Submitted by dturnbull on
Articles in this issue:
Submitted by dturnbull on
Articles include:
Submitted by admin on
Intervention given by Paula Moreira on behalf of CAN in Bali on REDD issues
Thank you for this opportunity, my name is Paula Moreira from IPAM Brazil, The Amazon Institute for Environmental Research
The Climate Action Network International believes that:
Submitted by admin on
Submitted by Anonymous on
If REDD+ is to get off to the ‘prompt start’ that many Parties are calling for, key methodological issues need to be resolved. LCA negotiators recognized this at Copenhagen by drafting requests for urgently needed work by SBSTA. Unfortunately, suspension of the AWG-LCA work leaves these requests in limbo. If SBSTA has to wait for direction from COP16 in December, then their work can’t start before June 2011 -- hardly the most prompt of starts. At its next meeting in June, SBSTA should respond to the draft requests on which consensus was reached at Copenhagen. Draft paragraph 4, without brackets, encompasses almost all of the methodological work that only SBSTA can do. What is at issue? Progress on REDD+ is held back by the lack of definitions that clearly distinguish natural forests, degraded forests and plantations. The present forest definitions, developed for reporting on LULUCF by Annex I Parties, are woefully inadequate even for that purpose. So it is urgent that SBSTA respond to the request to “investigate the possible application of biome-specific definitions for the second and subsequent commitment periods”. To be sure, completing the quest for biome-specific definitions will take time, and time is slipping away. However, SBSTA can consider a convenient alternative as an interim solution. All parties currently send forest reports to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) using a classification system that could suit REDD+ very well. In fact, it is already in use by the Convention on Biological Diversity REDD+ expert group known as AHTEG. Parties want a timely start, but REDD+ cannot live by finance alone. Safeguards and guidelines are also needed. The LCA should send its draft REDD+ requests to SBSTA for consideration in June, remind SBSTA of Decision 11/CP.7 and invite SBSTA to advise on the merit of existing FAO forest classifications on an interim basis.
Submitted by Anonymous on
Coming into Copenhagen, the REDD text included a global objective for halving gross deforestation by 2020 and halting forest loss by 2030. While ECO was coming prepared to push for greater ambition – we are now faced with the prospect of losing the global objective completely. In case Parties have lost their compass, ECO would like to remind them of the right direction. To stay below a 2˚C rise in temperature, a Copenhagen agreement must contain a strong global objective for REDD in addition to deep domestic emission reductions from developed countries.
Without a global objective for REDD, there is a risk that emissions from forest destruction will be prolonged with devastating impacts – it would be like running a race without knowing where the finish line is and without a stop-watch to measure your speed. Yet with a global REDD objective, REDD-plus can help us stay well below 2˚C warming.
Of course this contribution does not come free and it is vital for developed countries to commit to the level of funding needed to achieve this goal. Developing countries will need financial support – not just to build their capacity – but significant and reliable streams of funding to stop deforestation, protect biodiversity and sustain livelihoods of forest communities. With countries such as Brazil and Indonesia proposing ambitious national goals for reducing emissions, including those from deforestation, developed countries need to show the colour of their money for both the immediate and the long term. Only with this partnership of an ambitious global objective for REDD coupled with the necessary financial support will the supposedly constructive negotiations on REDD-plus actually deliver. While we are used to harvesting forests to get some money, it’s now time to harvest some money to save the forests.
Submitted by admin on
Submitted by admin on
Views regarding Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries Submission of the Climate Action Network International To the AWG-LCA, 30 September, 2008
Submitted by admin on
Views regarding mitigation under the LCA Submission of the Climate Action Network International 30 September, 2008
Submitted by Anonymous on
Africa’s forests are attracting increasing attention. And for two good reasons:
One, they hold great potential as a carbon sink.
Two, unsustainable land use, agricultural expansion, commercial harvesting and urbanisation are causing massive deforestation and forest degradation.
When African REDD [Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation] negotiators put together their country strategies, ECO highlights that for REDD to work for Africa the first step is to recognise the complexity and diversity of Africa’s forests as a whole. Their forest cover is about 635 million ha and account for 16% of the world’s forests.
Seventy per cent of the African people depend on forest resources for their survival. As forests and trees play a crucial role in the socio-economic development of the people, thinking of Africa in a united manner and diversifying livelihood options for the poor would ensure greater REDD success in Africa. At the same time, the underlying causes of deforestation and degradation must be addressed.
