including the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Currently there are 13 UN-REDD pilot countries (Bolivia, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Zambia). In addition to the 13 UN-REDD Programme countries receiving support for national programs, the Programme also supports 17 other partner countries across Africa, AsiaPacific and Latin America. These countries are: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Gabon, Guatemala, Guyana, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka and Sudan. The partner countries have access to many of the benefits of the Programme, including networking, participation in regional workshops and knowledge sharing, as well as observer status to the UN-REDD Programme Policy Board. However, they are not receiving
A total of US $55.4 million (as of October 2011) has been donated to UN-REDD already, mostly by the Norwegian government, and more than US $200 million has been pledged. UN-REDD should follow a rights-based approach to program design and should abide by the standards and principles contained in UN instruments and conventions such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Because both the UN-REDD Programme and the FCPF have similar goals in structuring nationallevel REDD+ schemes, through the past few years they have been working more closely together and even combining some of their procedures (what is referred to as what is referred as “common approach”). Harmonizing procedures can help countries that participate in both schemes (for example, by creating common procedures), but also pose a risk that some important issues, such as respect for indigenous rights, may be watered down. These institutions have different policies and requirements that they follow, and when they are combined there is a risk of each one lowering its standards, rather than raising them, as one agency may choose to follow the lower standards of another. We will address this, and the topic of safeguards, in booklet 6. The Interim REDD+ Partnership
Participation of different countries in the UN-REDD Programme. Source: www.un-redd.org
A separate initiative was spearheaded by France and Norway and launched in May 2010. It’s considered “interim as it will be expected to be replaced by, or folded into, a UNFCCC mechanism including REDD+ once established and agreed upon by the Parties.” So far US $4 billion has been pledged and 50 countries have signed on to the initiative (now 71 countries are part of this initiative). Since its inception, this initiative has had a poor record of fostering the participation of indigenous peoples and other sectors of civil society. Most of its meetings happen behind closed doors and very few records are publicly available. As a consequence, this partnership has been heavily condemned for its lack of transparency and lack of engagement with civil society and indigenous peoples, and so far no actions have taken place under this initiative. The most dangerous aspect of this program and all of its related documents is that there is a total lack of reference to the importance of respecting indigenous rights. Bilateral REDD+ Agreements In the absence of a global agreement on REDD+ several country-to-country programs have flourished. The most significant one is Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI). This initiative seeks to implement REDD+ schemes in developing countries while promoting the conservation of natural forests and their carbon stocks.
Countries receiving support to National Programmes Other partner countries
10
The International Debates on REDD
So far the Norwegian government has signed agreements with Mexico, Brazil, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Guyana, totaling US $440 million of funding per year over the next several years. In Guyana, the partnership between the Norwegian and the Guyanese governments has been the basis of support for the structuring and implementation of the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). A total of US $250 million over 4 years could be donated if the Guyanese government decreases its rates of deforestation. One of the requirements of this agreement is the creation of the Guyana REDD+ Investment
11
Fund (GRIF) which will hold the payments from Norway until targets are met and they can be disbursed. The GRIF was established in October 2010, and the first payment from Norway to the Fund of approximately US $30 million has already been deposited. The governments of Guyana and Norway have asked the World Bank to act as the Trustee of the GRIF. Norway’s payments to Guyana will depend on Guyana’s performance, according to a methodology agreed upon by the two countries in November 2009. The GRIF has a Steering Committee (SC) serving as the oversight and decision-making body. The Guyanese government chairs this committee and its members will be representatives of the government and the financial contributors to the GRIF. The Trustee, each of the GRIF partner entities (for now Guyana and Norway), civil society organizations and private sector entities were invited by the SC to participate as observers. The GRIF funds can only be used when a project is approved by the Steering Committee. So far, a couple of draft proposals have been presented but none of them have been approved yet. More details about the benefits and potential pitfalls of this partnership are explained in booklet 4. Private REDD+ Projects A series of private REDD+ projects have also been designed and implemented in tropical countries. In this context, private companies or intermediaries negotiate for and then buy carbon credits from communities living within forests, or from NGOs or other groups doing projects that protect forests. The credits in these agreements are meant to be sold through carbon markets (see booklet 2 for a brief discussion on carbon markets). In cases where projects are on indigenous lands, these transactions are often concluded without local communities having participated in the design of these REDD+ projects or even being consulted, which means that they are implemented without indigenous peoples fully understanding the contracts and how the transaction will impact their livelihoods. As a consequence, communities do not have a clear understanding about their roles and responsibilities under the contract or the roles and responsibilities of the companies. Moreover, in most cases, the negative impacts of these obscure deals, such as restriction in the use of forest resources and prohibition on the expansion of familybased agriculture to new areas, are often not explained to communities. A proliferation of obscure deals risking communities’ rights to use their own resources is taking place. The proponents of these deals are commonly called “carbon cowboys”. Because of this, now more than ever it’s very important for community leaders to be very aware of any documents or contracts they sign and to have the full support of their base communities before signing any document they do not fully understand. FINAL THOUGHTS Understanding all of these international initiatives can be very confusing, and it’s important to understand that these different initiatives are happening independently, meaning that the same country might have one, two or even three of these initiatives taking place simultaneously. For example, Guyana has a bilateral partnership with the Norwegian government for REDD+ and the Low Carbon Development Strategy (more on the LCDS on the booklet 4). At the same time, it’s part of the World Bank’s FCPF and it’s a partner country in the UN-REDD Programme. Brazil, on the other hand, also has
12
The International Debates on REDD
River margin, Guyana/APA archive.
a bilateral agreement with the Norwegian Government for REDD+, called the Amazon Fund, and it already has several REDD+ pilot projects being created and implemented at the local level, but it does not participate in the FCPF nor in the UN-REDD Programme. As we have seen, the issues concerning the structuring and implementation of REDD+ schemes are far from being solved and several key technical and political aspects are still being discussed. Moreover, the social aspects of REDD+ schemes such as respect for indigenous rights are not fully guaranteed. As the best guardians of the tropical rainforests, indigenous peoples have a very important role to play in the debate. Solutions to address climate change cannot be effective if the real causes of deforestation are not properly addressed and if indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands are limited. It’s true that resolving the debates on technical issues (monitoring, baseline, leakage, etc.), financial mechanisms (funds and markets), and scale (national/subnational) are extremely important to creating successful REDD+ programs. But, such initiatives will still likely fail if they do not respect the rights of indigenous peoples and ensure their active participation in all phases of REDD+ program design and implementation.
13
AMERINDIAN PEOPLES ASSOCIATION