Climate Action 2014-2015

DEFORESTATION AND REDD+
that perform well in achieving social
and biodiversity goals.
Among the limitations of jurisdictional
REDD+ is that, despite involving
various sectors, it does not resolve the
competing interests between them.
Furthermore, it requires a large and
durable source of funding – which
usually exceeds state fiscal resources
– and importantly, it is vulnerable
to electoral politics, as a change in
governorship can stall REDD+ progress.
One example is Acre’s State System of
Incentives for Environmental Services
(SISA) in Brazil, widely seen as a global
model of jurisdictional REDD+ and a
leader in bottom-up innovation for lowemissions
rural development. Unique for
having piloted VCS in a jurisdictional
REDD+ framework, SISA has strongly
influenced other Amazonian states. An
on-going challenge for SISA is its search
for funding alternatives to its heavy
reliance on international donations, as it
is not yet able to rely on the marketing
of forest carbon offsets.
Another example is the Governors’
Climate and Forest Task Force (GCF),
a global network of 26 member states
across 7 countries (www.gcftaskforce.
org). The GCF is a pioneer of
jurisdictional REDD+ and provides
a forum for communication and
coordination among its members. The
Rio Branco Declaration of August
2014 commits GCF member states and
provinces to an 80 per cent reduction
in deforestation by 2020, with support
from the international community in
the form of performance-based funding.
The Declaration also commits the
governors to allocate a substantial share
of the stream of economic benefits to
forest-dependent communities and
indigenous peoples.
PRIVATE CORPORATE
SECTOR COMMITMENTS
Private sector corporations are making
moves to remove deforestation from
commodity value chains. Globalised
trade and investment in agricultural
commodities such as palm oil, beef,
soya, pulp and paper, and rubber have
"Financing has always
been one of the most
controversial issues in
UNFCCC negotiations."
grown significantly over the past two
decades, resulting in continued high rates
of deforestation in many developing
countries. At the same time, consumer
countries have become increasingly
aware of the impacts of imported food,
non-food commodities and manufactured
goods on tropical deforestation.
One commodity in particular – palm
oil – has been subject to heavy criticism
by advocacy NGOs over the past
decade because of links to deforestation.
Persistent pressure and social media
coverage by organisations such as
Greenpeace, WWF and the Forest Peoples
Programme have been instrumental in
shaping growing consumer demand
for sustainably produced commodities.
After initial pledges by a small number
of companies (notably Nestlé, Golden
Agri-Resources, Wilmar, Hersheys and
Unilever) during 2011–2013, 2014
has witnessed a surge in corporate
commitments to zero deforestation in
palm oil supply chains, and increasingly
with regard to other commodities. For
example, Cargill has extended its initial
commitment to a ‘No Deforestation,
No Peat and No Exploitation’ policy
in palm oil production and sourcing
to all commodities with effect from 24
September 2014. This groundswell of
corporate engagement is manifest in the
number of signatories (40) to the recent
New York Declaration on Forests Action
Statements and Action Plans.
Global and regional scrutiny of
corporate practice in agri-business
contributed to the establishment of the
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in
2004 (other multi-stakeholder platforms
have followed with regard to soy and
biofuels, among others), the Norwegian
Sovereign Wealth Fund decision to
divest from 23 palm oil companies
in 2013, a suspension in 2012 of
lending to the palm oil sector by the
International Finance Corporation, and
changes in lending practices by both
banks and investors.
FINANCING SUSTAINABLE
LANDSCAPES
Financing – particularly transfers of
funds and technology from developed
to developing countries – has always
been one of the most controversial
issues in UNFCCC negotiations. The
unofficial consensus is that developed
countries must mobilise US$100 billion
in climate finance each year by 2020.
The anticipated recipient of these funds
is the Green Climate Fund, which seeks
to secure between US$10 billion and 15
billion by the end of 2014.
By comparison, domestic and
international subsidies for fossil fuels
totalled more than US$500 billion
globally in 2011, and remain a key
obstacle to investing in low-carbon and
climate-resilient economies.
To date, climate change mitigation
efforts (including REDD+) have
received the bulk of the funding – an
estimated US$350 billion (both public
and private sector finance) compared
with just US$14 billion for adaptation.
As a result of this imbalance, adaptation
has become more prominent in
UNFCCC negotiations over the new
climate agreement.
Furthermore, a recent global analysis of
115 REDD+ demonstration projects
reveals a concentration of finance
in large emerging and resource-rich
countries. For example, 19 of the 30
projects in Asia – covering a total area
of almost 10.5 million hectares – are
in Indonesia, one of eight countries
targeted in the region.
130