REDD at the Copenhagen Talks and Beyond: Bridging the … · REDD AT THE COPENHAGEN TALKS AND BEYOND: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN NEGOTIATIONS AND ACTION ... emissions from deforestation

1

REDD AT THE COPENHAGEN TALKS AND BEYOND: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN NEGOTIATIONS AND ACTION

Based on paragraph 1 (b) (iii) of the Bali Action Plan: Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating 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

Table 1: Objectives, scope and guiding principles

REDD PROPOSALS AND OPTIONS UNDER THE AWG-LCA

IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSALS AND OPTIONS FOR A

COUNTRY (Like Uganda)

KEY QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION NEEDED TO

ASSESS THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS AND OPTIONS FROM

A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE 1. Objectives and scope and guiding principles

Objectives and scope 1. All Parties should… aim at halting forest cover loss … by 2030 and reducing gross deforestation… by at least 50 per cent by 2020;

This is a call for commitment to set and meet a target of

• “halting” forest cover loss by 2030 and

• Reducing gross “deforestation” by 50 % by 2030;

• For Uganda this equivalent o to restoring 1,000,000 Ha

by 2020 and o reducing deforestation by

another 100,000 ha annually

Key questions from this very paragraph include, but are not limited to:

• How would a country know how much cover loss it needs to “halt”?

• How did such a country reach its current deforestation rate?

• What would stop the country from continuing in the current trend?

• How would the country raise nearly USD 300,000,000 annually to do just the two actions alone?

• How about other actions to

2






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE address the triggers, drivers, and underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation?

• Could the paragraph have made it more explicit as to the role of each of the “all parties”?

2. Developing country Parties should contribute to enhanced mitigation actions in the: • forestry sector • land use, land-use change and

forestry sector • agriculture, forestry and land use

sector and the following activities [shall][should]

• This could mean that a developing country like Uganda must choose to do “mitigation actions”;

• And that these actions are from the menu listed in the “preamble” of paragraph 2.

• What would then be the role of “developed” countries?

• And why isn’t such a role clearly stated in this most important paragraph of the entire REDD+ text?

• How could it better be stated then? • Where is the positive incentive

component that is supposed to “accompany” this “policy approach” as intended in paragraph 1 (b) (iii) of the Bali Action Plan?

Option 1 include • reducing emissions from deforestation

and forest degradation • maintaining existing carbon stocks and

enhancing removals • or increasing forest cover through

afforestation and reforestation

• This could be the basis for list of ‘eligible activities” under consideration

• Does this “list” represent all the things that could be done to meet the objective of Paragraph 1?

• Considered with option 2 are these mutually exclusive?

• How best could we determine what really constitutes a “basket” of actions that would meet the requirements of

3






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE • promoting enhancement of carbon

stocks through o sustainable forest and land

management o sustainable management of

forests

REDD? • How does one tell the difference

between some “terms” such as “sustainable management of forests” and “sustainable forest management”?

Option 2 Include a) Reduction in deforestation rates; b) Reduction in forest degradation; c) Stabilization of forest cover (and thereby

forest carbon stocks); d)

• Conservation through sustainable management of forests and

• maintenance of forest carbon stocks through sustainable management of forests;

e) • Enhancement of forest carbon stocks

through conservation and • Enhancement of forest carbon stocks

through sustainable management of

• This could be the basis for list of ‘eligible activities” under consideration;

• Does this “list” represent all the things that could be done to meet the objective of Paragraph 1?

• Considered with option 1 are these mutually exclusive?

• How best could we determine what really constitutes a “basket” of actions that would meet the requirements of REDD?

• How does one tell the difference between some “terms” such as “Enhancement of forest carbon stocks” and “maintenance of forest carbon stocks”?

4






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE forests, and/or

• Enhancement of forest carbon stocks through increase in forest cover through

o afforestation and o reforestation

3. Actions to be undertaken by Parties referred to in paragraph 2 above shall:

General principles (a) Contribute to the objective set out in Article 2 of the Convention (article 2 of the convention is about “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere”;

• A developing country like Uganda has the opportunity to “contribute” to the meeting the realization of the convention;

• The developing country has to make decisions on how best to balance “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” with:

o The threat to food security such actions would entail;

o with economic development in a “sustainable” manner

• A developing country would probably face the risk of expectation that such “contributions” would be “positively” incentivised.

• How can a developing country like Uganda determine her capacity to “contribute” to “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” without harming “food security” and “sustainable” development?

• There is an expectation that such “contributions” would be “positively” incentivised. How best could this be reflected in the principles

5






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE (b) Be country driven and voluntary; • The implication is that the country

chooses the REDD actions it wants to undertake “provided” they are among those listed in Paragraph 2 above;

• The country also has the “freedom” to choose whether to undertake any or some of the listed activities.

• Under what circumstances would this principle be difficult to exercise:

• And is there a way we could reword the principle so that it allows for such an eventuality?

• How then would such a developing country assure other parties especially developed country parties that this will not affect the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere”?

(c) Be undertaken in accordance with • countries’ capabilities and • national circumstances and • respect to sovereignty;

• This is an assurance that developing countries can not be expected to “contribute” more than they are capable;

• The principle acknowledges that countries are not the same and this diversity of circumstance need to be borne in mind;

• It is also a declaration of respect for the country’s right to self governance without un-due pressure or infringement

• How can a developing country like Uganda, then protect itself from being declared “capable” or its national “circumstances” found to be very “conducive” for greater contributions?

• Or what safeguards does a developing country need to put in place in this document to have it assured of its “sovereignty”?

(d) Be consistent with national sustainable development goals;

• This means that actions listed under par.2 should be contributing to

• Under what circumstances could the “national sustainable development

6






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE national sustainable development goals

goals” are actually be in conflict with the requirements for undertaking the actions listed in par.2 above?

• How would the country go about reconciling such a situation and

• How should we safeguard for such a possibility in the negotiations?

• Do what extend can developing countries actually predict the possibility of conflict between national sustainable development goals and the actions listed under paragraph 2 above?

• Would developing countries rather wait until they are able to know the full effects of undertaking “enhanced mitigation actions” before they become party to the requirements for REDD+?

(e) Facilitate • Facilitate sustainable development, • reduce poverty and • respond to climate change in developing

country Parties, rather than be a way to help developed country Parties to fulfill

• The options here intend that actions listed under paragraph 2 above, are for helping developing countries build wealth for their people;

• The options here mean that “actions to be undertaken by Parties referred to

• The points listed under (d) above also apply to this principle. In addition

• How would developing countries then reconcile the mitigation potential these actions have with the possibility that annex 1 countries may

7






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE their commitments to reduce emissions; in paragraph 2” should “stabilization

of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” only as a consequence and not as the primary aim;

o Not afford to “incentivize” them using the public funding mechanisms and hence may request the private sector to bring the needed “financial incentives” to harness their full mitigation potential?

o Take on “greater reduction targets” that they can not be met by their domestic use of all sectors?

• Under what circumstances then, would developing countries “accept” the use of REDD+ as a way to “help developed country Parties to fulfill their commitments to reduce emissions”?

• And how should such a circumstance or exception be included in the negotiating text?

(f) Promote broad country participation; • This could actually mean two things: o That there should be a

deliberate effort to have as many countries participate in the REDD+ actions and or

• The issues presented by this principle do we really know for sure if its fulfillment will indeed reduce both national and regional “escape” of emissions?

8






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE o That there should be a

deliberate effort to have as many stakeholders within as many countries participate in the REDD+ actions

• In both cases, broad participation is intended to help reduce the risk of “displacement” of emission, sometimes called leakage.

• What safeguards do we need to think of that could help in the reduction of leakage, even when some countries, and or some stakeholders may choose to exercise their right not to be involved with REDD+ actions?

• Should this principle be conditional then in the face that it may put un-due responsibility on a participating developing country to “go around” mobilizing every stakeholder in the country and every country in the region?

• In other words whose responsibility should the promotion of “broad country participation” be?

(g) Be consistent with the adaptation needs of the country;

• The implication of this principle is that it recognizes the linkage between “mitigation actions” and adaptation needs.

• The principle is intended to assure developing countries that mitigation actions will not be “prioritized” at the expense of adaptation

• Moreover there is a risk of un-known

• What should be the drawing line between adaptation activities as expressed in the NAPAs to meet the urgent and immediate needs of the LDCs that are highly applicable to “mitigation actions”. For example many of the agriculture and forestry sector priority activities identified by LDCs in their NAPAs are potential

9






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE consequences as a result of implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives as contributions to “mitigation actions”

candidates for “eligible” mitigation actions under paragraph 2 above.

•

Specific principles (h)

• Be integrated into nationally appropriate mitigation actions;

• Be developed within the context of a low GHG emission strategy;

• The implication for this principle is that actions on REDD+ could be regarded as NAMAs and therefore subject to the yet un resolved issues under Paragraph 1 b (ii) of the BAP;

• The second implication is that developing countries may have to consider taking steps toward “low GHG emission strategy meaning that we may have to count the “emissions” of whatever we intend to do concerning our development including poverty actions and “adaptation activities”?

• The points listed under (d) and (e) above also apply to this principle. In addition,

• How can developing countries with potential to implement REDD+ actions anticipate NAMAs requirements and plan for them?

• How soon will REDD+ actions be integrated in the NAMAs or should they anyway?

(i) • Be subject to

o equitable financing and technology support, including

• This principle was intended to address the fact that REDD+ finance is crucial to the success of this “contribution to mitigation actions”;

• How can the difficulties created by the different understandings of “equity” and “fairness” be harmonized?

10






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE support for capacity-building,

o adequate financing and technology support, including support for capacity-building,

o predictable financing and technology support, including support for capacity-building and

o sustainable financing and technology support, including support for capacity-building

• And that finance should not be below the threshold that will be determined by both the countries who will engage in it as well as countries who will contribute the money;

• That uncertainty about the availability and flow of finances should be removed so that developing countries can expect it in a regular manner

• That it is not money alone that developing countries need but also appropriate technology and capacity building should be available

• How can we expect developed countries to mobilise and disburse adequate financing in an equitable manner?

• How can we make it possible for all the financial stages of REDD+ financing and investment to be seen as substantively and procedurally just;

• How can Copenhagen really help in forging a REDD+ financing mechanism that meets the stated principle here and is attractive enough for all the countries to participate?

(j) Be results-based; • This means that a developing country will have to show results of its “contribution to mitigation efforts” before it receives the incentives;

• Plainly said, it means that a country like Uganda has to use its own money and show results and then can qualify to be “reimbursed”

• The principle intends to assure developed country parties who contribute the cash to know that what

• When (at what stage of REDD+ implementation) can we expect developing countries to deliver “reduced emission reductions” in order to qualify before they are “incentivised”?

• And when is the need for up-front payment and what assurance can we give the developed countries that “there may be a need for up-front payment”?

11






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE they paid for has been “delivered” • How can developing countries also

assure developed countries that the “up-front payments” they make will not get lost before the delivery of the “results”?

(k) Support: • developing countries in reorganizing the

forestry sector, thus • developing countries in implementing

low-carbon economies and • developing countries in taking part in the

global effort to stabilize and reduce GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and

• developed country Parties to meet their ambitious quantified emissions reduction targets

• The principle proposes sweeping options on what “REDD+ actions” are expected to do; namely to either transform developing country’s forestry sectors into “emissions” neutral or to create ways and means for developed countries to meet their obligations.

• How should developing countries choose to re-organize their forestry sectors now so that these sectors are “low-carbon”?

(l) Promote • sustainable forest management • sustainable management of forests

• this is a continuation of the expectations placed on developing countries if they do REDD+ actions

• How should developing countries best promote sustainable management of forests

• What does this principle entail in the face of development needs of these developing countries?

• Do developing countries look a the REDD+ actiona as capable of helping

12






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE them “promote” sustainable forest management and sustainable management of forests”?

Principles - safeguards

4. When undertaking actions referred to in paragraph 2 above Parties shall: (a) Ensure that non-permanence is addressed; (b) Ensure that necessary actions are taken to

• avoid leakage • reduce leakage as much as possible;

(c) Promote • transparent forest governance

structures and • accessible support mechanisms,

taking into account national legislation and sovereignty;

(d) Ensure that the actions • complement or • are consistent with the objectives of

national forest programmes and

• To meet a safeguard of “non-permanence” a developing country like Uganda may have to either make long term commitments; or accept to highly discount its efforts when requesting its support in incentives or may have to take “other insurance responsibility” to ensure that deliverables will continue to flow to meet “contributions to the mitigation efforts”

• Leakage is a condition that no “emissions” should escape. For a developing country, with interdependence of nations and communities, leakage is going to be a nightmare.

• Transparent governance requires that countries make sure that the money is well used to meet the needs of REDD+. And accessible funding was

• How can developing countries best understand the non-permanence safe guard? Will developing countries afford meeting this safe guard? At what cost?

• What merits does fear of leakage really on the success of REDD+? How can we work together to avoid the imposition of “leakage”

• How can we developing countries and developed countries best work together to make sure that “mutual trust” is restored in governance of, and access to finance?

• How best could we afford the “true and effective participation as well as the prior and informed consent” for indigenous people in a manner that is

13






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE • are consistent with the objectives of

relevant international conventions and agreements;

(e) In accordance with relevant international agreements, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and taking into account national circumstances and legislation,

• respect the knowledge of indigenous peoples and members of local communities and

• respect the rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, including

• respect their free, prior and informed consent, and

• promote the full and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders in actions referred

to in paragraphs 2 and 5 above; (f)

• Promote actions that are consistent with the conservation of biological

a way developing countries want assurance that funds are not being hidden under too many preconditions called “safeguards”

• Respect for, participation of, consent from indigenous people and local communities is intended to assure these vulnerable groups that developing countries are not going to “exploit” their own people

• (f) means that developing countries

have to use the same REDD+ funds to do the agreed actions and at the same

truly democratic?

14






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE diversity, and

• do not provide incentives for conversion of natural forests,

• including safeguards on the conversion of natural forests and

• enhance o other social and

environmental benefits, including

- environmental,- ecosystem

services complementary to the aims and objectives of relevant international conventions and agreements.

time do the actions required by other agreements such as CBD. Alternative options require that all the social, environmental and ecosystem services be fully taken care of.

• Can we meet the requirements for (f) with the same incentive system or would developing countries need to take the costs of doing “additional” work to be paid for? And how could this be best reflected in the text?

5. Developing country Parties aiming to undertake actions referred to in paragraph 2 above shall develop: (a) A

• national action plan • national strategy or • sub-national strategies, as part of

their • national low-carbon emission

strategies,

• Options presented in paragraph 5 outline the operational requirements for REDD+

• Could we confirm if these are adequate?

15






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE in accordance with national circumstances; (b)

• National reference emission levels and/or

• national reference levels in accordance with their national circumstances and respective capabilities; (c)

• A robust and • transparent

national • monitoring and • reporting system for

• emissions and • removals

in the forestry sector in accordance with • national circumstances and

capabilities, with • the establishment of sub-national

accounting as an optional interim measure

16






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE When developing • a national action plan • strategy or • subnational strategies, as referred to in sub-paragraph 5(a) above, Parties [shall][should] take into account

• the guidelines and • modalities to be

adopted by the COP on this matter. 6. While implementing

• the national action plan • the national strategy

Parties [should][shall] address, inter alia, • drivers of deforestation, • land tenure issues, • forest governance and • means of ensuring the

o full and o effective participation of

indigenous peoples and local communities.

• This paragraph in paragraph 6 offers additional options on what needs to be done in order to operationalise REDD+ in developing contries

• What additional practical actions would like to see done to make REDD+ implementable?

(7) Actions to be undertaken by Parties referred to in paragraph 2 above [should] [shall] be implemented in phases,

• beginning with the development of

Paragraph 7 details the options available for the phasing of REDD+ actions on the ground within developing countries

Please take a look at the stages and list additional actions that may not be presented and suggest how best they could be addressed?

17






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE o national action plans o national strategies, o national policies and

measures and o capacity-building (phase 1),

• followed by the implementation of o national policies and

measures, and o national action plans o national strategies

- that could involve further capacity-building and

- technology transfer

(phase 2), and finally evolving into results-based

actions that are o measured, o reported and o verified

in accordance with guidance referred to in paragraphs 12 to 15 below (phase 3).

It also lists the activities that will need to be done to make developing countries ready for doing REDD+ and once they are ready on how deliver the results

18






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE The implementation of these phases, including the choice of a starting phase, shall depend on the

specific national circumstances, capacities and capabilities

of each developing country Party.

19

Table 3: Measurement, reporting and verification of actions






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE 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 decision5) and any relevant decisions to be adopted by the COP. Elements for consideration in the SBSTA draft decision: the application 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]

including ways to address domestic leakage if applying sub-national approaches for demonstration activities

and the development of guidance in

This paragraph means that developing countries have to undertake a series of actions that will range from definition of areas where REDD+ activities will take place to and including how REDD+ results will be able to show that emissions were actually reduced

These methodological issues were

summarized by SBSTA in 2008 as follows:

o Estimation and monitoring o Reference emissions levels o Displacement of emissions o National and sub-national

approaches o Capacity-building o Effectiveness of actions o Cross-cutting issues

In Poznan, SBSTA went ahead and provided guidance on outstanding methodological issues as follows:

o The use of the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines For National

In view of the fact that, SBSTA concluded that in addition to work identified in its conclusions of 2008 , guidance from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) in relation to decision 1/CP.13, paragraph 1 (b) (iii), would facilitate further progress on methodological issues relating to decision 2/CP.13, paragraph 11, to what extent should AWG-LCA continue dealing in detailed methodological issues at the expense of pronouncing itself to the policy guidance and positive incentives for REDD+?

In short is MRV a function of the LCA or rather should it be returned to SBSTA? How then should the LCA pronounce itself in this respect?

• The schematic approach to the

modalities to the REDD+ MRV:

20






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE monitoring and reporting with the full effective engagement of indigenous

people and local communities

Greenhouse Inventories and encouraging the use of the Good Practice Guidance For Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry,1 as appropriate, as a basis for estimating anthropogenic forest-related emissions by sources and removals by sinks;

o The need to establish robust and transparent national forest monitoring systems, following consideration of their requirements;

o If appropriate, the need to establish robust and transparent sub-national forest monitoring systems, following consideration of their requirements;

o The encouragement of national forest monitoring systems that allow transparent and independent review of their results; The consideration of national

•

21






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE circumstances and respective capabilities and capacities

13. When implementing actions referred to in paragraph 2 above, [, under the [NAMA registry,] [, on the basis of national [action plans][strategies] referred to in paragraph 5 above,], Parties [shall] [should] measure, report and verify emission reductions [and removals of greenhouse gases] and changes in forest carbon stocks in accordance with methodological guidance developed [or to be further developed] by the SBSTA, including any decisions and/or guidance to be adopted by the COP on this matter, [and be consistent with the overall approaches to measurement, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries Parties described in paragraph xx (in section on MRV of NAMAs)] [and recognizing the need for higher-tier levels of measurement, reporting and verification for activities supported by markets].

• This paragraph offers, as one option, the implementation of REDD+ actions under NAMAs

• Should we regard REDD+ actions as NAMAs?

• What would be the limitations to this approach and how could we overcome them?

14. Parties [shall] [should] measure and report greenhouse gas emission reductions and removals and changes in forest carbon

• This paragraph requires that developing countries establish reference emission levels and then use

• Due the fact that MRVs of the nature prescribed are costly and require capacity as well as

22






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE stocks in relation to the national reference emission levels or reference levels established for actions referred to in paragraph 2 above, in accordance with any reporting guidelines that will be developed by the SBSTA [,and record the information under the NAMA registry].

them to measure and report the emission reductions.

• The paragraph also requires developing countries to use guidelines developed by SBSTA

• Existing guidance in addition to the one being developed by SBSTA itself includes but is not limited to:

• IPCC (www.ipcc.ch):

•Revised 1996 GL for National GHG Inventories. •2003 GPG for Land Use, Land Use-Change, and Forestry . •2006 GL for National GHG Inventories, Vol. 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other land Uses (AFOLU).

• Winrock International

(www.winrock.org): •Reducing GHG Emissions from

technology, how should developing countries better reflect this here or lese where in the REDD+ text?

• At this stage are we expected to know all the details of how to MRV REDD+?

• For example look at the some proposals on measurement and reporting and verification of REDD+ actions:

• Define the boundaries of the proposed REDD project activity.

• Analysis of historical Land-Use and Land-Cover Change.

• Analysis of agents, drivers, underlying causes and chain of events

• Project the quantity of future deforestation and forest degradation

• Project the location of future deforestation and

23






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries: a Sourcebook of Methods and Procedures for Monitoring, Measuring and Reporting. •Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Projects.

• Voluntary Carbon Standard

(www.v-c-s.org): •Guidance for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects

Several on REDD (in preparation)

Other being developed by proprietary entities

forest degradation • Project future land-use and

land-cover change • Estimate the expected

baseline carbon stock changes and non-CO2emissions.

• Estimation of the expected actual carbon stock changes.

• Estimation of expected leakage: carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions

• Project monitoring. • Calculation of ex post net

anthropogenic GHG emission reductions

o Adjustment of the baseline projections for future crediting periods

15. Verification of reported greenhouse gas emission reductions and removals and changes in forest carbon stocks in relation to

• The implication of this paragraph is that verification is “sensitive” and may need to be done under

24






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE the national reference emission levels or reference levels established for actions referred to in paragraph 2 above shall be carried out in accordance with guidelines to be [agreed] [decided] by the COP.

the guidance of the COP, especially the one related the verification of the “policy approaches and positive incentives”

• Otherwise the verification of emissions from the forestry projects is fairly well known and in any case SBSTA could handle it.

16. In the measurement, reporting and verification of actions referred to in paragraph 2 above, Parties, in applying guidelines and methodological guidance referred to in paragraphs 12-15 above, [shall] [should] make use of the existing institutional arrangements to the extent possible.

• The implication of this proposal is that every developing country knows the “existing” institutions outside their borders that will be willing and able to be made use of in the MRV.

• The existing institution that has been assisting developing countries with their national communications is the UNFCCC secretariat.

• Please consider the possibility of having a single mandated MRV institution to be used by all developing countries intending to do REDD+

25

Table 4: Measurement, reporting and verification of support






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE 17. Option 1 [Means for measuring, reporting and verification of support by Parties shall be undertaken in accordance with general provisions regarding the reporting, measuring and verifying of NAMAs.] Option 2 [[Developed country] Parties, when providing support to actions referred to in paragraph 2 above in developing countries, [shall][should] provide information on the extent and type of support, and the nature of the action for which the support is provided [to be entered in the NAMA registry].]

• Option one of the paragraph 17 expects REDD+ to be NAMAs and proposes how to deal with MRVs

• Option 2 proposes that developed country parties “provide information” on the “support”

• How do developing countries feel adequately assured concerning the fulfillment of the principle expressed in paragraph 3 (i) and in other areas in the scope, objectives and principles?

18. [Measurement, reporting and verification of support provided [by developed country Parties to developing country Parties] for actions referred to in paragraph 2 above [should][shall] be carried out [by a technical panel comprised of experts equitably balanced between developed and developing countries][by the expert panel appointed by the COP as referred to in

• The paragraph proposes that a team of developed and developing country experts do the MRVing of support.

• Could developing countries consider whether this is adequate way of knowing how to MRV support?

• How would developing countries want to see the text modified?

26






A COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE paragraph 13 above].]

Documents

REDD at the Copenhagen Talks and Beyond: Bridging the … · REDD AT THE COPENHAGEN TALKS AND BEYOND: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN NEGOTIATIONS AND ACTION ... emissions from deforestation