Where do we go from here? REDD-plus and AFOLU after Copenhagen
The Copenhagen climate change conference last month inspired mixed feelings. A fair and binding global deal was not agreed to, and politicians stole the show, more or less sidelining the technical work accomplished earlier in the talks. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) was, as predicted, one of the few issues with a positive outcome.
[caption id="attachment_1685" align="alignright" width="300" caption="What's next for REDD+ and AFOLU?"]
[/caption]
The current version of the text produced by the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) clears up many of the contentious issues including financing and safeguarding indigenous rights. The SBSTA also finalized its methodological guidance for REDD-plus activities.
Despite its many shortfalls, the Copenhagen Accord (PDF) recognizes the role of REDD-plus and calls for “immediate” establishment of a REDD-plus mechanism (though no specific timeline or target is mentioned).
The developed countries have also collectively committed to new and additional resources approaching $30 billion to support enhanced action on mitigation, including “substantial finance” for REDD-plus. As well, the United States, Australia, France, Japan, Norway and Britain pledged $3.5 billion to fund REDD activities from 2010-2012.
This global recognition of the importance of REDD-plus is a big victory, and shows we have come a long way since the RED concept was first introduced in 2005.
Agriculture has also moved up on the international climate change agenda, with the AWG-LCA calling for a work programme on agriculture . Agriculture has gained visibility thanks to joint efforts by several partners from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the ASB Partnership. The contribution of the ASB partnership through the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and other networks, cannot be overlooked. Another positive development for AFOLU is $150 billion committed to establishing a Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases.
These are all clear signals to those of us in the scientific community to get on with our work in terms of supporting discussion on the modalities and procedures for both REDD-plus and AFOLU as and when discussions kick in.
Some immediate questions that come to mind include:
[/caption]
The current version of the text produced by the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) clears up many of the contentious issues including financing and safeguarding indigenous rights. The SBSTA also finalized its methodological guidance for REDD-plus activities.
Despite its many shortfalls, the Copenhagen Accord (PDF) recognizes the role of REDD-plus and calls for “immediate” establishment of a REDD-plus mechanism (though no specific timeline or target is mentioned).
The developed countries have also collectively committed to new and additional resources approaching $30 billion to support enhanced action on mitigation, including “substantial finance” for REDD-plus. As well, the United States, Australia, France, Japan, Norway and Britain pledged $3.5 billion to fund REDD activities from 2010-2012.
This global recognition of the importance of REDD-plus is a big victory, and shows we have come a long way since the RED concept was first introduced in 2005.
Agriculture has also moved up on the international climate change agenda, with the AWG-LCA calling for a work programme on agriculture . Agriculture has gained visibility thanks to joint efforts by several partners from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the ASB Partnership. The contribution of the ASB partnership through the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), and other networks, cannot be overlooked. Another positive development for AFOLU is $150 billion committed to establishing a Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases.
These are all clear signals to those of us in the scientific community to get on with our work in terms of supporting discussion on the modalities and procedures for both REDD-plus and AFOLU as and when discussions kick in.
Some immediate questions that come to mind include:
- What is the minimum complexity that we can accommodate for Measurement, Reporting and Verification so that we can avoid the complexities of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)?
- What are the scientific considerations for taking into account “national circumstances”?
- What kind of scientific/technical questions need to be answered in an AFOLU readiness programme, and when is it strategic to call for readiness investments for AFOLU?
Comments
Post new comment