Carbon Planet White Paper:

The History of REDD Policy
Friday, 4 December 2009

Carbon Planet Limited
172 North Terrace
Adelaide, SA 5000
Phone +61 8 8237 9000
Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

carbonplanet.com

Authors
Vivienne Holloway and Esteban Giandomenico

Disclaimer
Carbon Planet ("CP") is a global carbon emissions management company,
committed to ensuring that its services are carried out to best practicestandards. This white paper has been prepared within the context of a new andrapidly emerging regulatory regime. This document has been prepared toprovide you with general information only. It is not intended to take the place ofprofessional advice and you should not take action on specific issues in relianceon this information.

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

2

The History of REDD Policy
Globally, deforestation accounts for up to 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, orabout 5.8 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent released into the atmosphere, eachyear. This is more than global transport and aviation combined.1
According to the Stern Review, reducing deforestation is the “single largest
opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions”.2
This is where REDD – otherwise known as Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation – comes in. REDD is the idea of creating aninternational framework to halt deforestation. In addition, the mechanism could
help fight poverty while conserving biodiversity and sustaining vital ecosystemservices. Exactly what REDD is defined as, and what the elements of theframework will be, is scheduled to be decided at the forthcoming UNFCCC
Conference(s) of the Parties.
Herewith is a comprehensive summary of the History of REDD Policy, from it’sroots in the Kyoto Protocol to the final meetings of the AWGs and SBSTA before
COP15 begins in Copenhagen in December 2009.3

1 Meridian Institute, ‘Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): An

Options Assessment Report’, 2009, p1.

2 The Stern Review (2006), McKinsey & Company Report – ‘Reducing US Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

How Much At What Cost?’, 2007.

3 United Nations, ‘Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’

1997.

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

3

Time Line
Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

November 2005
The European Commission advises for incentives fordeveloping nations, and halting deforestation
December 2005
COP 11 (Montreal). REDD is back on the agenda
May 2006
Bonn - SBSTA began considering REDD
December 2007
COP 13. The Bali Action Plan
May 2005
The Coalition for Rainforest
Nations is formed

December 2008
SBSTA 29 (Poznan) -The concept of REDD-Plus is introduced
June 2009
2nd Bonn meeting - A negotiating text is presented

September 2003
COP 7, The Marrakesh Accords. REDD is removed
from LULUCF

Novemeber 2009
AWG -LCA Non Paper 39 (Barcelona)

January 1997
The Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project. The first REDD style project is initiatedDecember 2009
COP 15. Copenhagen

December 1997
The Kyoto Protocol. The seeds for REDD are planted under LULUCF

1997

2001

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

September 2009
7th Session of the AWG-LCA (Bangkok)

2004

2007

2010

4

The Kyoto Protocol, December, 1997
Whilst the idea of REDD became formal at The UNFCCC 13th Conference of theparties (COP13) in Bali in 2007, the seeds for REDD were planted in the Kyoto
Protocol.4
Article 2
1.

Each Party included in Annex I, in achieving its quantified
emission limitation and reduction commitments in order topromote sustainable development, shall:(a)Implement and/or further elaborate policies andmeasures in accordance with its national
circumstances, such as:(ii)

Protection and enhancement of sinks andreservoirs of greenhouse gases, promotion ofsustainable forest management practices,
afforestation and!reforestation;(iii)

Promotion of sustainable forms of agriculture inlight of climate change considerations;andArticle 3
2.

The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources andremovals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use
change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation,
reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured asverifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period,
shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article ofeach Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions
by sources and removals by sinks associated with those
activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable
manner.

4 ‘The Special Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Land Use, Land Use

Change and Forestry, 2000 (IPCC SR LULUCF) and Trines, Eveline, P. (with contributions from Gert-Jan
Nabuurs and Jan Verhagen) ‘Land-Use Change and Forestry in future climate regimes: An inventory ofsome options’ 9 November 2004 Commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food
Quality. The Netherlands

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

5Whilst deforestation was presented as an important land usechange issue at this stage there were several issues associated with Land Use,
Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF):
1. Confusion over the role that LULUCF should play in achieving
commitments for Annex 1 and Annex 2 countries
2. Lack of information and technology to guide measurement, reporting andverification for LULUCF activities.5

The Marrakesh Accords, Conference of the Parties COP7, August 2001
It was these issues, along with continuing debate about the exact role of
LULUCF in the global carbon cycle that lead to a compromise comprising ofallowing for REDD activities in Annex 1 countries to be allowed to be used tomeet targets, but ONLY allowing for afforestation and reforestation to generate
eligible credits for trading under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).6
It has been suggested that the idea of leakage was a particular reason for notallowing REDD activities to generate carbon credits under CDM.7
Leakage of carbon benefits is when emissions increases outside of a projectboundary due to project activities eg. If you stop an activity in one area, it justincreases the activity in another area.
The dependence of rural people, especially the poor, on particular carbon
emissions intensive types of land-use and practices has also been raised. Thismay have lead to resistance in including sustainable land management policies
for developing countries.8

5 ‘The Special Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Land Use, Land Use

Change and Forestry, 2000 (IPCC SR LULUCF) and Trines, Eveline, P. (with contributions from Gert-Jan
Nabuurs and Jan Verhagen) ‘Land-Use Change and Forestry in future climate regimes: An inventory ofsome options’ 9 November 2004 Commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food
Quality. The Netherlands.
6 The Marrakesh Accords UNFCCC COP7, 2001

7 Pirard, Romain, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in non Annex 1 countries”

Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales for The Climate Group, 2008

8 Trines, Eveline, P. (with contributions from Gert-Jan Nabuurs and Jan Verhagen) ‘Land-Use Change

and Forestry in future climate regimes: An inventory of some options’ 9 November 2004 commissionedby the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. The Netherlands

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

6

The Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project
The Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project located in North East Bolivia isregarded as the first REDD style project, as a joint partnership between the
Government of Bolivia, Friends of Nature Foundation (FAN) (a non-profit
conservation organisation headquartered in Santa Cruz, Bolivia), The Nature
Conservancy (the world’s largest conservation organisation headquartered in
Arlington, Virginia), American Electric Power, (an electric utility company
headquartered in Columbus, Ohio), BP Amoco (a major petroleum company
headquartered in London) and PacifiCorp (an electric utility company
headquartered in Portland, Oregon). The project was formed in 1997 to protect
nearly four million acres of threatened tropical forests in the Department of Santa
Cruz, Bolivia for at least 30 years.9 The project was designed to Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) standards for afforestation and reforestation.
By reducing slash and burn agriculture and developing alternative income
programs, the project avoided more than 1 MtCO2e emissions over 634,000 ha
during its first period (1997-2005). The project includes revegetation andavoided deforestation; long-term conservation finance and park management;
and sustainable community development and leakage prevention. The
implementers have undertaken numerous activities to enable the project’s
success, including development of land tenure and political infrastructure,
microenterprise loans, and community strengthening.

The European Commission: Winning the battle against global climatechangeIn February, 2005, in the European Commission’s communication ‘Winning thebattle against global climate change’ policy paper for ‘medium and longer termemission reduction strategies, including targets’ recommended that, ‘devising
incentives for developing countries to take part in international emissions
reductions may also be a way of achieving wider participation by developed
countries.
The communication concluded that, ‘a fresh look will have to be taken at how tohalt deforestation of the world’s forests. Addressing this problem as a specificissue in some regions is necessary’.10

9 http://www.noelkempff.com (accessed 30 Nov 2009) and Tracey Johns and Evan Johnson “AnOverview of Readiness for REDD: A compilation of readiness activities” prepared on behalf of theForum on Readiness for REDD Version 1.2 (March 2009)10 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European

Economic and Social committee and the Committee of the Regions “Winning the Battle Against Global
Climate Change” Feb, 2005

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

7

The Coalition for Rainforest Nations
In May, 2005, the Coalition for Rainforest nations was formed, led by Papua
New Guinea, and directed by Kevin Conrad. The Coalition is anintergovernmental organisation with the objective of ‘forested tropical countries
collaborating to reconcile forest stewardship with economic development’11.

COP11, Montreal, November 2005
In Montreal, November 2005, at COP11, via The PNG Government and theGovernment of Costa Rica, The Coalition for Rainforest Nations requested anagenda item: ‘Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries:
approaches to stimulate action’ citing that Papua New Guinea “has a strong
interest in ensuring that the objective of Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol isachieved’12
Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol“(ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs ofgreenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, taking
into account its commitments under relevant international
environmental agreements; promotion of sustainable forest
management practices, afforestation and reforestation;”and ‘called upon the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol to take note of present
rates of deforestation within developing nations, acknowledge the resulting
carbon emissions, and consequently open dialogue to develop scientific,
technical, policy and capacity responses to address such emissions resulting
from tropical deforestation’ and referred to Article 4.1 of the Kyoto Protocol:

11 http://www.rainforestcoalition.org/eng/ (accessed 30 Nov 2009)

UNFCCC COP11, Item 6 of the provisional Agenda, “Reducing emissions from deforestation indeveloping countries: approaches to stimulate action” Submission by the Governments of Papua New
Guinea and Costa Rica
12

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy8‘All Parties, taking into account their common but
differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional
development priorities, objectives and circumstances, shall: a)
Develop, periodically update, publish and make available to theConference of the Parties, in accordance with Article 12, national
inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals bysinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol, using comparable methodologies to be agreed upon by the
Conference of the Parties... c) Promote and cooperate in thedevelopment, application and diffusion, including transfer oftechnologies, practices and processes that control, reduce or prevent
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse effect gases not controlled
by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including ...
forestry ... d) promote sustainable management, and promote andcooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, ofsinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse gases not controlled by theMontreal Protocol, including ... forests.’
This item was taken up and the Parties agreed to initiate consideration of thismatter beginning at the twenty-fourth SBSTA session (May 2006).13

SBSTA 24th Session, Bonn, May, 2006
In Bonn 2006, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice(SBSTA) began considering REDD. They ‘noted the need to address reducing
emissions from deforestation in developing countries as part of mitigation efforts
to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention.’
They agreed to discuss:a) Scientific, socio-economic, technical, and methodological issues,
including the role of forests, in particular tropical forests, in the global
carbon cycle; definitional issues, including those relating to links
between deforestation and degradation; data availability and quality;
scale; rates and drivers of deforestation; estimation of changes incarbon stocks and forest cover; and related uncertainties;(b) Policy approaches and positive incentives to reduce emissions
from deforestation in developing countries, including causes; shortand long-term effectiveness with respect to emission reductions; thedisplacement of emissions; bilateral and multilateral cooperation;
activities of other relevant international bodies; enhancing sustainable
forest management; capacity-building; and financial mechanisms andother alternatives – basing discussions on experiences and lessons
learned;
13 UNFCCC “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its eleventh session, held at Montreal from 28

November to 10 December 2005. Part One: Proceedings.” 2005

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

9(c) Identification of possible links between relevantscientific, socio-economic, technical and methodological issues andpolicy approaches and positive incentives that may arise from theconsideration of the topics in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.14

COP13, Bali 2007 – The Bali Action Plan
Following consideration by the SBSTA and several workshops to address issues
in greater depth, in December 2007, COP13 in Bali adopted 2 decisions.
1. The Bali Action Plan Decision 1/CP13 Para 1 (b) (iii)“Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation indeveloping countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable
management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks indeveloping countries”

14 SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE (SBSTA) “Reducing

emissions from deforestation in developing countries - Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair”
Twenty-fourth session Bonn, 18–26 May 2006 Agenda item 6 (FCCC/SBSTA/2006/L.8)

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

10With the following objective:
1. ‘All Parties should collectively aim at halting forest cover loss indeveloping countries by 2030 at the latest and reducing grossdeforestation in developing countries by at least 50 per cent by 2020
compared to current levels.’15
2. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches
to stimulate action Decision 2/CP13
The Conference of the Parties,
Recalling the relevant provisions of the Convention, in particular
Article 2, Article 3, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, and Article 4, paragraphs
1(a)ñ(d), 3, 5 and 7,
Acknowledging the contribution of the emissions from deforestation
to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,Acknowledging that forest degradation also leads to emissions, andneeds to be addressed when reducing emissions from deforestation,
Recognizing that efforts and actions to reduce deforestation and tomaintain and conserve forest carbon stocks in developing countries
are already being taken,
Recognizing the complexity of the problem, different national
circumstances and the multiple drivers of deforestation and forest
degradation,
Recognizing the potential role of further actions to reduce emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries in
helping to meet the ultimate objective of the Convention,
Affirming the urgent need to take further meaningful action to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing
countries,
Noting that sustainable reduction in emissions from deforestation andforest degradation in developing countries requires stable andpredictable availability of resources,
Recognizing that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in developing countries can promote co-benefits andmay complement the aims and objectives of other relevantinternational conventions and agreements,
Recognizing also that the needs of local and indigenous communities
should be addressed when action is taken to reduce emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation in developing countries,
15 UNFCCC “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15

December 2007 - Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties”

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

11

1. Invites Parties to further strengthen and support
ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation andforest degradation on a voluntary basis;
2. Encourages all Parties, in a position to do so, to support
capacity-building, provide technical assistance, facilitate thetransfer of technology to improve, inter alia, data collection,
estimation of emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, monitoring and reporting, and address theinstitutional needs of developing countries to estimate andreduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation;
3. Further encourages Parties to explore a range of actions,
identify options and undertake efforts, including demonstration
activities, to address the drivers of deforestation relevant totheir national circumstances, with a view to reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and thus
enhancing forest carbon stocks due to sustainable
management of forests;16
There were five main issues, which remain contentious:
1. Scope – what should be included in the definition of REDD
2. Measurement, reporting and verification
3. The rights of indigenous people
4. Financing options
5. Institutional arrangements – whether REDD activities were considered
National or project level activities.
Scope:The definition of REDD, whether it pertains to conservation, sustainable
management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing
countries, whether it only applies to forestry or all land use and land use change(LULUCF). Biodiversity and social benefits are two other key scope issues.
The rights of indigenous people:
The inclusion of indigenous people and local communities as stakeholders, andthe extent of their rights in terms of participation, land tenure, distribution offunds etc.

16 Ibid

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

12

Financing:
Whether REDD should be financed via government to government capacity
building support, via a fund established under the COP, via market funding e.g.
allowance auctions, carbon credit market etc.
Institutional arrangements:
Whether REDD should be considered a NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Action) and therefore be managed and financed like other NAMAs. If REDD wasconsidered to be a NAMA, REDD projects would not be eligible for funding
through a market mechanism.
Measurement, Reporting and Verification:
Issues of baseline emissions levels and addressing leakage, permanence andadditionality.
Also at COP11 in Bali the following groups were established:
1. Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the
Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). This working group is primarily in charge withnegotiating future commitments from industrialised nations in the Kyoto
Protocol.
2. Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention(AWG-LCA). This group focuses on developing a plan of long-termcooperation between developing and industrialised countries, focusing
on the following issues: mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer andfinancial provision. Currently, REDD policy is being discussed within bothof these groups simultaneously
3. The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA),
discusses the technical aspects of REDD.

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

13

SBSTA 29, Poznan, December 2008 – The introduction of
REDD Plus
In its report SBSTA referred to ‘reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable
management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing
countries’
The difference is that the semi-colon between the words ‘...developing
countries’ and ‘...the role of conservation...’ was changed to a comma. Thischange was made in response to pressure from countries such as India, which
wished to see ‘conservation, sustainable management for forests andenhancement of forest carbon stocks’ given the same level of priority in thenegotiations as deforestation and forest degradation. Since then, REDD has
been referred to as ‘REDD-plus’.
Another significant development at the UNFCCC meetings in December 2008
was the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia blocking the inclusion ofreference to “indigenous peoples” and the explicit mention of rights.17

Bonn, June 2009 – The introduction of the negotiating text
There were 3 meetings in Bonn, Germany in mid 2009.
For the 2nd of these meetings (sometimes referred to as Bonn II) a negotiatingtext was prepared by the Chair of the AWG-LCA incorporating the ideas andproposals submitted by the parties.18 The aim of the negotiating text was tofacilitate the negotiations among Parties on the fulfilment of the Bali Action Plan
towards the agreed outcome to be adopted at Cop15 in Copenhagen in
December 2009.
Throughout the talks in Bonn it happened that the sessions were less about
reaching consensus that they were about ensuring that all the issues andinterests were included, with the talks ending up expanding the negotiating text
from 56 pages to some 200 pages.

17 FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23
18 UNFCCC AWG-LCA 6th Session, Bonn, June 2009 Negotiating Text
and UNFCCC AWG-LCA 6th Session, Bonn, June 2009 Revised Negotiating Text

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

14

Scope:One issue that delegates did seem to agree on was that long-term accountingof land-use emissions should be done on a land basis (which measures the total
emissions and sinks on a given area of land) instead of an activity basis (whichmeasures only emissions and sinks from certain land-use activities) citing that
land-based accounting more accurately reflects the land's true affect on theenvironment. This represented a further movement away from REDD as purenatural forest conservation, towards a REDD plus model.
The following option was included as there was fear that REDD-plus would
promote the replacement of natural forests with forest plantations:108.1 The REDD mechanism shall ensure that Parties takeprecautionary measures and establish safeguards to protect
biological diversity in host countries, including safeguards against theconversion of natural forests to forest plantations.
Indigenous Rights:
There was much discussion regarding Indigenous people, their engagement andto what extent (note: elements in brackets mean that this text doesn’t haveconsensus):
109. [[There should be full and effective engagement of] [Indigenous
peoples and] local communities [[should] [shall] be involved] [must not
be only like assistants to the implementation, but must begin with] [indesign plans and actions] [design, development and] implementationof [REDD-plus] actions [in their land] and their rights [should be]
respected, [including the right of full prior and informed consent,][including prior and informed consent,] [consistent with the provisions
established under the respective national legislation [or], [and][in its
absence,]] [in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples][consistent with relevant international
instruments, obligations and national legislation]. [The CBD and its
Expanded Work Programme on Biodiversity in forest should beobserved to avoid inconsistencies at level of national
implementation.]]
There was also the introduction of the concept of equitable distribution of funds:
x.3 A REDD+ mechanism should be transparent, efficient, andequitable; and it should ensure a fair distribution of REDD derived
benefits among all relevant stakeholders and indigenous peoples andlocal communities, in response to their efforts in REDD activities.
Measurement and Reporting:
The REDD debate within SBSTA at the Bonn talks focused almost entirely on
methodologies for forest carbon accounting, with recurrent disagreements overwhether different approaches are needed to measure reduced deforestation anddegradation versus avoided deforestation (conservation).

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

15

There was also consensus that National Adaption plans would
be voluntary and that, therefore subnational accounting, monitoring, reportingand verifying is allowed, inferring that project level activity will likely be eligible atthe onset.
Financing:
Discussions surrounding financing moved towards a hybrid model of many ofthe discussed financing mechanisms.
A growing number of developing countries expressed concerns surrounding theuse of REDD credits by developed nations to meet their emissions reductions
targets including the suggestion that Annex 1 non Kyoto signatories (e.g. The
US) who wish to use international carbon credit facilities to achieve theiremission reductions they must commit to reductions of 45 to 50%, and should
clarify how much of this reduction would be achieved by REDD.
Norway and Tuvalu both recommended that a decision on whether or not to link
REDD to carbon trading be postponed until COP16:‘A timeline is set up for decision making, with a tentative date of COP
16 for a decision on whether to use the carbon market mechanism
as a funding mechanism for REDD:
x.2 Funding shall be based on an appropriate and effective
international funding mechanism. The Conference of the Parties shall,at its 15th session, establish such a funding mechanism.
At its [16th] session, the Conference of the Parties shall supplement
the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines for funding of
all phases, including decisions on linkage to the carbon-market.’
There was general consensus that early action activities should have access toall funding options.

Bangkok 7th Session of the AWG LCA Sep/Oct 2009
During the last day of negotiations at Bangkok, against the express wishes ofsome 20 countries, the European Union supported by the Democratic Republicof the Congo speaking for Cameroon, Equitorial Guinea, and the Republic of theCongo blocked the inclusion of language to prevent the conversion of naturalforests to plantations. As a result the provision for ‘…safeguards against theconversion of natural forests to forest plantations’ was cut from the negotiatingtext.19
Countries including Brazil, India, Mexico, Switzerland and Norway strongly
requested that the safeguard be reinstated in text to be taken up at thesubsequent Barcelona climate talks in November.
19 UNFCCC, AWG-LCA “Non Paper 18” October 2009

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy16At a press conference the next day, however, the European
Commission's chief negotiator called the blocking of text “an unfortunate
mishap” and indicated that “in policy terms we can support that particularparagraph moved in.”20

Barcelona, November, 2009
Non Paper number 39 was presented by the AWG-LCA on the 5th November
following the Barcelona discussions.21
Scope:The text regarding keeping natural forests intact reappeared in two options
following the talks in Barcelona, but remained in brackets, suggesting there wasstill no consensus‘[Promote] actions that are consistent with the conservation of
biological diversity [, and do not provide incentives for conversion ofnatural forests][, including safeguards on the conversion of naturalforests] and enhance other social and environmental benefits[,
including [environmental] [ecosystem] services], complementary to
the aims and objectives of relevant international conventions andagreements.’
Indigenous:
No adjustments were made to the wording around indigenous participation,
during the Barcelona discussions, leaving the provisions for indigenous rights
relatively weak:‘In accordance with relevant international agreements[, such as theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,] andtaking into account national circumstances and legislation, respect
the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples[, including their free,prior and informed consent,] and members of local communities andpromote the full and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders’and‘[While implementing the national [action plan] [strategy] Parties[should][shall] address, inter alia, drivers of deforestation, land tenure
issues, forest governance and means of ensuring the full andeffective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities.](Taking into account the need for sustainable livelihoods ofindigenous peoples and local communities and theirinterdependence on forests in most countries, reflected in the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and theUnited Nations Earth Day.)’
20 Ecosystems Climate Alliance Press Release 2 November 200921 UNFCCC, AWG-LCA “Non Paper 39” November 2009

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

17

Measurement:
Issues of baseline emissions were still hazy:
12. [When establishing national reference emission levels [and][or]national reference levels, Parties shall take into account the guidance
provided in decision X/CP.15 (SBSTA decision 5) and any relevant
decisions to be adopted by the COP.
(Elements for consideration in the SBSTA draft decision: [theapplication of a correction factor to reflect] national circumstances [,historically low deforestation and forest degradation, developmental
divergence, and respective capabilities and capacities], developing
country Parties that are requesting support shall follow the guidance
decided by the [COP] [Meeting of the Parties to this Agreement at its
first session] to be adopted at its [xx] session on how to establish thelevels [, including ways to address [domestic] leakage] [if applying
sub-national approaches] [for demonstration activities] [and thedevelopment of guidance in monitoring and reporting with the full
effective engagement of indigenous people and local communities.]])Financing:
There was still no certainty about financing mechanisms with options ofestablishing a public fund under the COP, auctioning allowances, a market
based mechanism, or a combination of these and other approaches remaining
open. There was even the inclusion of the option for ‘innovative funding
sources’.

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

18

Possible options for REDD at Copenhagen
The Non Paper produced following negotiations in Barcelona is not ‘agreed text’
and the revised negotiating text and other documents, such as submissions by
Parties, remain ‘on the table’.
Whilst there is broad skepticism that the UN Copenhagen Climate Change
Conference will produce a legally binding outcome, important decisions
regarding REDD may still be adopted at Copenhagen.
Six negotiating bodies will meet in Copenhagen to discuss REDD, each with theopportunity to make important decisions:•Fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC(COP15)•

Fifth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meetingof the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 5)•

Thirty-first session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SBSTA)•

Thirty-first session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)•

Eighth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term
Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA)•

Tenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further
Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWGKP).

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

19About Carbon Planet
A global full-spectrum carbon management company, Carbon Planet brings
together scientific expertise, industry experience and business insights to deliver
an integrated suite of carbon management services:
Audit & Advisory
Greenhouse gas emissions assessment, energy reduction and carbon
management services.
Carbon Commerce
Carbon origination and trading services. Global partnerships to identify, develop
and commercialise quality carbon offsetting projects.
Carbon Planet Life
Inspiration, education and facilitation - for individuals and the community.
Operation Coolenation
Award winning global warming and climate change education program forprimary schools.
Carbon Planet offers a full-service suite of carbon assessment and management
services, advising the business community on the many ways to tackle newissues, overcome emerging challenges and plan an approach that will satisfy
legislative requirements to unlock and open the door to economic opportunities.
From audit and advisory, education and training, carbon trading, carbon offsets
and origination, to the full breadth of planning, implementation andcommercialisation, Carbon Planet has the credentials, experience and expertisenecessary to help you navigate the carbon economy.

Carbon Planet White Paper - The History of REDD Policy

20