Everything About REDD+ Initiative | UPSC
Shifting forest finance toward a rights-based REDD+
WHY IN NEWS:
The case for finance to flow to carbon sinks and forest communities, on the contrary, is stronger
SYLLABUS COVERED: GS 3: Carbon emission : REDD+ : Paris Climate Agreement
This article emphasises on lacunae of REDD+ and building a right based approach . Let us dive in !
- Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) has emerged as a prominent carbon-sequestration mechanism since its adoption in 2007 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) 13 in Bali.
- It offers a potentially fast and cheap means to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrialised era.
RESULTS-BASED PAYMENT MECHANISM
TARGETING FIVE ACTIVITIES
- Reducing emissions from deforestation
- Reducing emissions from forest degradation
- Conservation of carbon stocks
- Sustainable management of forests
- Enhancement of carbon stocks
- This year, Uganda became eligible for REDD+ payments, the first African country to do so.
AGREEMENT SAFEGUARDING REDD+ INITIATIVES
- This includes the requirement for respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples.
- Members of local communities and the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders.
- This requires a recipient country to develop a system for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected.
- This can be based on contractual requirements of multilateral funds for project-based REDD+ activities.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND
- It has also adopted an ‘Indigenous Peoples Policy’ which is applicable to GCF-financed activities in REDD+ actions.
RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH REDD+
- Violation of rights of potentially affected communities and increased socio-economic and environmental vulnerabilities
- Adoption of a top-down approach that can disrupt traditional forest management.
- Shortcomings in enforcement and implementation can prevent benefits from reaching indigenous peoples
- Major roadblocks for homogenous application of safeguards are social, economic and political factors in each country
- Case studies focused on participation in REDD+ project activities are testament to the limited stakeholder consultation in affected communities.
- In the absence of tangible co-benefits , Countries should at the very least adopt a ‘do no harm’ approach.
- Actively engaging indigenous peoples in the decision-making process.
- Focusing on capacity building efforts at the grassroots level.
- This involves restructuring of the forest management system by adopting a decentralised approach in developing countries
- Which entails a greater share of rights, responsibilities and decision-making power with the local communities.
In the Indian context, for instance, decentralisation of forest rights and community-based forest governance was identified as critical to the success of REDD+ initiatives .
CAPACITY BUILDING FOR MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION
The process for meaningful engagement, improving outreach and providing opportunities for inclusive decision-making to be truly beneficial to local communities and indigenous people.
- Methods for measuring forest carbon and establishing the creation of truly ‘additional’ carbon sinks are not standardized yet.
- Community-centered recommendations may also offer a strong guide through the additionality problem.