Ministers meeting in Cancun, Mexico reached a series of agreements that include measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a goal of limiting the global average temperature increase to 2°C, greater protections for forests, and a new U.N.-administered climate fund finance mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries. While the "Cancun Agreement" doesn't set any binding targets, it lays the groundwork for a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
In total 26 agreements were reached, including language that advances the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism, which aims to compensate developing countries for protecting their forests. Although many of the details around REDD+ are still on the table, the text includes social and environmental ‘safeguards’ and creates space for interim "sub-national" projects nested under national monitoring and reporting systems. The agreement does not address whether market-based mechanisms (e.g. carbon trading) can be used to finance REDD. Read more and the various views on the REDD+ outcome from Cancun
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Experiences on REDD+ implementation and partnership in West Africa
A side event took place on Monday December 6, 2010 on the challenges of implementing REDD+ mechanism in the West African region. It was organized by Association des clubs des Amis de la Nature du Cameroun (ACAN) and ANCC.
A case study of Liberia was provided by Mr. Urias Goll (a member of the national delegation), given that the country has a large chunk of forest land (42% of the remaining Upper Guinean forest cover). Liberia itself has 45 – 48% of the land are under forest cover, but the deforestation rate is 0.3% per year.
According to Urias, the main drivers of deforestation like in many other African countries include commercial timber logging and illegal chain sawing; charcoal burning; illegal mining that seem to be a viable livelihood option after the civil war; and the traditional unsustainable farming practices.
To date, Liberia has embarked on the REDD+ development (Project Inception Note and consultations). This has resulted in having an institutional framework that is intended to involve a wide range of actors including civil society, government institutions across a range of sectors (energy, agriculture, CDM, among others).
In addition several studies have been carried out, for example a low carbon economy study (towards a 25-year Low Carbon development Strategy for Liberia); how to put in place a benefit-sharing mechanism and a trust fund; capacity needs assessment; legal and policy review, reference scenarios; regulations to manage chain saw activities, among others.
Though the process in Liberia and West Africa seems to be moving on as discussed, there are challenges noted as follows:
- Lack of skills and need to have translations into local languages
- Ensuring community buy-in as some still remain skeptical about the REDD concept
- Dealing with new partners who come with new ideas, strategies that need to be negotiated upon.
- How to take into account the local land tenure systems
- The form of benefit / revenue sharing mechanisms to be used (community livelihood improvement? how?)
- Alignment with oil palm development. In Liberia Government signed 2 contracts for palm oil expansion on ‘degraded lands’.
In the ensuring plenary discussion, updates were given for Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon. One participant noted that REDD+ is a intelligence test for humanity in addition to the above challenges and corruption tendencies. ‘Education programmes and understanding of the REDD+ process are long overdue’, He added.
Another participant warned that design of REDD+ projects is an essential stage that will either secure participation (and success) or the opposite resulting in a failure that Africa will live to regret (like the dismal progress in CDM projects).
A case study of Liberia was provided by Mr. Urias Goll (a member of the national delegation), given that the country has a large chunk of forest land (42% of the remaining Upper Guinean forest cover). Liberia itself has 45 – 48% of the land are under forest cover, but the deforestation rate is 0.3% per year.
According to Urias, the main drivers of deforestation like in many other African countries include commercial timber logging and illegal chain sawing; charcoal burning; illegal mining that seem to be a viable livelihood option after the civil war; and the traditional unsustainable farming practices.
To date, Liberia has embarked on the REDD+ development (Project Inception Note and consultations). This has resulted in having an institutional framework that is intended to involve a wide range of actors including civil society, government institutions across a range of sectors (energy, agriculture, CDM, among others).
In addition several studies have been carried out, for example a low carbon economy study (towards a 25-year Low Carbon development Strategy for Liberia); how to put in place a benefit-sharing mechanism and a trust fund; capacity needs assessment; legal and policy review, reference scenarios; regulations to manage chain saw activities, among others.
Though the process in Liberia and West Africa seems to be moving on as discussed, there are challenges noted as follows:
- Lack of skills and need to have translations into local languages
- Ensuring community buy-in as some still remain skeptical about the REDD concept
- Dealing with new partners who come with new ideas, strategies that need to be negotiated upon.
- How to take into account the local land tenure systems
- The form of benefit / revenue sharing mechanisms to be used (community livelihood improvement? how?)
- Alignment with oil palm development. In Liberia Government signed 2 contracts for palm oil expansion on ‘degraded lands’.
In the ensuring plenary discussion, updates were given for Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon. One participant noted that REDD+ is a intelligence test for humanity in addition to the above challenges and corruption tendencies. ‘Education programmes and understanding of the REDD+ process are long overdue’, He added.
Another participant warned that design of REDD+ projects is an essential stage that will either secure participation (and success) or the opposite resulting in a failure that Africa will live to regret (like the dismal progress in CDM projects).
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Carbon Rights in REDD+: Towards a common understanding
REDDnet’s event on Carbon Rights took place last Saturday. There were 3 presentations followed by a panel discussion and an open floor discussion.
The presentations by Robert O’Sullivan (Climate Focus - US); Guillermo Navarro (CATIE – Costa Rica); Alvaro Umana (Costa Rica), Yaw Osafo (Ghana), Marlea Munez (CoDeREDD – Phillipines) attempted to answer a set of questions. These included: what a carbon right is and whether, or under what circumstances, carbon rights constitute a new form of legal right that is specific to REDD+; Why and whether carbon rights need to be defined at all; implications on the interpretation of carbon rights in national REDD+ processes and projects doe different actors (opportunities and risks for local communities and indigenous peoples, governments and project developers); and the steps needed to ensure that the interpretation of carbon rights in REDD+ results in systems which are environmentally effective and equitable.
Robert O’Sullivan introduced the concept of carbon rights and drew a distinction between Carbon rights and carbon credit. He noted that carbon rights includes rights to carbon credits and / or benefits form the sale of carbon credits or other payments or benefits received from emission reductions or removals. On the other hand, carbon credit is a tradeable unit (credit, offsets, and allowances) that include a bundle of legal rights for example in the ownership, sale or use.
He further drew gave the options on REDD+ carbon rights and benefit flows: funding source being from non market or market-based approaches, in which case the role of governments will vary.
Guillermo and Alvaro gave experiences from Costa Rica, where they noted that carbon rights are not explicit in the law, resulting in complexity in who owns land and forest resources.
Yaw and Marlea gave their experiences of carbon rights in Ghana and the Philippines, noting that the concept is yet to be fully understood, brings up capacity gaps and the need to scale up access to information to local communities, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders.
Some learning points from this side event are:
- Recognition of carbon rights is a slow process requiring institutional reforms, transparency and trust among the relevant stakeholders in the respective countries
- Land tenure clarity is an issue that will take long to sort out in many developing countries with implications on the carbon rights regime(s).
- Carbon rights are not alienated from other rights and hence need to be looked at from this perspective.
For a summary of the issues raised visit the link
The presentations by Robert O’Sullivan (Climate Focus - US); Guillermo Navarro (CATIE – Costa Rica); Alvaro Umana (Costa Rica), Yaw Osafo (Ghana), Marlea Munez (CoDeREDD – Phillipines) attempted to answer a set of questions. These included: what a carbon right is and whether, or under what circumstances, carbon rights constitute a new form of legal right that is specific to REDD+; Why and whether carbon rights need to be defined at all; implications on the interpretation of carbon rights in national REDD+ processes and projects doe different actors (opportunities and risks for local communities and indigenous peoples, governments and project developers); and the steps needed to ensure that the interpretation of carbon rights in REDD+ results in systems which are environmentally effective and equitable.
Robert O’Sullivan introduced the concept of carbon rights and drew a distinction between Carbon rights and carbon credit. He noted that carbon rights includes rights to carbon credits and / or benefits form the sale of carbon credits or other payments or benefits received from emission reductions or removals. On the other hand, carbon credit is a tradeable unit (credit, offsets, and allowances) that include a bundle of legal rights for example in the ownership, sale or use.
He further drew gave the options on REDD+ carbon rights and benefit flows: funding source being from non market or market-based approaches, in which case the role of governments will vary.
Guillermo and Alvaro gave experiences from Costa Rica, where they noted that carbon rights are not explicit in the law, resulting in complexity in who owns land and forest resources.
Yaw and Marlea gave their experiences of carbon rights in Ghana and the Philippines, noting that the concept is yet to be fully understood, brings up capacity gaps and the need to scale up access to information to local communities, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders.
Some learning points from this side event are:
- Recognition of carbon rights is a slow process requiring institutional reforms, transparency and trust among the relevant stakeholders in the respective countries
- Land tenure clarity is an issue that will take long to sort out in many developing countries with implications on the carbon rights regime(s).
- Carbon rights are not alienated from other rights and hence need to be looked at from this perspective.
For a summary of the issues raised visit the link
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Burundi’s second National Communications on Climate Change: Why is it urgent to address the increasing vulnerability to Climate Change
Yesterday, I attended the launch of Burundi’s second National Communications on Climate Change - a report on the steps a country is taking or envisage undertaking to implement the UNFCCC (Articles 4.1 and 12).
In accordance with the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" enshrined in this Convention, the required contents of these national communications and the timetable for their submission is different for Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing country) Parties.
Each non-Annex I Party shall submit its initial communication within three years of the entry into force of the Convention for that Party, or of the availability of financial resources (except for the least developed countries, which may do so at their discretion).
According to the UNFCCC, of the 153 non-Annex I Parties, 137 have submitted their initial national communications, 24 their second national communications, one party each their third and fourth national communications.
Supported by UNDP and GEF, Burundi prepared its second national report (2006 – 2009) that has been launched in Cancun. Like many East African Countries, Burundi is faced with food insecurity that has been aggravated by unstable climate conditions affecting the this region in recent years.
For example, the World Bank has drawn attention to the exceptionally high rate of deforestation in Burundi, estimated at 9% per year between 1996 and 2000. This has contributed to degradation of soil, marshlands and possibly the reduction in the water level of Lake Tanganyika.
Burundi is a country with a high population growth that puts excessive pressure on the arable lands and natural resources (90% of the population depends on agriculture). Hence the sensitive interaction between climate change, sustainable ecosystems and food security will present a most demanding challenge for the government and donors.
This Second National Communications underscored the vulnerability of Burundi to Climate Change that span a range of development sectors including agriculture and livestock, health, water for production, energy and management of ecosystems (same like in the initial National Communications). This state of affairs is no different from many LDCs that urgently need support to ‘cushion’ themselves against both the predictable and unpredictable impacts of climate change.
Though the UN has set up an Adaptation fund, a lot more efforts need to be put in to help vulnerable communities like in Burundi, other LDCs and Small Island States. This is needed in terms of targeted national support for institutional capacity building in line with the principles established for the Adaptation Fund.
In addition, such vulnerable countries need capacity building support to secure that communities are able to ‘drive’ any efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change. For example both Burundi’s NAPA and the second National Communications identify a wide range of potential micro projects that need the support of the affected communities, Government, Civil Society and development partners.
In conclusion, this side event, together with the views and opinions I have gathered from a couple of delegates, to me justify urgent local and national actions to scale up adaptive capacities in the (vulnerable) LDCs and Small Island States
In accordance with the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" enshrined in this Convention, the required contents of these national communications and the timetable for their submission is different for Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing country) Parties.
Each non-Annex I Party shall submit its initial communication within three years of the entry into force of the Convention for that Party, or of the availability of financial resources (except for the least developed countries, which may do so at their discretion).
According to the UNFCCC, of the 153 non-Annex I Parties, 137 have submitted their initial national communications, 24 their second national communications, one party each their third and fourth national communications.
Supported by UNDP and GEF, Burundi prepared its second national report (2006 – 2009) that has been launched in Cancun. Like many East African Countries, Burundi is faced with food insecurity that has been aggravated by unstable climate conditions affecting the this region in recent years.
For example, the World Bank has drawn attention to the exceptionally high rate of deforestation in Burundi, estimated at 9% per year between 1996 and 2000. This has contributed to degradation of soil, marshlands and possibly the reduction in the water level of Lake Tanganyika.
Burundi is a country with a high population growth that puts excessive pressure on the arable lands and natural resources (90% of the population depends on agriculture). Hence the sensitive interaction between climate change, sustainable ecosystems and food security will present a most demanding challenge for the government and donors.
This Second National Communications underscored the vulnerability of Burundi to Climate Change that span a range of development sectors including agriculture and livestock, health, water for production, energy and management of ecosystems (same like in the initial National Communications). This state of affairs is no different from many LDCs that urgently need support to ‘cushion’ themselves against both the predictable and unpredictable impacts of climate change.
Though the UN has set up an Adaptation fund, a lot more efforts need to be put in to help vulnerable communities like in Burundi, other LDCs and Small Island States. This is needed in terms of targeted national support for institutional capacity building in line with the principles established for the Adaptation Fund.
In addition, such vulnerable countries need capacity building support to secure that communities are able to ‘drive’ any efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change. For example both Burundi’s NAPA and the second National Communications identify a wide range of potential micro projects that need the support of the affected communities, Government, Civil Society and development partners.
In conclusion, this side event, together with the views and opinions I have gathered from a couple of delegates, to me justify urgent local and national actions to scale up adaptive capacities in the (vulnerable) LDCs and Small Island States
Friday, December 3, 2010
Opinion: How to build capacity for climate-resilient development
Capacity building is an ongoing process through which individuals, groups, organizations and societies enhance their ability to identify and meet development challenges like climate change.
Climate resilient development is about communities resisting, absorbing and recovering from the effects of hazards in a timely and efficient manner, preserving or restoring their essential basic structures, functions and identity
Climate change is a major threat to all aspects of human development. The poorest and most vulnerable communities are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in across the world especially in the Least Developing Countries and small Island States.
The need for capacity-building to assist Parties to the UNFCCC, especially developing countries, to respond to climate change has long been recognized in the Convention’s work on such issues as technology transfer, national communications and funding.
Hence, as a cross-cutting issue, the current talks in Cancun and the multitude of side events actually show intentions to build capacity of a wide range of actors at local, national and global levels to be able to adapt their development efforts with the climate change challenge.
Capacity building comes in a number of forms including provision of finance through global public and private-led initiatives, training and knowledge provision, technological options, enabling participation of local communities and indigenous communities, and procurement of infrastructure and equipment, among others. This might in turn not yet the desired intentions.
However, though capacity building should be looked at as a form of ‘readiness’ to climate resilient development, how it is planned by the various agencies needs to be more coordinated, sustainable and relevant to the target groups in the effected countries.
Amongst all these, finance is the taken as the panacea to address the rest for example through the UN FCCC Adaptation fund. But I think that provision of finance per se cannot be a ‘silver bullet’ for capacity building without the support of the other components.
In other words, we need to think deeper and try to answer a number of questions that include the following:
- What is the rationale for the capacity building: is it about technology transfer, training of middle managers, communities or CSOs. In other words who is the target of this capacity building and what are the investment requirements?
- If this target group is an intermediary (NGO, Government agencies) how can we secure that it will pass on the knowledge and skills to the eventual target group (local communities, farmers and indigenous groups that interface with the effects of climate change on a day to day basis?).
- Could there be innovative and more efficient ways of reaching out directly without going through the intermediaries? For example, would web-based learning option be one?
- How is this capacity building to be delivered? Are we to depend on the sophiscated models tools and other kits in energy use, agriculture, water supply? Have we established what else has been tried out and worked and have not worked for lessons (as a starting point)? Is it soft (training and skills) or hard ware (technology and equipment) that is needed?
- What institutions will deliver capacity building in the long-run? Would South – South linkages to set up regional institutions be part of the option especially for the more sophiscated training needs like GHG inventories; adaptation & vulnerability assessments including documentation of climate change experiences?
- Are there ready institutions that are able to monitor / follow up the training provided at national and local levels, which can be supported right from the start of any intended capacity building initiative?
- How can we harness the available open opportunities in form of ICTs to promote climate resilience (information sharing on possible energy, transport, building and other technological options, enabling sharing of experiences amongst local communities and states, facilitating the regular generation of views and opinions of local communities and Indigenous peoples to feed into negotiations and other levels of decision-making)?
In other words, capacity building as part of ‘climate change readiness’ means wider locally and nationally generated plans (for example on adaptation) supported by a sustainable source of finance to ensure climate-resilient communities.
Climate resilient development is about communities resisting, absorbing and recovering from the effects of hazards in a timely and efficient manner, preserving or restoring their essential basic structures, functions and identity
Climate change is a major threat to all aspects of human development. The poorest and most vulnerable communities are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in across the world especially in the Least Developing Countries and small Island States.
The need for capacity-building to assist Parties to the UNFCCC, especially developing countries, to respond to climate change has long been recognized in the Convention’s work on such issues as technology transfer, national communications and funding.
Hence, as a cross-cutting issue, the current talks in Cancun and the multitude of side events actually show intentions to build capacity of a wide range of actors at local, national and global levels to be able to adapt their development efforts with the climate change challenge.
Capacity building comes in a number of forms including provision of finance through global public and private-led initiatives, training and knowledge provision, technological options, enabling participation of local communities and indigenous communities, and procurement of infrastructure and equipment, among others. This might in turn not yet the desired intentions.
However, though capacity building should be looked at as a form of ‘readiness’ to climate resilient development, how it is planned by the various agencies needs to be more coordinated, sustainable and relevant to the target groups in the effected countries.
Amongst all these, finance is the taken as the panacea to address the rest for example through the UN FCCC Adaptation fund. But I think that provision of finance per se cannot be a ‘silver bullet’ for capacity building without the support of the other components.
In other words, we need to think deeper and try to answer a number of questions that include the following:
- What is the rationale for the capacity building: is it about technology transfer, training of middle managers, communities or CSOs. In other words who is the target of this capacity building and what are the investment requirements?
- If this target group is an intermediary (NGO, Government agencies) how can we secure that it will pass on the knowledge and skills to the eventual target group (local communities, farmers and indigenous groups that interface with the effects of climate change on a day to day basis?).
- Could there be innovative and more efficient ways of reaching out directly without going through the intermediaries? For example, would web-based learning option be one?
- How is this capacity building to be delivered? Are we to depend on the sophiscated models tools and other kits in energy use, agriculture, water supply? Have we established what else has been tried out and worked and have not worked for lessons (as a starting point)? Is it soft (training and skills) or hard ware (technology and equipment) that is needed?
- What institutions will deliver capacity building in the long-run? Would South – South linkages to set up regional institutions be part of the option especially for the more sophiscated training needs like GHG inventories; adaptation & vulnerability assessments including documentation of climate change experiences?
- Are there ready institutions that are able to monitor / follow up the training provided at national and local levels, which can be supported right from the start of any intended capacity building initiative?
- How can we harness the available open opportunities in form of ICTs to promote climate resilience (information sharing on possible energy, transport, building and other technological options, enabling sharing of experiences amongst local communities and states, facilitating the regular generation of views and opinions of local communities and Indigenous peoples to feed into negotiations and other levels of decision-making)?
In other words, capacity building as part of ‘climate change readiness’ means wider locally and nationally generated plans (for example on adaptation) supported by a sustainable source of finance to ensure climate-resilient communities.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
REDD+ raises governance issues that need to be addressed
On Thursday I attended a couple of meetings on REDD+, typically giving experiences from different regions and on different issues. Being a new concept, REDD+ is generating such substantive attention at the side events of this UNFCCC COP.
Governance is one such issue that was the focus of discussion in an event organized by a Brazilian non-profit research institution - The Amazon Institute for People and the Environment (Imazon). To start with, governance is a development ‘buzzword’ that has come to mean different things to different people and at different times. In some instances, it has constituted a set of conditions for aid support from development agencies to developing countries.
It is therefore no surprise that it is creeping into REDD+ as a development issue that we have to contend with. But we do not need to conceptualize it in the traditional sense of it. In this case, it echoes the need for openness and transparency in making decisions that affect a wide range of REDD+ actors including Governments, local communities, indigenous peoples, NGOs, women and others at the global, national and local levels.
In fact, there are international legal instruments that can clarify it in case of REDD+. These include Principle 10 of the Rio declaration on Public Participation, Access to Information and Justice; and Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
From this event, I gathered that it is important to view stakeholder participation - not as an end in itself but as a means to an end (delivering desirable outcomes).
The wide range of REDD+ stakeholders raises questions of how to effectively engage them and at what stage in the process (given the technical nature of the subject and its current lack of clarity even to negotiators themselves). This is important as decisions that affect people’s current (and future) lives are to be made. Many development agencies and Governments will actually need to improve on this if REDD+ is to be successful.
REDD+ safeguards is another governance tool currently under negotiation, but where progress is being made in piloting them in various forest rich countries like Brazil and Indonesia.
The idea is that avoid risks and negative impacts on local communities their social systems and the environment. However, these safeguards need to be developed within the context of the local area(s).
From the case study from Brazil, there has been such a process to develop these safeguards, which could have relevant and timely lessons for Africa. After having in place a multistakeholder Platform in place with a clear guiding objective(s), the next steps could include the following:
- Effective participation of indigenous groups and local communities should be supported
- Consultations should be made after a capacity building session so that everyone is at the same level of understanding
- Building collective ownership - No leading organization (no convener, no logo)
- Uphold neutrality by working with the agreed objectives as the guide
- Work through consensus as much as possible. If not develop procedures that are agreeable to all
- Have procedures for registering comments and how they will be taken up as well as the commitment that these comments will be taken up
As one discussant summed it up: ‘ participation needs to be more that mere a mere box-ticking exercise.’ Hence, context specific participatory tools and methodologies will need to brought on board for REDD+ to be a success.
Governance is one such issue that was the focus of discussion in an event organized by a Brazilian non-profit research institution - The Amazon Institute for People and the Environment (Imazon). To start with, governance is a development ‘buzzword’ that has come to mean different things to different people and at different times. In some instances, it has constituted a set of conditions for aid support from development agencies to developing countries.
It is therefore no surprise that it is creeping into REDD+ as a development issue that we have to contend with. But we do not need to conceptualize it in the traditional sense of it. In this case, it echoes the need for openness and transparency in making decisions that affect a wide range of REDD+ actors including Governments, local communities, indigenous peoples, NGOs, women and others at the global, national and local levels.
In fact, there are international legal instruments that can clarify it in case of REDD+. These include Principle 10 of the Rio declaration on Public Participation, Access to Information and Justice; and Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
From this event, I gathered that it is important to view stakeholder participation - not as an end in itself but as a means to an end (delivering desirable outcomes).
The wide range of REDD+ stakeholders raises questions of how to effectively engage them and at what stage in the process (given the technical nature of the subject and its current lack of clarity even to negotiators themselves). This is important as decisions that affect people’s current (and future) lives are to be made. Many development agencies and Governments will actually need to improve on this if REDD+ is to be successful.
REDD+ safeguards is another governance tool currently under negotiation, but where progress is being made in piloting them in various forest rich countries like Brazil and Indonesia.
The idea is that avoid risks and negative impacts on local communities their social systems and the environment. However, these safeguards need to be developed within the context of the local area(s).
From the case study from Brazil, there has been such a process to develop these safeguards, which could have relevant and timely lessons for Africa. After having in place a multistakeholder Platform in place with a clear guiding objective(s), the next steps could include the following:
- Effective participation of indigenous groups and local communities should be supported
- Consultations should be made after a capacity building session so that everyone is at the same level of understanding
- Building collective ownership - No leading organization (no convener, no logo)
- Uphold neutrality by working with the agreed objectives as the guide
- Work through consensus as much as possible. If not develop procedures that are agreeable to all
- Have procedures for registering comments and how they will be taken up as well as the commitment that these comments will be taken up
As one discussant summed it up: ‘ participation needs to be more that mere a mere box-ticking exercise.’ Hence, context specific participatory tools and methodologies will need to brought on board for REDD+ to be a success.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Southern Civil Society perspectives on REDD+
Today I attended another interesting side event on Southern Civil Society, local community and indigenous people’s perspectives on REDD+, organized by The Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change (a coalition of civil society groups from Brazil, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of the Congo, Thailand, and Vietnam) that follows different intergovernmental negotiations on forests.
The event highlighted the issues and challenges of REDD+ implementation with NGO experiences from Tanzania, Indonesia, Ecuador and from UNREDD in Paraguay. The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) believes that for REDD+ to work, we need to “get to the root causes of forest conversion” that include demand for wood, spiraling demand for land for plantations and other forms of agriculture, infrastructure development (mining, urbanization and industrialization), lack of alternative opportunities, and the neoliberal economic policies and trade liberalization.
Form Tanzania, readiness for REDD+ was presented as having pilot projects, while the country is both part of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UNREDD Programme. The ingredients for Tanzania’s progress have been its promotion of Participatory Forest Management and the donor willingness to support its initiatives. REDD+ is seen as a long-term incentive for land rights and proper land-use, source of generating income to communities, and one effective way to limit slash and burn agriculture.
Nevertheless, according to Charles Meshack (Tanzania Natural Resource Forum), there are challenges and lingering questions of:
- Whether is might lead to land grabbing in the process?
- Raises questions of how to secure food security for a growing population as there will be less land for agriculture
- Fear - whether REDD+ funds will ever reach the intended communities?
- Corruption that might deny communities their rightful share of the benefits from REDD+ and how to overcome this so that the process does not ‘backfire’?
- Whether the laws will be enforced to contain logging and charcoal production given the high demand (conflicting with the forest conservation objective)?
- How to overcome problem animals like baboons and elephants that will surface in areas next to forest conservation areas that will destroy crops and might cause loss of lives
The discussions from the side event touched the issue and actually left an unanswered question of whether to conserve forests for long-term benefits or with the ‘reality’ - immediate returns that communities get in continued cutting down of forests for charcoal and wood (for domestic and monetary purposes) given the high level of poverty prevalent in these areas coupled with lack of alternative forms of livelihood.
For the ongoing negotiations on REDD+, the side event noted the need to appreciate that adequate funding for forest conservation is essential, Monitoring Reporting and Verification should involve communities, serious consideration of safeguards, and the exclusion of plantations in the definition of forests.
At the end of the side event I came to a conclusion that there are cross – cutting issues across these countries (Tanzania, Indonesia, Cameroon, Paraguay) - lack of funding for forest conservation, land tenure and rights, threat of corruption, lack of recognition of indigenous community rights and the absence of transparent mechanisms for consultations on issues of REDD+ and broader forest management.
At the end of this interesting side event, I was convinced that the only way forward for Southern countries is to take advantage of the growing number of pilot REDD+ projects to try out possible solutions so as to generate models that can mitigate against the above challenges.
The event highlighted the issues and challenges of REDD+ implementation with NGO experiences from Tanzania, Indonesia, Ecuador and from UNREDD in Paraguay. The Global Forest Coalition (GFC) believes that for REDD+ to work, we need to “get to the root causes of forest conversion” that include demand for wood, spiraling demand for land for plantations and other forms of agriculture, infrastructure development (mining, urbanization and industrialization), lack of alternative opportunities, and the neoliberal economic policies and trade liberalization.
Form Tanzania, readiness for REDD+ was presented as having pilot projects, while the country is both part of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UNREDD Programme. The ingredients for Tanzania’s progress have been its promotion of Participatory Forest Management and the donor willingness to support its initiatives. REDD+ is seen as a long-term incentive for land rights and proper land-use, source of generating income to communities, and one effective way to limit slash and burn agriculture.
Nevertheless, according to Charles Meshack (Tanzania Natural Resource Forum), there are challenges and lingering questions of:
- Whether is might lead to land grabbing in the process?
- Raises questions of how to secure food security for a growing population as there will be less land for agriculture
- Fear - whether REDD+ funds will ever reach the intended communities?
- Corruption that might deny communities their rightful share of the benefits from REDD+ and how to overcome this so that the process does not ‘backfire’?
- Whether the laws will be enforced to contain logging and charcoal production given the high demand (conflicting with the forest conservation objective)?
- How to overcome problem animals like baboons and elephants that will surface in areas next to forest conservation areas that will destroy crops and might cause loss of lives
The discussions from the side event touched the issue and actually left an unanswered question of whether to conserve forests for long-term benefits or with the ‘reality’ - immediate returns that communities get in continued cutting down of forests for charcoal and wood (for domestic and monetary purposes) given the high level of poverty prevalent in these areas coupled with lack of alternative forms of livelihood.
For the ongoing negotiations on REDD+, the side event noted the need to appreciate that adequate funding for forest conservation is essential, Monitoring Reporting and Verification should involve communities, serious consideration of safeguards, and the exclusion of plantations in the definition of forests.
At the end of the side event I came to a conclusion that there are cross – cutting issues across these countries (Tanzania, Indonesia, Cameroon, Paraguay) - lack of funding for forest conservation, land tenure and rights, threat of corruption, lack of recognition of indigenous community rights and the absence of transparent mechanisms for consultations on issues of REDD+ and broader forest management.
At the end of this interesting side event, I was convinced that the only way forward for Southern countries is to take advantage of the growing number of pilot REDD+ projects to try out possible solutions so as to generate models that can mitigate against the above challenges.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
REDD+ Standards for Equity, Social and Environmental co-benefits
This 30th day of November has been quite busy with numerous events in the main side events in the Cancunmesse. Nevertheless communication in the hotel where I stay has remained a nightmare as people ‘rush’ with their laptop computers to get the signal (available only at the first floor / lobby area), in order to file news and to communicate before the end of the day. This causes a lot of congestion that is not planned for (no seats or adequate tables in this area).
That aside, I attended 2 interesting side events on REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards organized by CARE, Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador.
Standards in REDD are much needed for both Government led programmes, policies and strategies, in the same way we need them for the growing number of REDD+ projects. But this initiative only focuses on the Government led programmes.
While activities that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and contribute to conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) have the potential to deliver significant social and environmental co-benefits, many have also highlighted the serious risks, particularly for the indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Hence standards can be used by governments, NGOs and financing agencies to support the design and implementation of REDD+ programs that respect the rights these groups and generate significant social and environmental co-benefits.
These standards developed by CARE, CCBA, participating states (Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nepal and Tanzania), have so far undergone substantive consultative process and have been tested in 3 of the 5 countries (Brazil, Ecuador and Indonesia) with complementarities from existing ones – UNREDD, World Bank and UNFCCC among others.
The advantage of having these standards (like in business / trade) is to secure quality of the service or products that will be acceptable ‘in the market’ (in this case by the local communities and Indigenous peoples). For example, this secures that social investment plans are derived from a process that is inclusive and participatory instead of having a few individuals to decide for the rest without justification and accountability for the decision taken.
Ecuador Indonesia and Brazil have piloted these standards, which gives East Africa some point of reference for the future when looking for case studies on standards for REDD+. This initiative provides pointers to the need for information and awareness of communities as an essential ingredient of success. Probably this will inspire development of standards for the fast growing REDD+ projects that also need harmonization for the benefit of local communities and other stakeholders. More information on CARE / CCBA’s REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (June 2010) can be accessed from the link: www.climate-standards.org/REDD+
That aside, I attended 2 interesting side events on REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards organized by CARE, Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador.
Standards in REDD are much needed for both Government led programmes, policies and strategies, in the same way we need them for the growing number of REDD+ projects. But this initiative only focuses on the Government led programmes.
While activities that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and contribute to conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) have the potential to deliver significant social and environmental co-benefits, many have also highlighted the serious risks, particularly for the indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Hence standards can be used by governments, NGOs and financing agencies to support the design and implementation of REDD+ programs that respect the rights these groups and generate significant social and environmental co-benefits.
These standards developed by CARE, CCBA, participating states (Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nepal and Tanzania), have so far undergone substantive consultative process and have been tested in 3 of the 5 countries (Brazil, Ecuador and Indonesia) with complementarities from existing ones – UNREDD, World Bank and UNFCCC among others.
The advantage of having these standards (like in business / trade) is to secure quality of the service or products that will be acceptable ‘in the market’ (in this case by the local communities and Indigenous peoples). For example, this secures that social investment plans are derived from a process that is inclusive and participatory instead of having a few individuals to decide for the rest without justification and accountability for the decision taken.
Ecuador Indonesia and Brazil have piloted these standards, which gives East Africa some point of reference for the future when looking for case studies on standards for REDD+. This initiative provides pointers to the need for information and awareness of communities as an essential ingredient of success. Probably this will inspire development of standards for the fast growing REDD+ projects that also need harmonization for the benefit of local communities and other stakeholders. More information on CARE / CCBA’s REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (June 2010) can be accessed from the link: www.climate-standards.org/REDD+
Monday, November 29, 2010
Women in REDD+: The missing link
After going through Cancun’s heavy traffic jam (took over 2 hours from my hotel to Cancunmesse – where exhibition and side events are taking place) yesterday morning, I was able to visit a number of exhibition booths and attended one side event on – ‘The missing link to success: women in REDD', organized by WEDO, IUCN, WOCAN and Norway. The occasion was also the formal launch of a global campaign initiative on Women and REDD. This aims to mainstream gender in REDD+ at the global and national levels as well as enhancing women’s capacities.
During this well attended side event, Norwegian chief negotiator noted that women are not passive victims but actors with respect to taking actions on reducing deforestation and degradation, forest conservation and advancing respect for human rights.
“Gender perspective of REDD+ should go beyond mere forest conservation to include issues of livelihoods’, he noted. He added that women are important in forest management in terms of stopping illegal practices and advancing the multiple uses of forests.
IUCN noted that involvement of women means more than having one person at a table. Rather, it includes a more systematic approach where a ‘gender filter’ is in place. There is a need for forest reforms, conservation and poverty reduction programmes to embrace marginalized groups like women. IUCN summed up the key requirements as enabling the participation of woe and girls in REDD+ strategies; arrangements for equitable distribution of benefits and capacity building of communities.
Case studies were also given from Tanzania, Nepal, and Philippines which underscore the need for capacity building and involvement of women in REDD+ taking into account the cultural resistance, capacity needs and the lack of alternatives to fuelwood as a major source of energy and income. In Zanzibar, CARE’s HIMA project for example, women rely heavily on wood cutting as a source of cash income.
One interesting aspect that I picked from this side event is that NGOs can take up to mainstream gender in REDD+ is to have gender differentiation of the impacts of climate change, as well as the possible solutions (adaptation, mitigation). For example the expansion of palm oil for renewable energy might sound a good motive but might be a hindrance for women due to reduced opportunities for firewood and other forest products and services.
During this well attended side event, Norwegian chief negotiator noted that women are not passive victims but actors with respect to taking actions on reducing deforestation and degradation, forest conservation and advancing respect for human rights.
“Gender perspective of REDD+ should go beyond mere forest conservation to include issues of livelihoods’, he noted. He added that women are important in forest management in terms of stopping illegal practices and advancing the multiple uses of forests.
IUCN noted that involvement of women means more than having one person at a table. Rather, it includes a more systematic approach where a ‘gender filter’ is in place. There is a need for forest reforms, conservation and poverty reduction programmes to embrace marginalized groups like women. IUCN summed up the key requirements as enabling the participation of woe and girls in REDD+ strategies; arrangements for equitable distribution of benefits and capacity building of communities.
Case studies were also given from Tanzania, Nepal, and Philippines which underscore the need for capacity building and involvement of women in REDD+ taking into account the cultural resistance, capacity needs and the lack of alternatives to fuelwood as a major source of energy and income. In Zanzibar, CARE’s HIMA project for example, women rely heavily on wood cutting as a source of cash income.
One interesting aspect that I picked from this side event is that NGOs can take up to mainstream gender in REDD+ is to have gender differentiation of the impacts of climate change, as well as the possible solutions (adaptation, mitigation). For example the expansion of palm oil for renewable energy might sound a good motive but might be a hindrance for women due to reduced opportunities for firewood and other forest products and services.
Good start?: Mexico hosts COP16 / CMP6 of the UNFCCC
I arrived late in the morning of November 27, 2010 after going through the rigorous experience of getting a visa to Mexico and going through the 20+ hour flight from Entebbe to Cancun.
The Mexican visa process really takes a lot of my time and patience, as I needed to be in touch with the Embassy of Mexico, and follow the instructions mainly by telephone and email.
That aside, I have been able to go through the accreditation with relative easy that has given me a bit of relief and I think that the host country is well prepared to handle the incoming delegates to the Conference, judging from the preparations that have been made.
I am slowly coming to grips with the logistics of this conference: Communication via internet is in the hotel where I am staying is limited to the ground floor / lobby area and is not that fast. Negotiation meetings will take place in Moon Palace and Cancunmesse is also where side events and the exhibit area is located. I can see an element of inaccessibility to the main negotiation meeting place (far from the main Cancun town and is only a single driveway according to those that have explored it).
Apart from this, many meetings are already underway ahead of the official opening of COP16 here in Cancun. According to one delegate, Africa has already had one such meeting over the weekend to harmonize its stand – details of which I am yet to see.
Off to the official opening and side events!
The Mexican visa process really takes a lot of my time and patience, as I needed to be in touch with the Embassy of Mexico, and follow the instructions mainly by telephone and email.
That aside, I have been able to go through the accreditation with relative easy that has given me a bit of relief and I think that the host country is well prepared to handle the incoming delegates to the Conference, judging from the preparations that have been made.
I am slowly coming to grips with the logistics of this conference: Communication via internet is in the hotel where I am staying is limited to the ground floor / lobby area and is not that fast. Negotiation meetings will take place in Moon Palace and Cancunmesse is also where side events and the exhibit area is located. I can see an element of inaccessibility to the main negotiation meeting place (far from the main Cancun town and is only a single driveway according to those that have explored it).
Apart from this, many meetings are already underway ahead of the official opening of COP16 here in Cancun. According to one delegate, Africa has already had one such meeting over the weekend to harmonize its stand – details of which I am yet to see.
Off to the official opening and side events!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Accessing Money for REDD: Public Finance or Market?
Dr Promode Kant (Director - Institute of Green Economy in New Delhi, India), in this article discusses funding - one of the specific issues within REDD+ that still require consensus before a global climate deal can be reached.
Of the two possibilities of Public Finance and Market Mechanism for funding REDD, the former would mean contribution by developed countries into a Multilateral Fund requiring approval by national parliaments that might pose insurmountable difficulties in these times of recession.
On the other hand money in market for REDD credits would come from business entities, and not from the exchequers, making it a politically attractive option. It is argued that a market mechanism would be efficient, effective and enhance equity while reducing governance risks and keeping costs low.
But in the REDD market where producers abound and buyers dominate it is unlikely to result in greater equity as the two externalities of biodiversity and the concern for indigenous people, both critical for equity, remain stubbornly outside. Nor would the market be effective in meeting the REDD objectives as the credibility of carbon credits generated would suffer from high uncertainties of leakage and fears of impermanence.
Settling on interim solutions, when final solutions prove elusive, could be a good strategy. One such interim solution could be the setting up of public financing for REDD confined only to LDCs. This would be politically acceptable in the developed countries provided the LDCs agree to a dominant role for the donor countries in planning as well as MRV processes in the initial years which could taper as the governance and the technical capabilities of the LDCs improve.
He urges for an urgent need to make compromises on all sides in order to move forward quickly. Read the full article: Accessing Money for REDD: Public Finance or Market?
Of the two possibilities of Public Finance and Market Mechanism for funding REDD, the former would mean contribution by developed countries into a Multilateral Fund requiring approval by national parliaments that might pose insurmountable difficulties in these times of recession.
On the other hand money in market for REDD credits would come from business entities, and not from the exchequers, making it a politically attractive option. It is argued that a market mechanism would be efficient, effective and enhance equity while reducing governance risks and keeping costs low.
But in the REDD market where producers abound and buyers dominate it is unlikely to result in greater equity as the two externalities of biodiversity and the concern for indigenous people, both critical for equity, remain stubbornly outside. Nor would the market be effective in meeting the REDD objectives as the credibility of carbon credits generated would suffer from high uncertainties of leakage and fears of impermanence.
Settling on interim solutions, when final solutions prove elusive, could be a good strategy. One such interim solution could be the setting up of public financing for REDD confined only to LDCs. This would be politically acceptable in the developed countries provided the LDCs agree to a dominant role for the donor countries in planning as well as MRV processes in the initial years which could taper as the governance and the technical capabilities of the LDCs improve.
He urges for an urgent need to make compromises on all sides in order to move forward quickly. Read the full article: Accessing Money for REDD: Public Finance or Market?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
REDD+: Key issues for Cancun
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)'s briefing Paper (November 2010) provides a climate watch checklist of key issues for Cancun negotiations. These include shared vision; adaptation; climate finance; technology transfer; reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+); and post-2012 emissions reduction targets.
This IIED briefing paper notes that for REDD+ is a 'hot' issue at Cancun that has been steadily gaining ground since 2005. This is in relation to lack of consensus on how to set up, and implement REDD+. Hence the negotiating text on this remains bracketed.
Some specific issues within REDD+ that still require consensus before a global climate deal can be reached include:
- Rights of indigenous people and forest dependent communities - if these are not respected and protected, indigenous communities may find that they do not reap any of the potential poverty reduction, sustainable development or ecological benefits from REDD+ payments. This seems especially cruel given that indigenous populations are often stewards of the forests, supporting ecosystems services, biological conservation and the maintenance of longstanding cultures.
- Market mechanisms, including approaches that rely on economic incentives, market forces, or financial mechanisms to encourage regulated entities to reduce emissions, discharges and waste generation, or generally improve environmental performance;
- Eligibility criteria that determine how funding is allocated to forest-related activities.
This IIED briefing paper notes that for REDD+ is a 'hot' issue at Cancun that has been steadily gaining ground since 2005. This is in relation to lack of consensus on how to set up, and implement REDD+. Hence the negotiating text on this remains bracketed.
Some specific issues within REDD+ that still require consensus before a global climate deal can be reached include:
- Rights of indigenous people and forest dependent communities - if these are not respected and protected, indigenous communities may find that they do not reap any of the potential poverty reduction, sustainable development or ecological benefits from REDD+ payments. This seems especially cruel given that indigenous populations are often stewards of the forests, supporting ecosystems services, biological conservation and the maintenance of longstanding cultures.
- Market mechanisms, including approaches that rely on economic incentives, market forces, or financial mechanisms to encourage regulated entities to reduce emissions, discharges and waste generation, or generally improve environmental performance;
- Eligibility criteria that determine how funding is allocated to forest-related activities.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Implementing REDD in Uganda: A Case to Get the Conditions Right
REDD is acknowledged as a potential source of mitigating the effects of climate change through making use of the remaining forests. It is crafted on the backdrop of scientific proof that deforestation releases 20% of atmospheric Green House Gases (GHGs). A swelling canopy of GHGs (with 80% from industrial emissions) holds heat which is now linked with global warming.
Hence, reversing deforestation controls emissions but more importantly, forests are carbon sinks that clean the atmosphere by absorbing GHGs. However, in Uganda, like in many forest rich African countries, there are inherent challenges that need to be taken into account as we set out to embrace REDD.
One of these is the fact that in Uganda, Environment and Natural Resources (forestry, wetlands, environment, weather and climate) subsector gets a paltry 0.6% of the total national budget, in a country that remains highly dependent on natural resources.
On the contrary, the sector still faces excessive dependence on donor support (66%). The implication of this is that Uganda cannot sustain the increasing initiatives to conserve and sustainably manage its natural resources except if Uganda commits more of its own resources to this sector that is opening up for ‘external support’. From history, this state of affairs creates conditions that might not tally with Uganda’s development priorities, aspirations of the local communities and the environment.
Uganda has a well developed decentralized structure that hinges on districts as the engines of local government operations. However, according to the Uganda Environment and Natural Resources Civil Society Organizations (2010), these structures receive dismal support. For example, it is paradoxical that the forestry and related natural resources sector which form the economic and revenue base for many of these districts (that have increased tremendously to date) and community livelihoods do not receive conditional grants, a bad example ‘copied’ from the Central Government. The result is that the is lack of manpower to manage forests and other natural resources at the district level; lack of operational budgets for those that have managed to fill these posts, resulting in unabated degradation and deforestation. FAO further estimates that Uganda is losing about 50,000 ha (0.8 per cent) of its forestland each year through deforestation.
Furthermore, according to Uganda’s National Environment Management Authority (2010), this is complicated by uncoordinated activities of other sectors, and agencies. For example, issuance of land titles in wetlands by Uganda Land Commission, approval of architectural plans in fragile ecosystems by urban authorities and weak enforcement of the law and regulations.
Nevertheless, Uganda’s National Forestry Authority has an ambitious five-year programme (2009/10 – 2013/14) to raise about 3million tree/ fruit seedlings for individual and community planting. But in view of the above ‘structural constraints’, there are questions of the sustainability of this efforts as lack of a well coordinated extension support, respect of the laws and regulations could put the investments into real jeopardy.
Lastly, Uganda’s demand for wood products is expected to grow fast - while the current consumption of round wood is estimated at 1.4 million cubic metres, with an annual increase in demand of about 2.5% equivalent to 500 ha needed for harvesting per year (National Forestry Authority, 2010).
While the National Forestry Authority that is supposed to supply a steady supply of wood products to supplement private owners, currently has over 70% of its plantations below 7 years (compared to the harvesting age of 20 years). This has implications for sustaining the rapidly increasing demand for timber and fuel wood. In addition, the absence of a reliable tree seed supply (currently imported) is currently costing Uganda huge sums of money.
In sum, getting the conditions right for implementation of REDD in Uganda requires Government of Uganda to address the institutional loopholes, increase in own funding to meet the ‘basics’ at the district and national levels, which will facilitate donors and other actors to come into play more evenly and systematically.
Hence, reversing deforestation controls emissions but more importantly, forests are carbon sinks that clean the atmosphere by absorbing GHGs. However, in Uganda, like in many forest rich African countries, there are inherent challenges that need to be taken into account as we set out to embrace REDD.
One of these is the fact that in Uganda, Environment and Natural Resources (forestry, wetlands, environment, weather and climate) subsector gets a paltry 0.6% of the total national budget, in a country that remains highly dependent on natural resources.
On the contrary, the sector still faces excessive dependence on donor support (66%). The implication of this is that Uganda cannot sustain the increasing initiatives to conserve and sustainably manage its natural resources except if Uganda commits more of its own resources to this sector that is opening up for ‘external support’. From history, this state of affairs creates conditions that might not tally with Uganda’s development priorities, aspirations of the local communities and the environment.
Uganda has a well developed decentralized structure that hinges on districts as the engines of local government operations. However, according to the Uganda Environment and Natural Resources Civil Society Organizations (2010), these structures receive dismal support. For example, it is paradoxical that the forestry and related natural resources sector which form the economic and revenue base for many of these districts (that have increased tremendously to date) and community livelihoods do not receive conditional grants, a bad example ‘copied’ from the Central Government. The result is that the is lack of manpower to manage forests and other natural resources at the district level; lack of operational budgets for those that have managed to fill these posts, resulting in unabated degradation and deforestation. FAO further estimates that Uganda is losing about 50,000 ha (0.8 per cent) of its forestland each year through deforestation.
Furthermore, according to Uganda’s National Environment Management Authority (2010), this is complicated by uncoordinated activities of other sectors, and agencies. For example, issuance of land titles in wetlands by Uganda Land Commission, approval of architectural plans in fragile ecosystems by urban authorities and weak enforcement of the law and regulations.
Nevertheless, Uganda’s National Forestry Authority has an ambitious five-year programme (2009/10 – 2013/14) to raise about 3million tree/ fruit seedlings for individual and community planting. But in view of the above ‘structural constraints’, there are questions of the sustainability of this efforts as lack of a well coordinated extension support, respect of the laws and regulations could put the investments into real jeopardy.
Lastly, Uganda’s demand for wood products is expected to grow fast - while the current consumption of round wood is estimated at 1.4 million cubic metres, with an annual increase in demand of about 2.5% equivalent to 500 ha needed for harvesting per year (National Forestry Authority, 2010).
While the National Forestry Authority that is supposed to supply a steady supply of wood products to supplement private owners, currently has over 70% of its plantations below 7 years (compared to the harvesting age of 20 years). This has implications for sustaining the rapidly increasing demand for timber and fuel wood. In addition, the absence of a reliable tree seed supply (currently imported) is currently costing Uganda huge sums of money.
In sum, getting the conditions right for implementation of REDD in Uganda requires Government of Uganda to address the institutional loopholes, increase in own funding to meet the ‘basics’ at the district and national levels, which will facilitate donors and other actors to come into play more evenly and systematically.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Interested in Carbon Rights discussions? Join REDD-net in Cancun on December 4, 2010
REDD-net is organising a side event at the UNFCCC COP16 in Cancun on Carbon rights in REDD+: towards a common understanding. This will be on Saturday December 4, 2010 in Room 3
This event will look at what can constitute carbon rights in REDD+, and their implications for different actors, particularly at the local level. Insights from different countries and perspectives will be presented, along with recent work by the REDD-net civil society support programme . Be there if you are in Cancun for the UNFCCC COP16!
Brief background
A unique feature of REDD+ is that it may result in newly defined rights, such as the right to exploit the benefits of reduced carbon emissions and carbon storage, which could be associated with rights for international payments through funds or carbon markets.The potential to benefit from payments for carbon in this way raises new legal issues in countries developing REDD+. For example, when examining who 'owns' the carbon, or in market based approaches to REDD+, definitions of a carbon credit may vary between countries. Existing natural resource laws, the effectiveness of legal systems, and the definition (or lack of definition) of rights to carbon in REDD+ will all influence who is likely to benefit. Given the complexities of land and forest tenure in many countries, and particularly the overlaps between formal and informal legal systems, the way in which carbon rights are interpreted has important implications for many different stakeholders involved in REDD+.
During 2010 REDD-net has been looking at the issue of carbon rights at the international and national levels. Some of our resources on the issue are highlighted below and will be followed shortly by further case studies of Brazil, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Mexico and New Zealand, as well as a technical paper on carbon rights. In the meantime we have highlighted useful resources on carbon rights in REDD+.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Implications of an outcome on REDD+ for East Africa
New proposals to use international financial mechanisms to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) have radical implications for the ways in which tropical forests are valued internationally. Forest assets which were formerly unattractive are now the subject of increased attention from Northern and Southern governments, financial markets and international NGOs. REDD-net has been engaging Southern CSOs to contribute to this discussion
Hence, REDD+ is a promising outcome from the Cancun talks. But in East Africa, the prospects for effective REDD+ in East Africa are intricately tied to issues of tenure and rights due to multiple use of the forests and the human pressures on the remaining resources. In addition to the particular challenge of rights to trees outside forest reserves, carbon rights are a key bone of contention; not well understood. How carbon rights can be legally defined, and how they will relate to underlying land and timber rights? David Mwayafu (Regional REDD-Net Coordinator for Africa based at Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development) shares his views on this and other issues, based on a recent East African Regional Workshop that took place in Kampala. Read more
Hence, REDD+ is a promising outcome from the Cancun talks. But in East Africa, the prospects for effective REDD+ in East Africa are intricately tied to issues of tenure and rights due to multiple use of the forests and the human pressures on the remaining resources. In addition to the particular challenge of rights to trees outside forest reserves, carbon rights are a key bone of contention; not well understood. How carbon rights can be legally defined, and how they will relate to underlying land and timber rights? David Mwayafu (Regional REDD-Net Coordinator for Africa based at Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development) shares his views on this and other issues, based on a recent East African Regional Workshop that took place in Kampala. Read more
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Cancun for WHO and for WHAT ?
As the world warms up to the forthcoming Climate talks in Cancun - Mexico (November / December 2010), there are looming and silent questions about who owns this process after all. From an African perspective, the impact of climate change goes on, while news of progress (?) in international negotiations is splashed on our faces day in day out.
At the end of the day, given the highly publicized Copenhagen talks and its outcome, many people would like to know whether their Government delegates have the necessary clout to stand by the options that can enable them jump form the vulnerability that climate change has brought into their lives. Also they need to see more actions and commitments from the rich polluters in this vein.
I will be attending the Cancun Conference in Mexico and I am starting to blog in my mind: What ought to be good news that I can relay back home? Are the delegations ready to represent the views and aspirations of the people of Northern Ghana, Pakistan, Kenya or Uganda that are at the front line of the climate change effects? Will delegations from the rich countries listen better than talking?
In a nutshell, is there anything such vulnerable people can expect out of Cancun or not?
At the end of the day, given the highly publicized Copenhagen talks and its outcome, many people would like to know whether their Government delegates have the necessary clout to stand by the options that can enable them jump form the vulnerability that climate change has brought into their lives. Also they need to see more actions and commitments from the rich polluters in this vein.
I will be attending the Cancun Conference in Mexico and I am starting to blog in my mind: What ought to be good news that I can relay back home? Are the delegations ready to represent the views and aspirations of the people of Northern Ghana, Pakistan, Kenya or Uganda that are at the front line of the climate change effects? Will delegations from the rich countries listen better than talking?
In a nutshell, is there anything such vulnerable people can expect out of Cancun or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)