by Anggalia Putri (Live Report from Warsaw)

From November 11 to 22, 2013, the 19th Conference of Parties (COP) on climate change was held in Warsaw, Poland. There were agendas regarding REDD+ issues that were increasingly focused and technical, but tended to seem merely ceremonial. There are at least four issues that will be discussed in detail regarding REDD+ methodology, namely “safeguards and safeguards information system (SIS)”, “drivers of deforestation (DD)”, “Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV)”, and National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS). Beyond these four methodological issues, there are also discussions on funding issues for REDD+ (finance), including discussions on how the private sector and markets are given space to play a role in REDD+ issues. In relation to this, there is a worrying trend about the establishment of new market mechanisms (NMM) and the push to adopt carbon trading and offsets within the REDD+ regime. Additionally, there is a broader picture related to REDD+, namely the increasing trend of the “landscape approach” that not only includes forests but also agriculture, plantations, and other landscape elements. If this entire landscape is mapped within a carbon trading framework, it is a bad sign for society.

Current Positions on REDD+ Negotiation Issues:

1) Safeguards

Since Cancun 2010, attention to safeguards issues has been decreasing. In Durban (2011), there was a weakening in the implementation mechanism of safeguards in the UNFCCC text. Civil society demanded MRV mechanisms for safeguards (strong international oversight), but the decision that came out was only the ‘Safeguards Information System’ which is very weak and only requires REDD+ countries to submit summary reports on how they respect safeguards in all REDD+ activities. Besides the lack of international review mechanisms for country reports, until now the detailed guidelines for SIS at the international level are very minimal because developing countries do not want their sovereignty eroded and want high flexibility to design their SIS. So, post-Durban, the safeguards battleground narrowed down to SIS, especially how this weakly designed SIS can be strengthened with additional guidance.

Unfortunately, since Cancun, 80% of energy and attention have been devoted to methodological issues related to carbon (MRV, RL/REL) and safeguards tend to be sidelined and neglected in REDD+ negotiations. The lobbying efforts of CSOs in 2012-2013 have successfully prevented the closing of the door for additional guidance. Finally, they postponed the discussion on this matter to next year (COP 20 in Peru), so this matter will not be discussed this year in Warsaw.

Apart from additional guidance, SIS also continues to weaken in terms of reporting time and frequency. Countries are only required to report safeguards in national communications with a very long period, every 4 years. Unfortunately, the text on this issue was closed in Bonn. However, we are trying to push for the reopening of this text so that REDD+ Parties are required to produce at least one report on safeguards before they can access REDD+ funds in the results-based payment stage. This can be considered a heavy task because Parties now only want to focus on MRV discussions (especially on how to verify emission reductions), so some say that pushing for this is like “expecting a miracle.” So far, Indonesia sees SIS and other requirements as potential technical burdens, so funding related to this is needed to uphold sovereignty and national contexts in designing SIS. Indonesia itself already has an SIS developed by Pustanling with funding from GIZ Germany.

2) Drivers of Deforestation

Regarding drivers, there are two important issues: 1) how to incorporate international drivers into the REDD+ text (because many deforestation drivers come from outside the country, for example, Brazil successfully reduced deforestation but exported it to Peru as its timber industry moved there. Indonesia also started exporting its palm oil plantations to Liberia), 2) how to prevent local communities and IPs from being branded as drivers of deforestation. Concerning the issue of blaming communities, the latest text in Bonn (2013) is very concerning as it can be seen as blaming traditional livelihoods as drivers. This is one of the issues we are pushing to reopen and rectify. Regarding international drivers, the opportunity to include this in the text is smaller because REDD+ is designed to provide incentives nationally, not internationally. However, these two issues are still worth advocating for. So far, Indonesia’s position seems unwilling to reopen the text on drivers because it is more focused on the MRV issues and supports Brazil that international drivers should not be