In October 2017, CIFOR put out a report titled, “Rights abuse allegations in the context of REDD+ readiness and implementation: A preliminary review and proposal for moving forward”. In early November, REDD-Monitor wrote a post about the report.
The social impacts of REDD on indigenous peoples and local communities who are dependent on forests has been controversial since REDD was included in the Bali Road Map at COP 13 in 2007. But over the past ten years, debate over whether REDD projects are desirable has been, to some extent at least, marginalised by a focus on how to manage the risks of REDD, and how to promote benefits through REDD.
The Corridor Ankeniheny-Zahamena is a 382,000-hectare REDD project in Madagascar being carried out by Conservation International, with support from the World Bank. A new study shows that the project is not compensating many of the people whose livelihoods are impacted by the restrictions on forest use.
On 10 June 2015, REDD-Monitor sent 10 questions about REDD safeguards to five experts on the subject. The responses will be included in a report that I’m currently working on about REDD safeguards. So far, I have received only one response to the questions, from Maria Brockhaus and Amy Duchelle at CIFOR.
At COP16 in Cancun at the end of 2010, parties to the UNFCCC agreed that, “Parties should, in all climate change related actions, fully respect human rights.” Since then, however, there has been no further guidance. And the word “should” rather than “shall” is worrying, to say the least.
In December 2013, UN climate negotiators agreed the Warsaw Framework for REDD plus. This included a decision on summary of information on safeguards. At the time I described this decision as staggeringly weak. The decision reached in Bonn earlier this month, manages to make the text even weaker.
This week, UN negotiators meeting in Bonn reached a series of decisions on REDD, covering safeguard information systems, non-carbon benefits, and non-market payments. The REDD negotiations are now finished and it’s very likely that REDD will part of the climate deal to be agreed in Paris at the end of this year.
The issue of further guidance on Safeguard Information Systems was one of the key issues relating to REDD on the agenda at the UN climate negotiations in Lima last year. But no progress was made in Lima on this issue.
The text on REDD safeguards was agreed in 2010 at the UN climate negotiations in Cancún, Mexico. What exactly are these safeguards? This post takes a detailed look at the text of the seven safeguards agreed in Cancún.
“We are deeply disappointed at the lack of meaningful progress on REDD+ here in Peru, one of the countries with the most forests in the world, with many Indigenous Peoples. We expected at least SOME progress, but there has been no substantial outcome on REDD+.”
The Warsaw decision on summary of information on safeguards is staggeringly weak. Governments “should” provide a summary report every two years. Least developed countries don’t even have to do that if they don’t feel like it.