For more detail on how and when this Paris Agreement section changed during the COP21 negotiations, click here.
Article 5 of the Paris Agreement considers how member States value GHG sinks and reservoirs, including forests. Under Art. 5, all States should recognize the importance of GHG sinks and reservoirs, specifically including forests, and all States are encouraged to commit to conserving and enhancing these resources as appropriate. This article is only 2 paragraphs long, and it does not require direct action from any Parties. Rather, the first paragraph explains that Parties should conserve and enhance GHG sinks and reservoirs. But, this conservation and enhancement is only necessary when States deem it as “appropriate.” Importantly, Art. 5.1 lists forests as a specific example of a GHG sink or reservoir, but the article is not limited to the conservation and enhancement of forests. Article 5.2 encourages Parties to implement and support the existing REDD+ framework in developing countries through a variety of approaches, including traditional policy and carbon-incentivizing approaches as well as non-traditional joint mitigation and adaptation approaches and incentivizing non-carbon benefits associated with these joint approaches. One example of incentivizing non-carbon benefits includes allowing the supporting State to count improved health outcomes or improved agricultural production as a carbon equivalent for that State’s NDC.[1] Ultimately, the purpose of Art. 5.2 is to preserve REDD+ and other pre-existing UNFCCC decisions and efforts aimed at forest conservation and enhancement.
Article 5 does not require any State action. Rather, the article simply explains that (1) States should enhance and preserve GHG sinks and reservoirs and (2) States are encouraged to implement and financially support mechanisms that already exist under the UNFCCC. What is now Art. 5 of the Paris Agreement was an important topic of negotiation in Paris. Despite its weak authority in the final agreement, many developing States, especially those in South America, insisted on its survival. Originally, these States wanted to ensure that the value of forests was directly addressed in the Paris Agreement and that a mechanism was developed that would be stronger than the existing REDD+ framework in ensuring that forests are properly counted as GHG sinks and reservoirs, and that States with large forests receive sufficient support to adequately conserve and enhance this important resource. Interestingly, Brazil was opposed to strengthening the REDD+ framework under the Paris Agreement. Presumably, Brazil resisted REDD+ in the Paris Agreement because Brazil already has a highly developed forest preservation program, and does not want the program to change.[2]
Moreover, developed Parties, such as the United States and European Union, were also interested in preserving the use of forests as a tool for meeting GHG mitigation goals. These Developed country Parties want to count their land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities in their mitigation and adaptation pledges. More specifically, the United States needs to be able to count its LULUCF activities in order to meet its 2025 pledges. Currently, the major debates about the role of forests and other carbon sinks center on which methodologies should be used to account for these sources. Ultimately, the Subsidiary Bodies will consider the different proposed methodologies and help develop a compromise for all of the State Parties to adopt and follow in their NDCs.
As negotiations progressed, it became clear that the creation of a new mechanism beyond the existing REDD+ framework was not a possibility. In response, developing countries compromised and Art. 5 transformed from a vehicle for a new mechanism into a vehicle of reiteration or a placeholder for future development under the subsidiary bodies. Thus, the purpose of Art. 5 is to ensure that the States do not move backwards in relation to forests and other GHG sinks and reservoirs. Including Art. 5 in the Paris Agreement ensures accountability amongst all States. While developing States cannot argue that other States are required to help with forest conservation, the developed States and other developing States cannot excuse themselves from the issue all together.
The COP 21 Decision reflects on the importance of providing financial support for alternative policy approaches, such as the joint mitigation and adaptation approaches discussed in Art. 5.2 of the Paris Agreement as well as the importance of providing support to traditional REDD+ projects.[3] Unfortunately, all of the action language in the COP 21 Decision relating to Art. 5 is weak, with the Parties recognizing the importance of funding the initiatives covered in Art. 5 of the Paris Agreement, not that any Parties actually shall provide this financial support. Thus, while the financing details of Art. 5 are briefly discussed in the COP 21 Decision, it is unclear as to which Parties will actually financially support the forestry conservation and enhancement projects listed in Art. 5.
[1] See http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/smsn/ngo/405.pdf (listing non-carbon benefits associated with REDD+).
[2] See https://www.boell.de/en/2015/11/27/brazil-and-redd-debate.
[3] COP 21 Decision para. 55.