Colombia and the United States received the 3rd place Fossil of the Day award for moving the process backwards on the REDD text. Instead of deleting and merging text, Colombia and the US added and divided text. In the space of one evening, they expanded a 3 page text on REDD to a 7 page text, which led to a chain reaction of text edits and expansion, preventing the text from reaching ministers. Overall, there was a softening in the text–a big step backwards for what has been, up to now, a fairly positive process on REDD at COP15. While we want to get this car into gear, reverse wasn’t the gear we were thinking of.

Yes, Indigenous Peoples are mentioned in the REDD text. But Indigenous People are asking for a lot more than their “inclusion”. There is nothing in the text guaranteeing that their rights will not be abused. Instead, the text states that governments “should” [promote] [and] [support] “Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities”. The Indigenous Environmental Network described the REDD text as “a slap in the face of indigenous peoples”.

True, the text about conversion of natural forests is in the text. But, like the text on Indigenous Peoples it is safely behind the word “should”, thus providing a certain amount of wiggle room that would not be there if the word “should” was replaced by the word “shall”.

Congratulations on missing the point about Wednesday’s draft looking better than the previous version. You too have fallen for the US negotiating strategy. I’m afraid I didn’t give the drafters of the text even an inch of praise.

Thanks for posting the link to the draft REDD text. Reading the draft it appears there are a lot of references to the inclusion of indigenous communities and I note there is even a reference to REDD “..not used for the conversion of natural forests, but instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services..”

I note you have almost posted a positive statement “the REDD text that was released this morning in Copenhagen may well look better than the previous version” before you qualify your statement. The drafters of the text must be slapping themselves on the back for a job well done to get even an inch of praise from a negative Nelly such as yourself Chris.