School Mexico 2010

スクール「メキシコ2010」2013年以降の気候変動新枠組み交渉合意に向けたシリーズ勉強会

第 7 回：生物多様性 COP10 を前に
REDD パートナーシップの基礎と見所
川上豊幸

制作：ＷＷＦジャパン

RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK （2010 年 9 月 開催）

気候変動プログラム

2010 年 2 月〜 2010 年 12 月
http://www.wwf.or.jp/climate/climatechange@wwf.or.jp®WWF Registered Trademark Owner©1986 PANDA symbol WWF -World Wide Fund For Nature（formerly World Wildlife Fund）

スクール・メキシコ資料 REDD+ (2010 年 9 月 27 日)

川上豊幸（レインフォレスト・アクション・ネットワーク）■REDD＋とは？ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
・途上国の森林減少・森林劣化（ここまでが REDD）と、・森林保全、森林の持続可能な管理、炭素蓄積の強化（植林を含む）による排出削減（＋の部分）に関連する問題に対処する政策やポジティブ・インセンティブ■交渉の経緯・COP11(2005)パプアニューギニアとコスタリカが「Avoided Deforestation」を提案
・COP13(2007) バリ行動計画において REDD＋を明記(1/CP.13、2/CP.13)
・COP14(2008) ポズナンで REDD の重要性に関する共同声明（日本も署名）
・COP15 コペンハーゲン合意(2009)「先進国からの資金調達を可能にするため、REDD+を含むメカニ
ズムを早急に設立して、REDD+の行動にポジティブ・インセンティブを与える必要があることに合意」
・REDD+パートナーシップ(2010) パリ(3 月)→オスロ―（5 月）→ブラジリア（7 月）→ボン（8 月）→天津(10 月)→名古屋(10 月)→カンクン（11 月）
コペンハーゲン合意を受けて開始された閣僚レベルの「REDD+パートナーシップ合意」に基づく議論→「2012 年までの REDD＋の取組（支援、キャパシティ・ビルディング、国家計画策定努力等）を強化すべく国際社会の協調・連携を図るための「パートナーシップ」構築が合意」■オスロ会合での REDD+ Partnership Agreement, May 27, 2010
http://www.oslocfc2010.no/pop.cfm?FuseAction=Doc&pAction=View&pDocumentId=25019
オスロ会合の概要報告
http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/kankyo/kiko/oslo_kaigi10.html■2010 年作業プログラム（Work program for the REDD+ Partnership 2010）
１．REDD+資金、行動、成果に関するデータベース →名古屋で進捗確認、カンクンで報告
２．資金ギャップと重複の分析 →名古屋にて検討
３．多国間の REDD+イニシアティブの有効性の議論 →名古屋向けレポート
４．教訓やベストプラクティスの共有と、締約国間の協力の促進 →名古屋向け文書作成（含セーフガード論議）
５．組織体制準備 →2010 年末までにレポート作成、2011 年初頭までに勧告案作成■作業計画案のフェーズ２
Workplan Component and timeline for the REDD+ Partnership- Phase II(Medium-Long term)
１．デモンストレーション活動：効果、効率、透明性、コーディネーションを改善するための共通基準の定義、教訓やベストプラクティスの共有（含セーフガード論議）
２．結果に基づく支払：REDD+を支援する結果ベースインセンティブの実施や規模拡大のための暫定ガ
イダンスやガイドライン、手法の開発
３．資金と行動の規模拡大 ：事務総長による金融に関するアドバイザリーグループの勧告を考慮

会合
ボン 8 月テクニカル・ミーティング
天津 10 月 2〜3 日
テクニカル・ミーティング
名古屋 10 月 25 日
テクニカル・ミーティング
名古屋 10 月 26 日あるいはカンクンでの閣僚会合

課題
REDD+パートナーシップ文書に基づきタイムラインと指標項目についての合意
パートナーと利害関係者からの意見収集
2010−2012 作業計画案についての議論
個々の項目についての全計画案の策定と最終化
利害関係者からの意見収集
技術レベルでの採択のための 2011−2012 作業計画案

2011−2012 作業計画の承認■UNFCCC での交渉 AWG-LCA 交渉
FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/8 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca12/eng/14.pdf
第４章 Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in developing countries; and the role ofconservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement offorest carbonstocks in developing countries

セーフガード条項（FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/8Chapter VI 2.）
REDD+の活動の実施時には、以下のセーフガードが促進され、支持されなければならない(should be promoted
and supported)ことを確認する。
(a) 国家森林プログラムや関連する国際会議や国際協定の目的を補完し、これに一致する活動(b) 国家の法制や主権を考慮して、透明で有効な国家レベルの森林ガバナンス(c) 国連先住民族の権利宣言が国連総会で採択されていることに言及し、関連する国際的な義務、国家の状況、法律を考慮して、先住民族や地域住民の知識と権利の尊重すること(d) 関連する利害関係者、特に、先住民族や地域住民の十分での効果的な参加(e) REDD+の活動は、天然林の転換に利用せず、代わりに天然林の保護や保全やその生態系サービスを奨励することや、他の社会的環境的な利点を増進するために用いることを確保して、天然林と生物多様性の保全に一致した活動(f) 取り消しのリスクに取り組む活動(g) 排出の移転（リーケージ）を縮小するための活動●8 月のボン会合において、REDD+を規定する基本的な論点についても議論が再開へ■論点●パートナーシップ
・パートナーシップ論議において、利害関係者の参加が全く不十分な状況 →議長国としての責任
・国家戦略の作成、キャパシティ・ビルディングや支援策の検討は？
・REDD+が実現可能となる環境づくりとしての法整備や組織改編などの検討は？
・セーフガードが懸念する環境的、社会的リスク状況についての教訓は？
●ＵＮＦＣＣＣ
・「森林」の定義は？〜「植林」「アブラヤシ」も森林？→ そこで、森林を「天然林」として、天然林の減少や劣化、保全、強化を対象にしていくという対抗案。
・実施・確認レベルは？〜国家レベル？州や県レベル？プロジェクトレベル？→リーケージ問題
・セーフガードの位置づけと厳格な確認が必要→環境的、社会的なリスクを増加させる懸念への配慮
・測定方法・ベースラインの設定方法は？「＋」の部分の測定方法は？→算出方法、MRV を SBSTA で？
・森林減少や森林劣化の誘因への対処は途上国のみならず、先進国も対処すべし。
・クレジット化問題への対処。

Submission to the REDD+ PartnershipConcerning theWork Program for 2010
On behalf of the following Member and Observer
Organizations of the

Ecosystems Climate Alliance

September 2010

Focus and Ambition
The Ecosystems Climate Alliance1 (“ECA”) makes this submission with serious reservations
about the REDD+ Partnership (“the Partnership”). We wish to inform the Partnership that there isa significant amount of negative sentiment towards it and we hold concerns that it is on theverge of faltering in the event that it continues with a process of exclusion, disorganization, lackof realism and ‘money at all costs’ approach. This submission should in no way be construed as
legitimizing or supporting the actions undertaken by the Partnership to date but rather our input
for where we sincerely hope the Partnership intends to focus in the future.
The goal of the Work Program is not clear. ECA recommends stating explicitly that the Work
Program's aim is to ensure that actions taken by the Partnership will contribute to a REDD+
mechanism that will keep natural forest ecosystems intact and their carbon out of theatmosphere in a way that is equitable, transparent, and consistent with the rights of Indigenous
Peoples and local communities. Without clearly articulating the goal of activities undertaken by
the Partnership, it becomes a smorgasbord, which cannot be coherently prioritized or assessed.
This problem needs to be addressed in all elements of the Work Program.
We are seriously concerned about the level of ambition in the current Work Program. The
timetable of workshops for which submissions are to be sought is over ambitious and unrealistic.
It is likely to result in inadequate input, rushed deliberations and poor results, and will prevent
remote Indigenous Peoples and local communities from engaging in the process. We
recommend the Partnership reconsider the proposed timetable of workshops to allow sufficient
time for responses and submissions having regard to limited resources and means ofcommunication.
The REDD+ Partnership and the UNFCCC
Of significant importance, reference to consistency with the UNFCCC process is considered as
an additional ‘possible’ item for consideration in Phase 2. This is a critical Component to bothphases 1 and 2 and the Partnership should remain informed and engaged with the UNFCCC
negotiations concerning REDD+ and act in a manner consistent with all consensus items in the
UNFCCC negotiating text.
In the context of consistency with progress within the UNFCCC and other UN fora, we also
submit that the Partnership Work program must make specific reference to its intention to act
with respect for the knowledge and rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities bytaking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, andrespect for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by
the General Assembly.

1

The Ecosystems Climate Alliance (ECA) is an alliance of environment and social NGOs founded in December 2008 committed to
keeping natural terrestrial ecosystems intact and their carbon out of the atmosphere, in an equitable and transparent way that
respects the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities;

2|PageEnabling Institutions in Developing Countries & Independent Monitoring
It is repeated throughout the work program that:“a related operational measure in the Partnership is the consideration of proposals toeffectively mobilize, deploy and facilitate enabling institutions, where relevant, indeveloping countries to better channel finance and technology for REDD+ actions.”
Institutions will be required in developing countries to regulate a number of separate but related
matters including implementation and monitoring, reporting and verification (“MRV”) ofsafeguards and carbon emissions2.
Institutional arrangements should ensure a system of checks and balances and the productionof credible and verified information. Each institution should have dedicated and ongoingengagement with a multi-Stakeholder oversight body. “Enabling institutions” should be deemed
to include enforcement agencies audit institutions whose task it will be to ensure effective
enforcement of REDD+ legislation and prevention of fraud and corruption.
A system for Independent Monitoring of REDD+ (“IM-REDD”) will make a significant contribution
to the institutions and in this context, we would propose that the work program expressly
recognizes the need for the establishment of a system for IM-REDD that draws on experience ofdeveloping systems for independent monitoring in the forest sector, including under the EU
FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) Initiative. The Partnership should
expressly recognize the following principles of IM-REDD:
a. Independence: the monitor must have no conflicting relationships with forest authorities
or relevant private sector actors and must not be subject to political influence;b. An official mandate: through contracts with States;c. A Terms of Reference: must include modalities for joint investigations alongside
government agents and independent missions;d. A transparent recruitment process: through a competitive tendering process;e. Appropriate technical capacity and resources: there must be long term commitment tofunding and resources;f.

Unhindered access to information: access to all relevant documentation held bygovernment authorities, private companies, individuals, communities and all
Stakeholders;2Parties should use the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidance and guidelines, or comparable
guidance and any further revised or updated IPCC guidance and guidelines as soon as they have been approved by the IPCC, as abasis for estimating anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks
and forest area changes;

3|Pageg. Unhindered access to locations: must be able to freely visit any part of the forest estate
and associated trading facilities without prior notice or special permissions;h. A public profile and accessibility: the Monitor must engage with law enforcement officers,
the private sector and all Stakeholders;i.

A multi-Stakeholder reporting panel: reports should be validated through legal findings,
peer review and a political process; andj.

The right to publish: the Monitor’s reports must be published.

Stakeholder Participation – Call for a Meeting in Tianjin
The failure to engage Stakeholders in the formulation of the Work Program remains a serious
problem, and it is not sufficient to restrict Stakeholder participation to views on how to implement
specific elements of that plan without allowing for comment on it’s adequacy. In this context, wenote and acknowledge the genuine apologies issued by a number of concerned Partners at thesingle open meeting in Bonn, at the end of the conference, on 5 August 2010.
We are seriously concerned about the adequacy of the systems being implemented by thePartnership for the purpose of Stakeholder participation. No clear system of registration for
Stakeholders exists and communications are being sent out to different email lists of recipients.
The Stakeholder list utilized by Norway appears to have been abandoned with the effect thatmany are no longer receiving direct communication from the Partnership, including ECA andseveral of our constituent NGOs, although we attended the launch of the Partnership in Oslo as
an invitee of Norway and have previously made submissions and other communications to thePartnership.
Throughout the Work program, each Component has a subsection that specifically relates to‘Stakeholder Involvement’. We consider the content of these sections of the document to belacking in specific information as to how the Partnership does intend to ensure there is full andeffective ongoing Stakeholder participation.
The Partnership must engage in wide Stakeholder participation. Stakeholder participation iscentral to the success of REDD+. To assist, we recommend that an identified period of time be
set-aside at the upcoming meeting in Tianjin, to enable proper open discussion between thePartnership and Stakeholders to create a clear process for participation of Stakeholders. The
meeting should establish:
1. An appropriate registration system for Stakeholders;
2. The process to be undertaken by the Partnership to enable full and effective
participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in remote locations3; and3. Clear and reasonable timelines for:

3

The Partnership has undertaken to “promote inclusiveness and transparency through the participation of a representative group of
Stakeholders – including indigenous peoples and local communities”;

4|Pagea. Stakeholder contributions to work programs / reports and papers being
prepared by the Partnership;b. Proper dissemination of information which is sufficient to enable fully informed
contributions; andc. Notification of meetings to assist with travel arrangements.
Necessity for Greater Emphasis on Safeguards
Consensus appears to have been reached at Copenhagen in December 2009 for the promotion
and support of the following seven (7) safeguards:
1. Actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest
programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements;
2. Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into accountnational legislation and sovereignty;
3. Respect for the knowledge and rights of Indigenous Peoples and members of local
communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national
circumstances and laws, and noting the General Assembly has adopted the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
4. Full and Effective participation of relevant Stakeholders, including in particular,
Indigenous Peoples and local communities in actions;
5. Actions that are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biologicaldiversity, ensuring that actions … are not used for the conversion of natural forests
but are instead used to incentivise the protection and conservation of natural forests
and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental
benefits;
6. Actions to address the risks of reversals; and7. Actions to reduce displacement of emissions.
Safeguards are fundamental to ensuring REDD+ leads to permanent reductions in deforestationand degradation, enables conservation and restoration of natural forests, incorporates
provisions to strengthen governance, and does not lead to negative social and environmental
impacts. The safeguards protect the rights of forest dependent communities, protect biodiversity
and prevent leakage.
The current Work Program lacks sufficient emphasis on the safeguards and this must be
rectified as a matter of urgency and high importance.

5|PageComponent 1. Database of REDD+ financing, actions and results
The current focus of the database is overly restricted and we recommend that the following
paragraph be inserted into the Work Program immediately:“The database also serves to identify and analyze gaps and overlaps in REDD+ actions4and to analyse results that contribute to ensuring that a REDD+ mechanism will keep
natural forest ecosystems intact and their carbon out of the atmosphere in a way that is
equitable, transparent, and consistent with the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local
communities”.
The actions must include all activities designed to ensure effective implementation and MRV of
the safeguards. In this respect we consider further that an early development of a system for IMREDD would not only provide valuable information for the database and contribute to improving
REDD+ design and implementation, but also contribute to achieving good governance andprovide credibility that the overall system is working effectively.
We note that the FMT/PT will be jointly requested to expeditiously propose a conceptual noteand a design for the database, in collaboration with Partners and other Stakeholders. The
Partnership must encourage and enable Stakeholders to access information and provide input tothe database, with particular emphasis on, inter alia, Indigenous Peoples, local communities,
and conservation focused NGOs located in particular in areas currently the subject of proposed
and recently established REDD+ projects, with sufficient time and support provided for
responses and submissions having regard to limited resources and means of communication.
Component 2. Analysis of financing gaps and overlaps
We acknowledge the importance of addressing financing gaps and overlaps, however, thiscomponent of the work program has been over emphasized, where other critical elements
concerning the implementation of REDD+ require similar and comprehensive analysis of gaps
and overlaps, commencing as soon as possible.
Gap analysis should involve a bottom up approach that identifies gaps in activities: capacity
building; governance; actions to address drivers; Stakeholder participation; technology needs
etc, that can then be resolved by recommendations on finance needed in these areas. A purely
top down analysis seems based on expectations rather than concrete, on the ground realities
and would therefore provide little help in guiding financing moving forward.
The type of comprehensive bottom up analysis concerning gaps and overlaps in theimplementation of REDD+ that we advocate should include the following critical elements:
1. Best practice Stakeholder participation;
2. Analyses of activities that prioritize the protection and restoration of natural
ecosystems;

4
Actions include Stakeholder participation, capacity building, prioritization of activities to protect and restore natural ecosystems,
implementation and monitoring, reporting and verification (“MRV”) of safeguards, carbon, drivers of deforestation, including demandside measures and ecosystem degradation;

6|Page3. Appropriate, targeted and sustained capacity building designed to build good
governance and enforcement for REDD+ implementation;
4. Activities to ensure effective implementation and MRV of the safeguards; and5. Activities undertaken by all countries to address drivers of deforestation anddegradation.
It is crucial that the application of the safeguards to REDD+ be tested at the earliest possible
stage. Accordingly the gaps and overlaps analysis should be applied to actions in relation tosafeguards and the financing of them.
In terms of drivers of deforestation and degradation, both donor countries and developing
countries in the Partnership should adopt policies and measures, which identify and make plansto address the diverse social and economic drivers of deforestation and degradation. Suchactions will contribute to lowering interim readiness costs, ensuring permanence and reducing
leakage. Gaps and overlaps analysis will be required.
We note that the Partnership seeks to establish “A process to regularly provide independent
review of gaps and overlaps in financing” and submit that this approach could be supported by
IM-REDD. We assert that IM-REDD is a central pillar to the success of REDD+ and should betreated as such in the work program.
Component 3. Discussion on Effectiveness of multilateral REDD+ Initiatives
The primary key deliverable for 2010 under this Component is:“An independent report on the effectiveness of multilateral REDD+ initiatives”
Whilst we acknowledge that it is important for there to be ongoing independent assessments ofmultilateral initiatives undertaken, this should not be limited to certain initiatives while ignoringothers. In this context, we submit that any independent assessment must include an assessmentof the effectiveness of the REDD+ Partnership itself and such assessments should also extend
to bilateral initiatives and the Amazon Fund.
This ‘independent’ report should focus not only on the effectiveness of multilateral and bilateralvehicles but also whether their activities are appropriately focused in view of the purpose of a
REDD+ mechanism. We reiterate that actions taken must focus on contributing to a REDD+
mechanism that will keep natural forest ecosystems intact and their carbon out of theatmosphere in a way that is equitable, transparent, and consistent with the rights of Indigenous
Peoples and local communities.
We again assert the importance of Independent Monitoring and consider that IM-REDD canassist with independently assessing the existing REDD+ initiatives by providing evidence-based
information to national control structures, international implementing and oversight institutions,and funding providers. IM-REDD should be designed and implemented at the earliest possible
stage, whilst many initiatives are in their infancy, and provided with sufficient funding, so as toensure its sustainability in the long term.
7|PageFurther, we note that Terms of Reference (“ToR”) will be developed to assist with inputs for the
Ministerial discussion in Nagoya. The Partnership fails to include Stakeholders in thedevelopment of the ToR. Again we assert the critical importance of full and effective participationof civil society and Indigenous Peoples and local communities at all stages of the development
and implementation of REDD+, including in the approval or otherwise of the ToR to be used as
the basis for discussions at the Technical Workshop.
We welcome the steps the Partnership has taken to ensure stakeholder participation at a
Technical Workshop in Tianjin, however we are concerned by the lack of information concerning
the content of the Workshop. It is important that the Partnership is clear and specific about thesubstance of workshops and technical meetings in advance so that, where numbers are limited,
Stakeholders can select appropriate delegates with relevant expertise, otherwise any such
invitation should be broad and open.
Component 4. Share lessons on our REDD+ initiatives, share best practices & promoteand facilitate cooperation among Partners
The justification for the development of REDD was global recognition that avoiding emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation represented a very significant opportunity for costeffective greenhouse gas mitigation. The expansion to REDD+ has brought in a range ofactivities and with this a requirement to ensure that those activities which are most effective in
mitigating climate change and providing multiple benefits (livelihoods and biodiversity) receive
priority. We assert that priority should be given to activities that focus on protecting and restoring
natural forests including peatlands.
Capacity building and REDD+ readiness must also be given priority if rapid progress is to bemade towards the implementation of a fully-fledged REDD+ regime. To ensure effective
implementation and enforcement, capacity building activities should include all relevant
implementing and enforcement agencies as well as civil society and Indigenous Peoples andlocal communities, and draw on institutions and organizations in-country and among otherdeveloping country Partners that already have experience and capacity to contribute. Lessons
on what works and what does not work need to be identified and applied to ensure capacity
building is appropriate, targeted and sustained.
The need for all Partners to address drivers of deforestation and degradation including importantdemand side actions, and lessons learned to date in relation to attempts to address drivers
should also be addressed under this part of the work program.
A further key deliverable is “to prepare enhanced communication platforms”. Implicit in thisdeliverable is the need for enhanced communication with Stakeholders with particular emphasis
on remote Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The wealth of technical and practicalexperience available to contribute to a successful implementation of REDD+ within such groups
is extensive. Civil Society, Indigenous Peoples and local communities contributions will be key tothe success of REDD+ and their participation should be emphasized in this section of the work
program. Continued exclusion of Stakeholders will give rise to a flaw from the outset.
A missing operational measure is taking action on the basis of shared lessons, taking advantageof the promotion and facilitation of cooperation amongst Partners, to get some outcomes thatfurther explicitly identify policy objectives. This sharing and cooperation building process should
8|Pagelead to the adoption of best practice models and abandonment or refinement of failed
approaches.
Again, as per our comments above, the Partnership fails to include Stakeholders in thedevelopment of the ToR referred to under this section. We assert the critical importance of fulland effective participation of civil society and Indigenous Peoples and local communities at allstages of the development and implementation of REDD+, including in the approval or otherwiseof the ToR to be used as the basis for discussions at this and any other Technical Workshop.
Further, the background paper is limited to facilitating cooperation among Partners. There is noprovision for background papers on the other key areas identified or input from Stakeholders onthese issues other than at the workshop itself. These issues are of importance and deserve
equal attention and preparation. There is no provision for input to the workshop of the results ofworkshops already held, including the Chatham House / UN-REDD workshop on monitoring
governance and the Frieburg workshop on biodiversity monitoring. We recommend that theoutcomes of these workshops be considered and referred to.
Component 5: Institutional Arrangements
It is proposed that:“The Partners…..formulate concrete recommendations by early 2011 for multilateral
institutions to support enabling local institutions in developing countries, where relevant”.
This could imply the creation of a new multilateral institution under the Partnership in advance of
any UNFCCC Decision that would guide the institutional arrangements for implementation of a
REDD+ mechanism, and seek clarification that the Partnership is not flagging development of its
own multilateral institution which we understand to be contrary to the founding agreement of thePartnership.
We agree that the Partners should commission an independent report by the end of 2010 toassess the current capacities and capabilities of developing country institutions involved with
REDD+ activities and say further that this independent report must be undertaken with full
Stakeholder participation, in particular those Stakeholders, Indigenous Peoples and local
communities and conservation organizations working in the relevant developing countries.
Institutions will be required in developing countries to regulate a number of separate but related
matters including implementation and MRV of safeguards and carbon emissions. Institutionalarrangements should ensure a system of checks and balances and the production of credible
and verified information. Each institution should have dedicated and ongoing engagement with amulti-Stakeholder oversight body. “Enabling institutions” should be deemed to include
enforcement agencies audit institutions whose task it will be to ensure effective enforcement of
REDD+ legislation and prevention of fraud and corruption.
We again assert the importance of Independent Monitoring and consider that IM-REDD canassist with any and all institutional arrangements and should be designed and implemented at
the earliest possible stage.

9|PageWork Plan Components and Timeline for the REDD+ Partnership – Phase II (2011-2012)
It will be necessary for the Partnership to address each of these matters sufficiently andcomprehensively to enable it to meet its stated objective to:“scale up REDD+ actions and finance, and to that end to take immediate action, including
improving the effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and coordination of REDD+ initiatives
and financial instruments, to facilitate among other things knowledge transfer, capacity
enhancement, mitigation actions and technology development and transfer5.”
Of significant importance, we note with concern that reference to consistency with the UNFCCC
process is considered as an additional ‘possible’ item for consideration in phase 2. We expect
the Partnership will conduct itself in accordance with the following undertaking contained in thePartnership agreement, viz:“……the work of the Partnership should not prejudge but support and contribute to the
UNFCCC process. The Partnership would be replaced by a future UNFCCC mechanism
including REDD+.”The elements prioritized, particularly results-based payments and scaling up finance and actions,demonstrate an interest in “money at all costs” with no attention being paid to safeguards andmechanisms to prevent corruption and ensure benefits will be distributed equitably. In thiscontext, we have provided suggested additional text (as underlined) to the proposed Phase 2
Elements for consideration by the Partnership.
Indicative elements of a work plan for Phase II
Work Plan Element 1: Demonstration ActivitiesoLeveraging approved guidance for demonstration activities and other REDD+ activities(decision 2/CP.13, Appendix II and list SBSTA decisions), the Partners should seek todefine interim guidance, including demonstration activities, in order to improve effectiveness,
efficiency, transparency and coordination.

o

The Partners should establish a web-platform to exchange views and experiences with theobjective of identifying criteria for the effective implementation of REDD+ activities. Suchcriteria should include prioritizing activities to protect and restore natural ecosystems withspecial emphasis on ecosystems containing endangered and critically endangered species,
and implementation of safeguards.

oA workshop should be held (date) with Stakeholders to exchange information, share lessons
and develop best practice.

o

The Partners should formulate concrete recommendations in consultation with Stakeholdersby (date) to multilateral and bilateral institutions facilitating the implementation of REDD+
actions, including demonstration activities and safeguards.

5

Oslo Climate and Forest Conference, 27 May 2010;10 | P a g eo

The Partners in consultation with Stakeholders should develop guidance for a robust system
of Independent Monitoring to engage immediately with demonstration activities andexchange information and share lessons.

Work Program Element 2: Results Based PaymentsoNoting the initiatives, including efforts by the World Bank FCPF Carbon Fund and others topilot a small-scale ‘results based’ incentive system, the Partners should seek to developinterim guidance and methodologies in consultation with Stakeholders for the
implementation and scaling up of results-based incentives to support REDD+ actions,
including activities to ensure safeguards implementation.

o

A workshop should be held with Stakeholders (date) to exchange information, share lessons
and develop best practice, including a presentation from the World Bank Carbon Fund team,related to results-based incentive systems to support REDD+ actions.

o

The Partners should formulate concrete recommendations in consultation with Stakeholdersby (date) to multilateral and bilateral institutions to facilitate the implementation and scaling
up of results-based incentives systems to support REDD+ actions, including safeguards
implementation.

Work Program Element 3: Scaling up of Finance and Actionso

A workshop should be held with Stakeholders (date) to exchange information and sharelessons on scaling up of financing. The workshop will consider a variety of inputs on theissue of scaling up financing for REDD+ actions, including systems for auditing andcorruption prevention, and information from the Advisory Group on Finance of the Secretary
General.

oFollowing the workshop, a Working Group should be established to consider options and for
scaling-up financing for REDD+ actions, and effective systems for auditing and corruption
prevention. Such a working group should include balanced representation of civil society
representatives and Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

o

The Partners may consider formulating concrete recommendations in consultation
with Stakeholders by (date) for multilateral initiatives, taking into account the views
presented by the private sector, on means to mobilize the resources necessary to scaling up
financing to support REDD +actions.

Additional possible areas of the work plan for discussions (to be further developed) as
raised by the partners, including but not limited to, inter alia: implementing readiness activities,
addressing the outcome of the gap analysis, establishing actions by all countries to address
drivers of deforestation and degradation, building good governance for REDD+,
monitoring, reporting and verification of safeguards, MRV of carbon, a system for
Independent Monitoring of IM-REDD and ensuring compatibility with the UNFCCC process6.
Stakeholders should also be afforded the opportunity to suggest additional possible areas of thework plan and to then participate in discussions about the forward work plan.

6

We strongly assert that this is a critical Component to both phases 1 and 2 and the Partnership should remain informed andengaged with the UNFCCC negotiations concerning REDD+ and ensure it acts in a manner consistent with all consensus items in
the UNFCCC negotiating text.

11 | P a g e