UNFCCC Publishes Parties’ Submissions on REDD+
April 2014: The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has posted submissions from Parties on “methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries." The views presented from Parties are on: methodological guidance for non-market-based approaches related to the implementation of the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70; and the issues referred to in decision 1/CP.18, paragraph 40.
A total of eight submissions were posted on non-market-based approaches and non-carbon benefits associated with REDD+. The submissions represent the views of 17 countries including the countries of the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
On non-carbon benefits, submissions emphasize that such benefits will vary by country and, as such, should be nationally defined. Submissions also draw a link between benefits and safeguards. However, there is disagreement among submissions as to whether non-carbon benefits should be incentivized.
Furthermore, submissions note that while non-carbon benefits are important, they should not be linked to results for the purpose of results-based payments. Others emphasize that non-carbon benefits shouldn't outweigh carbon benefits.
Other issues mentioned in the submissions include capacity building, assessment of non-carbon benefits, the rights of indigenous peoples, and synergies with and mandates among related conventions and agreements.
On non-market based approaches, submissions discuss the joint mitigation and adaptation approach (JMA), which combines performance and needs-based finance. Some submissions emphasize the potential of JMA to address the multiple opportunities and priorities of climate change mitigation, while others question how JMA could be applied given its complexity.
Submissions also note the importance of neither commoditizing the multiple benefits of forests nor reopening already agreed upon REDD+ processes. There is, however, disagreement between submissions regarding the need for further work on modalities and performance indicators for non-market based approaches. [Bolivia on Paragraph 70] [Brazil on Paragraph 70] [ASEAN on Paragraph 70] [Malaysia on Paragraph 70] [United States on Paragraph 70] [Brazil on Paragraph 40] [ASEAN on Paragraph 40] [EU on Paragraph 40] [Malaysia on Paragraph 40] [Philippines on Paragraph 40] [Tunisia on Paragraph 40] [US on Paragraph 40] [UNFCCC Submissions from Parties to the SBSTA]