Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under theUNFCCC - Key Outcomes from Warsaw Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

DAY1
Session 1

Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under the UNFCCC Key Outcomes from Warsaw
Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

I would like to share with you in my presentation this morning the outcomes from the Warsaw
Climate Change Conference. As Eduardo was mentioning, he hopes that this seminar will allow you toreflect on what has been learned and what kind of information that can be shared from the various activities
and projects that have been implemented relating to REDD+ thus far.

I hope that my presentation

informing you about the outcomes from Warsaw will, especially for those who are notfamiliar with thenegotiations and what took place in Warsaw, will serve as a basis for you to reflect on what you have done aspart of REDD+ implementation, and how the guidance from the COP comes into play to facilitate
developing countries in their implementation of REDD+.

I will present to you just some of the key aspects coming out from Warsaw. For those not too
familiar with the process, let me briefly inform you on how REDD+ came about onto the agenda and where
we ended up in Warsaw last year, and then to brief you on what were the actual outcomes from Warsaw, run
through a few of the key mandates and elements from the seven decisions that were adopted, and then, end byletting you know what are the next steps ahead - what do we foresee for the UNFCCC negotiations this year
and the years ahead.

1

DAY1
Session 1

It was already mentioned this morning by our earlier distinguished speakers that REDD+ was puton to the agenda way back in 2005 at the Montreal COP 1. Between 2007 and 2012, six decisions wereadopted that set the basis for how countries could implement REDD+ at the readiness phase and how they
could get started and get ready for the full implementation of REDD+. At COP 13 2 and COP 16 , twoimportant milestones were achieved because in Bali, countries agreed that we do not only just discuss thescientific and technical, methodological aspects of REDD+, but we would also be considering the policy andfinancing aspects of REDD+ and at that time to be taken over by the LCA 3 ad hoc working group 4. Thenin Cancun, we agreed on a decision where the framework for REDD+ was agreed upon, where we had thescope of REDD+, that is, the five activities, and also the decision identified the various important elements for
REDD+. Finally, in Warsaw last year, seven very important decisions to complete this work program, themethodological aspects as well as the financing aspects, were agreed on in Warsaw.

The decisions include a very important decision on financing which is very importantfor

developing countries to implement REDD+. We had two decisions that were related to finance, howcountries would obtain results-based finance, how to receive such finance, and what would be needed interms of coordination of support. The other five decisions relate more to methodological guidance in whichhttps://unfccc.int/meetings/montreal_nov_2005/meeting/6329.php
https://unfccc.int/meetings/bali_dec_2007/session/6265.php
3 Long-term Cooperative Action
4 https://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6431.php
12

2

Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under theUNFCCC - Key Outcomes from Warsaw Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

DAY1
Session 1

the COP provided guidance on how countries should develop their national forest monitoring systems, how
results will be MRV 5-ed, and also provide guidance on what countries need to do in order to address theirsafeguards, as well as the drivers of deforestation. Roughly, those seven decisions formed the Warsaw
Framework for REDD+.
What I will do now is actually go through some of the key elements of each of these decisions.
You can read the more detailed decisions on the secretariat website, 6 so I will just highlight to you some of
the key elements of these decisions and why they are important.

I will start with one of the most important decision for REDD+, which relates to results-based
finance and how countries would receive results-based finance.

This decision is important because it

provided a very important signal that results-based actions can only be taken based on adequate andpredictable support. All phases of REDD+ need to be adequately supported before countries are able tofully implement REDD+. As part of this important signal, the COP provided guidance for several areas. Iclustered them as how countries would obtain results-based finance, and I will run through the rest, as theCOP also provided guidance to those entities that provide finance to countries for

implementing REDD+.

Let me just start with what countries need to do in order to obtain and receive results-based
payments. All the actions need to be fully MRV-ed. That is a very important criterion for obtaining
results-based payments. They also need to have in place all the core elements that are identified in decision
1/CP.16 7 paragraph 71, which includes the forest monitoring system, having an assessed forest reference
emission level, and they have to provide information how the safeguards were addressed, and of course, tohave a national strategy or action plan in place. On top of that, they need to provide a recent summary of
information that shows how all the safeguards that were identified, in decision 1/CP.16 in Cancun have beenaddressed and respected.

Measured, Reported, and Verified
http://unfccc.int/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/session/7767/php/view/decisions.php
7 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2
5
63

DAY1
Session 1

The other guidance is to the entities financing REDD+. Here in this decision it identified a keyrole for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It was also recognized by the COP that financing needs to comefrom a variety of resources. All of them need to collectively channel adequate and predictable results-based
finance in a fair and balanced manner. That is a very important aspect of financing REDD+ that financing
entities need to take into consideration when providing finance for REDD+. And they have also beenencouraged to try and increase the number of countries that could receive these results-based payments. At
the same time, in their assessment of whether countries qualify for these payments, they need to apply theguidance that has been provided in all the relevant COP decisions that have been taken thus far; providing
countries methodological guidance on implementing REDD+.

On other guidance, the COP also requested the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) to take into
consideration a few aspects as part of their work, particularly to consider the issue of financing for forests, oncoherence and coordination, because a lot of developing countries feel that there needs to be some form of
coordination of support due to the fragmentation of financing that has been happening.

Since somecountries are not being able to access finance, coordination of support is the key to a broad range of countries
implementing REDD+.

The COP also requested that the SCF 8 focus its next forum on issues related toforest finance, and to include REDD+ financing issues as part of this forum discussion; and to invite experts
to be a part of the discussions in this forum.
Standing Committee on Finance :http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/standing_committee/items/6877.php
84

Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under theUNFCCC - Key Outcomes from Warsaw Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

DAY1
Session 1

The last aspect of guidance from this decision on results-based finance from the COP dealt withhow we could increase the transparency of information. This is where the COP had requested that aninformation hub be established on the REDD+ web platform. I am not sure how many of you are awarethat way back at COP 13, the secretariat was asked to establish a web platform where countries, stakeholders,and organizations can share information and experiences on REDD+ implementation. If you go to thesecretariat website, you will find the platform where organizations have shared a lot of their results of theirwork on this platform. In this decision on finance, the COP had requested that an information hub bedeveloped so that information on results-based actions and results-based payments can be shared with all.

There was a list on what sort of information that the hub should contain, such as results need to be
expressed in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Of course, the other information
include the elements of implementation. The secretariat will insert this information into the hub once
countries have provided all of this information through the various appropriate channels under theConvention.

5

DAY1
Session 1

The next decision that is linked to finance is about coordination.

The 10/CP.19 9 decision

identified some needs and functions that need to be addressed in order to do the coordination of support.
The COP invited Parties to designate national entities or focal points that could serve as a liaison to help
address this issue of coordination of support. The COP had encouraged these national entities to meet on a
voluntary basis to discuss these needs and functions that were identified. The first meeting of the nationalentities will start in Lima at the end of this year, and at the 47th session of the SBI, (Subsidiary Body forImplementation), the outcomes of these meetings will be reviewed 10.

910

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=28
Subsidiary Body for Implementation

6

Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under the
UNFCCC - Key Outcomes from Warsaw Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

DAY1
Session 1

Now I will run through the other methodological-related decisions. Of course, one of them isabout National Forest Monitoring System 11. This system needs to be in line with IPCC guidance and dataand information provided should be transparent, consistent over time; countries should build these forest
monitoring systems based upon existing systems, and it needs to allow for improvement over time.
The other decision is about safeguards. In Warsaw, countries managed to agree on how they could
provide this information to show that they have addressed and respected the safeguards identified in theCancun agreements. They could provide this summary either through national communications or throughthe web platform. They need to start providing this information after the start of the implementation of
REDD+ activities.

This decision on the technical assessment of forest reference emission levels is a very important
decision because countries need to establish their forest reference emission levels or forest reference levels as
part of their REDD+ implementation, and before they can go into receiving results-based payments for theirfull implementation of REDD+. The submission of a reference level is on a voluntary basis, but whateverreference level is submitted, it is subjected to a technical assessment.

This decision provides guidelines andprocedures for this technical assessment, such as the scope, it tells about what the composition of theassessment team should be, what are their responsibilities, when they do the technical assessments, and thetiming of these assessments which will be done once a year. Right now, the secretariat is still trying to work11

http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8369&Itemid=537

DAY1Session 1out a timeline as to when countries could voluntarily submit their reference level and when it would be
subjected to this technical assessment.

The demand for LULUCF 12 experts is very high.

We need to adjust

it together with all the other review processes under the Convention that goes on which involves the LULUCF
sector.

One of the things that we need to note here since we are in the company of a lot of forest experts,
is that the COP invited Parties and international organizations to support capacity building, and to help
countries develop this reference level. The assessment team is expected to prepare a report on their findings
during this assessment.

The whole assessment process will be coordinated by the secretariat.

Thisassessment is part of a facilitative, non-intrusive, technical exchange of information on the construction ofreference levels for the developing countries that submit them.

What were the modalities that were agreed for MRV of REDD+? It needs to be consistent withprevious decisions. For any guidance on MRV of NAMA’s 13, data information needs to be transparent andcountries should try to improve the data that they have over time. Results have to be expressed in terms oftonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.

1213

Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

8

Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under theUNFCCC - Key Outcomes from Warsaw Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

DAY1
Session 1

How would countries report this information? Reporting will be through the biennial update
reports (BUR). When a country seeks payments for results-based action, then they need to provide not just areport of their results through the BUR 14, but also to complete a technical annex that will contain information
on various elements. You can read the details of these elements which need to be included in the annex of thisdecision on MRV, which is decision 14/CP.19 15.

The last decision that was adopted in Warsaw related to the drivers of deforestation, and how
countries and organizations are encouraged to continue to take such actions and to share the information on
the actions and the results of the actions in terms of addressing drivers. For countries to take note, and tohave this information sharing, I think this would be a very appropriate forum for sharing such information
relating to the various successful cases of addressing drivers of deforestation..

1415

Biennial Update Reports
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=39

9

DAY1
Session 1

What do we foresee happening this year, under the UNFCCC? There are various areas of work.
The first one relates to the consideration of methodological issues, SBSTA 16 will continue to consider
methodological issues. Starting this June, we will look at non-market-based approaches. Then the SBSTA
will also look at methodological issues relating to non-carbon benefits. The issue on safeguards will beconsidered by the SBSTA during the Lima COP at the end of the year. In between, there will be an expert
meeting relating to the information hub, and the report on the meeting will be considered at SBI in Lima.

Before SBSTA in June, Parties and observers have been requested to submit their views on theissues that will be discussed, non-market based approaches, as well as methodological issues that are related tonon-carbon benefits coming out from REDD+ implementation. The due date to be submitted to thesecretariat is 26th of March. I would encourage international organizations that are working on these issues
to submit their views to facilitate the consideration of these issues in June.
Parties have also been requested to submit views for consideration of the SBSTA41 in Lima. I told
you earlier that SBSTA 41 will look at issues relating to safeguards. Parties and observers have beenrequested by the COP to submit their views on the types of information that may be provided.

16

Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

10Update on the International Negotiations on REDD-plus under theUNFCCC - Key Outcomes from Warsaw Ms. Jenny Wong (Program Officer, UNFCCC Secretariat)

DAY1
Session 1

Developing countries, as part of developing the systems for providing information on safeguards,
have been requested to share their experiences, lessons learned, and challenges that they face in developing
these systems for providing information on how the safeguards have been addressed and respected. Both thesubsidiary bodies and COP have encouraged the ongoing sharing of experiences. I mentioned earlier about
the web platform, so countries can share experiences on how they develop the systems for providing
information on safeguards. Then recalling the decision on drivers, for Parties and organizations to share
information on how they had actually successfully addressed drivers as part of their REDD+ implementation,and how it is being identified in the national strategies.

This is about the meetings that have been requested by both the COP and the subsidiary bodies forthe secretariat to organize.

There will be an in-session expert meeting relating to non-market- based

approaches this June at the SBSTA. In between, there will be an expert meeting on the information hub that
I spoke about. As for the decision on results-based finance, the COP calls for the establishment of aninformation hub. There will be an expert meeting on the information hub later this year. Of course, on thedecision relating to the coordination of support, the secretariat has been asked to facilitate the organization ofthese meetings of national entities and focal points. The first one is starting in Lima.

11