Summary report, 13 December 2009
Copenhagen Forest Day 3 at COP 15
The third Forest Day event convened in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 13 December 2009, in parallel with the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which convened from 7-18 December 2009. The event was co-hosted by the Centre for International Forest Research (CIFOR), the Government of Denmark and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), a partnership of 14 forest-related international organizations formed in 2000 to enhance cooperation on forest issues. The 1600 registered Forest Day 3 participants included government negotiators, researchers, and representatives from non-governmental and indigenous peoples organizations and the private sector.
The one-day event featured keynote statements by: Elinor Ostrom, Indiana University; Rajendra Pachauri, Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Gro Harlem Brundtland, United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change; Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics; Ministers from Denmark, the UK and Viet Nam; and the Governor of the State of Amazonas, Brazil. Participants also convened in three sub-plenary sessions to discuss mitigation, adaptation and degradation, respectively, as well as eight learning events. A summary statement from the event was developed based on participants’ responses to a series of questions posed to the sub-plenary sessions, and was presented to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), during the closing plenary. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions during Forest Day 3.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
In its Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated that about 20% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions during the 1990s resulted from land use change, primarily deforestation, although 25% of total emissions are also estimated to have been absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. Depending on the age of the forest, the management regime, and other biotic and abiotic disturbances (insects, pests, forest fires), forests can act as reservoirs, sinks (removing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere) or as sources of GHGs. Forests also provide a number of vital services, notably as repositories of biodiversity and regulators of the hydrological cycle. Reducing deforestation and land degradation and improving forest cover are vital for both mitigation and adaptation. However, including emissions reduced from forest-related activities in a carbon accounting system is complex undertaking, given the non-permanent nature of carbon uptake by trees and the potential for “leakage” as deforestation moves elsewhere. There are also critical environmental and social considerations that have to be taken into account.
Forests are addressed under the UNFCCC as both sinks and sources of emissions, and all countries are expected to count their emissions and removals from land use change and forestry in their national inventories. Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries with emission reduction commitments (known as Annex I countries) may count towards their reduction target the emissions and removals of GHGs deriving from certain direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, including removals from afforestation (defined as planting of new forests on lands that have not been forested for a period of at least 50 years); reforestation (limited in the first commitment period to those lands that did not contain forest on 31 December 1989); emissions from deforestation; as well as possible emissions and removals from forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, and re-vegetation.
In addition, project-based activities under two flexible mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol – Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – may also result in removals by sinks that can count towards an industrialized country’s reduction commitments. Joint Implementation refers to projects undertaken jointly by two Annex I countries; all projects undertaken in developing countries fall under the CDM. Afforestation and reforestation projects are allowed in the Protocol’s first commitment period under the CDM, and project activities have to address a number of issues such as non-permanence, uncertainty, the risk of leakage and others. Moreover, there is a ceiling on the maximum number of credits that an Annex I party can gain in this way.
At COP 11 in Montreal, Canada, in 2005, forests were taken up under the UNFCCC itself under a new agenda item on “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action,” as proposed by Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and eight other countries. Workshops were held on this issue, in August 2006 in Rome, Italy, and in March 2007 in Cairns, Australia. Discussions continued at COP 13, where parties adopted the Bali Action Plan, which addresses enhanced national and international action on climate change mitigation, including, inter alia, “consideration of 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.”
As negotiations have progressed on a financial mechanism to compensate developing countries for recovery and maintenance of forest carbon stocks, three labels have emerged for what such a financing mechanism should cover: reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD); conservation, sustainable management of forests, and stock enhancement in addition to REDD (REDD+); and all terrestrial carbon in addition to REDD+ (REDD++).
Since COP 13, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) has undertaken a programme of work on methodological issues related to a range of policy approaches and positive incentives generally aimed at REDD. A UNFCCC workshop on methodological issues relating to REDD was held in Tokyo, Japan, in June 2008, generating general agreement that discussions on policy approaches and positive incentives could be initiated with current knowledge.
FOREST DAY 1: The first Forest Day was convened on 8 December 2007 in Bali, Indonesia, during UNFCCC COP 13, to reinforce the momentum and inform the discussions related to forests under negotiation at COP 13. It brought together over 800 participants and considered crosscutting themes including: methodological challenges in estimating forest carbon; markets and governance; equity versus efficiency; and adaptation. Participants took part in 25 side events exploring linkages between forests and climate change.
FOREST DAY 2: Forest Day 2 brought together nearly 900 participants in Poznan, Poland, on 6 December 2008, during COP 14, to discuss: adaptation of forests to climate change; addressing forest degradation through sustainable forest management (SFM); capacity building for REDD; and options for integrating REDD into the global climate regime. Participants also attended a poster exhibition and around 40 side events on themes related to REDD. A drafting committee representing CPF members produced a summary of key messages and forwarded it to the UNFCCC Secretariat.
REPORT OF FOREST DAY 3
Frances Seymour, Director General, CIFOR, welcomed Forest Day 3 participants on behalf of CIFOR, the Government of Denmark, and the other members of the CPF. Noting the evolution of past Forest Day themes, from “whether” to “how” to include forests in climate change considerations, she said Forest Day 3 would focus on implementation and indicated that the co-hosts of the event would listen to participants’ insights and incorporate them into their research, development and policy agendas.
Troels Lund Poulsen, Minister for the Environment, Denmark, welcomed participants, noting that global attention on the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference provides great opportunities to introduce new mechanisms that will provide finance for forests, thus making today possibly the most important day in history for the world’s forests.
In a video message, former US President Bill Clinton, Clinton Foundation, praised Forest Day for showcasing research on forests and climate change, noting that policy-makers need to have access to facts, options and support from different constituencies in addressing REDD. He cautioned that new policies should not put the lives of forest-dependent people at risk, but rather support them in adaptation. He underscored the need to act quickly to conserve forests to achieve global and local benefits.
Elinor Ostrom, Indiana University, shared research findings pointing to a strong link between increased forest carbon storage and situations in which local communities have rule-making independence, harvesting rights and a role in monitoring. She called for a carefully designed and adaptive REDD policy that can be adjusted to diverse local social and ecological conditions, and that assigns clear rights.
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, IPCC Chair: said REDD is the most cost effective mitigation method; highlighted the disruptions that could occur if the goods and services that forests provide were to be lost; challenged the forestry profession to reclaim the space that it has yielded to other disciplines over the years; and noted that carbon dioxide emissions would need to be removed from the atmosphere to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, with forests being the most viable option for achieving this.
Gro Harlem Brundtland, UN Special Envoy on Climate Change, recalled that the World Commission on Environment and Development’s report, entitled “Our Common Future,” was one of the first international documents to address deforestation as an important cause of global warming. She emphasized forests’ multiple contributions and the need for wise design and implementation of REDD+.
Jan Heino, Chair, CPF, recalled that the CPF Strategic Framework for Forest and Climate Change underscores SFM as an effective framework for forest-based adaptation and mitigation. He also recalled that the World Forestry Congress’ message to COP 15 identified as prerequisites for SFM: improving governance, increasing financing, empowering marginalized groups and providing better access to technology. He noted that climate change has created new opportunities for the forest sector, but solutions need to build on the knowledge and experience of stakeholders that manage and depend on forests.
Three sub-plenary sessions considered mitigation, adaptation and degradation during the morning. At the conclusion of each session, participants were asked to vote on a series of multiple-choice questions to inform the final statement from Forest Day 3.
MITIGATION: Natasha Loder, The Economist, moderated this sub-plenary. Arild Angelsen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, identified challenges for REDD, including mobilizing sufficient funding and creating an effective, efficient and equitable mechanism. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chair, UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, reported that ongoing negotiations on REDD have reached agreement on safeguards to ensure respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. Agus Purnomo, National Council on Climate Change, Indonesia, emphasized the role of governments in realizing REDD, as costs associated with REDD are significant for small farmers and local and regional governments. Sara Kendall, Weyerhaeuser Company, stressed the climate-related benefits of expanding the global forest area and the use of harvested wood products.
In ensuing discussions, participants addressed: appropriate regulation in the face of multiple drivers of deforestation; corruption; gender in REDD; the disconnect between global and local-level efforts to address deforestation; the status of negotiations on REDD; possible returns for private investors; benefit-sharing versus elite capture of REDD revenue; the difficulty in shaping local or national agreements given a high diversity of actors; and the question of whether REDD can support forest management decentralization.
Participants then voted on a series of multiple-choice questions. On how much attention should be given to the role of forests in climate adaptation compared the role of forests in mitigation, 29% of participants responded “significantly more to the role of forest in mitigation” and 28% “about the same.” When asked how forests should be included in the climate agreement, 56% responded: “REDD+ (including conservation, SFM and stock enhancement).” On identifying the greatest risk to successful implementation of REDD, 36% pointed to “lack of equity (rights of indigenous and local communities, inadequate benefit-sharing),” and 53% preferred “a combination of national and project levels for the foreseeable future,” when asked at what level REDD should be implemented.
ADAPTATION: Heidi Cullen, The Weather Channel, moderated this sub-plenary. Phil Cottle, Managing Director, ForestRe, highlighted the need to: understand and price risk successfully; insist on policies that make forest projects a lower risk; and involve insurers. Bastiaan Louman, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center, Costa Rica, said REDD should be considered part of adaptation and highlighted the need to shift from project to long-term programme funding. Martin Parry, Imperial College London, said “it is likely we will overshoot” a two degree Celsius increase by one to two degrees, and it may take 100 years to return to a one and one-half degree increase. He also: emphasized that alleviating poverty is the single best focus for adaptation; said the Group of 77 and China is right about the costs of adaptation; and encouraged the adaptation community to call for a “Marshall Plan, not a mouse” plan. Katherine Sierra, World Bank, emphasized the role of partnerships, particularly to involve local communities in adaptation strategies.
During the discussion, participants noted the need to: plant trees with shorter rotations and a greater diversity of tree species; focus research on the adaptive capacity of trees and landscape management; model local impacts of climate change and provide more concrete estimations for local decision-makers; have the UN Environment Programme lead a research programme on these issues; address agricultural productivity, food security and rural livelihoods to reduce pressure on the environment; and consider no-regret options, connectivity of forest corridors, and changing methodologies that could lead to a change in the direction of investments.
Participants then voted on a series of multiple-choice questions. Fifty percent said the role of forests in climate adaptation should be given about the same attention as the role of forests in mitigation. Sixty-eight percent said there is “lots” of potential for synergy between the role of forests in climate adaptation and mitigation, and 67% cited “lots” of potential for ecosystem-based adaptation. The main barriers to adapting forests and people to climate change were found to be lack of appreciation among the public and policy-makers regarding the importance of forest adaptation (47%) and lack of funding (29%).
DEGRADATION: Eduardo Mansur, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), moderated this sub-plenary discussion. Markku Simula, University of Helsinki, said degradation is defined but difficult to operationalize and called for SFM to enhance carbon storage capacity and ecosystem services. He said degradation and deforestation have different drivers, and methods for estimating emissions from degradation are underdeveloped. Sandra Brown, Winrock International, distinguished measurements of loss versus gain in carbon stock from measurements of affected land area and distinguished between the impacts of reduced-impact and community-scale logging from those of industrial-scale cutting. She said it takes commitment and resources to make new monitoring technologies available.
Estebancio Castro-Diaz, International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests, called for: a better definition of degradation; recognition of rights to ecosystem services; more mapping; inclusion of REDD in broad-based development strategies; improved accountability structures; and monitoring of all REDD impacts.
Peter Gardiner, Mondi, said everyone, including the private sector, should benefit from REDD. He said certified plantations on degraded lands can improve restoration, capture carbon and provide livelihoods, noting that 45% of tropical wood products come from plantations. Wangari Maathai, Goodwill Ambassador of the Congo Basin Forest, called for restoration of natural forests and forester retraining. She noted that local people are paid to plant native tree seedlings in Kenya and REDD should expand to cover hydropower for fuel in the Congo Basin. She said indigenous livelihoods cannot be sustained with monoculture exotic tree plantations.
Jorge Rodriguez, Minister of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunication, Costa Rica, advised taking economic, social and environmental benefits and risks as a guide for restoring forests. He reported on: Costa Rica’s forest reforms, which took place 25 years ago and included ecotourism, a system of protected areas, and prohibition of land-use changes.
During the discussion, panelists commented that: production forests are more sustainable than protected areas; monitoring must be connected to performance goals; monitoring costs can be borne by committed governments; open source technology is a powerful tool; restoration costs much less than reforestation; governments should invoke REDD to emulate Costa Rica; and low-carbon choices must be integrated into all aspects of society.
Participants then voted on a series of multiple-choice questions, with 86% favoring including forests in the climate agreement either through REDD+ or REDD++ and 40% favoring compensation for SFM for timber production when timber revenue is insufficient to cover costs. On the barriers to including avoided degradation and forest stock enhancement’s importance to mitigation in a REDD scheme, 28% said policy-maker appreciation of the problem is most significant, while 29% underscored the difficulty in achieving safeguards for indigenous peoples and local communities. Maathai closed by noting overwhelming support for action around REDD, REDD+ and REDD++.
GLOBAL VIEWS OF FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Troels Lund Poulsen, Minister for the Environment, Denmark, welcomed the opportunity to share views with participants from all over the world, suggesting that countries share a common vision but very different preconditions for action.
Nicholas Stern, London School of Economics, said stopping deforestation is one of the lowest cost ways of reducing climate change risks and has important development benefits. Regarding implementation, he emphasized that: policies will have to be designed by individual countries regarding their forests, but that costs should be shared globally; stopping deforestation must be coupled with economic development and poverty reduction; and market structures must build on these fundamentals. He said US$15 billion per year will be needed by 2020 for measures such as adaptation and halting deforestation, using mainly public money in the beginning and increasing private investment in the long term.
Hilary Benn, UK Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, advocated including REDD+ in the Copenhagen agreement, as well as recognizing the importance of protecting biodiversity and fast-start financing. He also stressed the importance of developed countries’ initiatives to stop purchasing unsustainably harvested or illegally traded timber. Pham Khoi Nguyen, Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment, Viet Nam, argued for a combination of land management, poverty reduction and integrated implementation of the Rio Conventions.
Eduardo Braga, Governor of Amazonas State, Brazil, reported on his state’s programme to reward forest communities for protecting forests, stressing that poverty and poor standards of living need to be addressed to fight climate change. He also noted that forest-dependent people are often the victims of climate change impacts.
Representatives from the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, Colombia, and a group of rainforest nations organized as “Forestry 11,” reported on knowledge and capacity building processes related to REDD, welcomed the prominent role given to rainforests through the REDD process, and urged disseminating more information on full costs and benefits of REDD in all languages and to all stakeholders.
Tony La Viña, chair of the REDD contact group, reported that a relatively good text was compiled, containing enough details and a generally clear structure. Emphasizing that parties agree that REDD+ will not work if it has negative repercussions on indigenous communities and biodiversitiy, he expressed optimism that there would be an agreement benefiting climate protection and local communities alike.
PARALLEL LEARNING EVENTS
SCOPE OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE AGREEMENT: EMERGING LESSONS FROM CURRENT REDD ACTIVITIES: This event was organized by the World Bank, Environmental Defense Fund and UN-REDD Programme. One panelist noted that readiness varies from one country to another, and that countries are slow in identifying funding needs for readiness. Another panelist highlighted as emerging issues for 2010: benefit distribution; monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) for governance; and environmental and social principles to be designed specifically for REDD+.
A panelist reported on a participatory, transparent, scientifically robust and regionally integrated process for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Another panelist discussed benefit-sharing in the Amazon, stressing the importance of recognizing rights over lands and resources owned or traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples and local communities, and of setting voluntary state targets. The last panelist described the demand for REDD credits in the US.
In ensuing discussions, participants addressed: ongoing negotiations on preventing the conversion of natural forests; the impacts of the time lapse between investing in REDD and obtaining financing upon verification of emission reductions; coordination among different forest-related initiatives; the need for simple mechanisms for benefit-sharing; and the difference between consultation and participation.
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL SOCIAL EFFECTS OF REDD INITIATIVES, AND HOW CAN SUCH INITIATIVES RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS AND ROLES OF INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES?: This session was co-hosted by the UN Development Programme, Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance and The Energy and Resources Institute. Speakers discussed potential impacts of REDD+ on indigenous peoples and local communities, highlighting the need to, inter alia: recognize the role of rights in relation to REDD initiatives; monitor the status of rights and social impacts in addition to carbon when implementing projects; ensure prior informed consent is secured; and adopt and use standards to mitigate risks. Participants also heard case studies from Bolivia, Indonesia, Cambodia and India, in which speakers highlighted: the possibility that intermediaries may prejudice the process of socialization; the need to present “no-regrets” strategies to communities; the need to tailor existing mechanisms to the local situation; the possibility of bundling carbon rights; the need for flexible financing options, including grants and private financing; and the need for project developers to include transition plans and exit strategies in project proposals.
FINANCING FOR FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: INTEGRATING THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS: This event was co-hosted by United Nations Forum on Forests, Global Environment Facility (GEF), ITTO, Ministry of the Environment, Norway, and International Institute for Environment and Development.
Panelists: explained that costs and benefits of REDD depend on design and implementation, suggesting that transaction costs will be higher if pro-poor effects are emphasized; said much more finance must be provided for REDD, with possible sources being national mechanisms such as carbon taxes or permit auctions, international levies on air and maritime travel, and the carbon market; reported on the effects of REDD+ on biodiversity conservation, proposing supplemental finance mechanisms or bundling payments for carbon and other environmental services; presented on the work of the ITTO, welcoming REDD as additional finance for sustainable management of tropical forests; and reported on a proposal of the Informal Working Group for Interim Financing for REDD, that has as its keystone a phased approach for flexibility and immediate action, and that suggests annual financial contributions by developed countries in the range of US$15 to 25 billion between 2010 and 2015. Participants then discussed the links between food security and forest protection policies; the potential role of private investments into REDD, emphasizing developing countries’ insistence on using public money; and the possibility of including peatlands in the REDD mechanism.
MEASURING AND MONITORING, BASELINES AND LEAKAGE: This event was hosted by the the Food and Agriculture Organization, ITTO, Norwegian Ministry of the Environment, Office National des Forêts, France, and UN-REDD Programme. Participants considered questions on MRV of past and future forest-related carbon emissions.
Speakers reported on: inclusion of MRV in a comprehensive national regulatory and policy framework; a comprehensive MRV system incorporating participatory processes in Vietnam; a REDD methodology and participatory biomass inventories on mosaic deforestation using remote sensing technology in Cambodia; using technology for low-cost community-based forest biomass monitoring in Peru; comparison of methods for deriving reference levels for REDD at the national policy level; and the conceptual and methodological challenges in developing a national reference scenario for Ecuador.
In response to questions, panelists noted, inter alia: little use of mosaic methodology, but possible wider applicability; the cost of capacity-building compared to the cost of technology; the possibility of tracking emissions from all forest ecosystem carbon pools; the need to avoid leakage by establishing a REDD framework that is attractive to all parties; the lack of historical data for creating degradation baselines; and the differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches to national reference levels.
BOREAL AND TEMPERATE FORESTS: WHAT WILL HAPPEN? WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN?: This event was co-hosted by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations and the European Forest Institute. Panelists presented a study by the Global Forest Expert Panel, pointing to the risk that forests might turn from carbon sinks to carbon sources through climate change-induced tree loss. They also presented a study on the European Action Plan to tackle illegal logging and associated trade, that works together with partner countries like Ghana, Liberia, or the Congo, to enforce sustainable timber trade from the forest to the point of export.
One panelist discussed adaptation strategies for temporal forests, saying that: researchers need to understand the role of genetic diversity in adaptation; forest managers must protect, support and encourage genetic processes; and policy makers must apply a dynamic view of species and genetic origins. Another reported on the response strategy of a local community in Yukon, Canada, to changes in food and water quality, hunting grounds and ecosystems, focusing on best practice guidelines and a database combining traditional and scientific knowledge. Participants discussed the role of conservation and SFM for adaptation; the preservation and enhancement of genetic diversity through tree planting; strategies for reacting to increased invasion of pests and diseases; and best practices for mitigation.
GOVERNANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY FOR ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION: Participants in this session, which was organized by CIFOR, Transparency International and SNV Netherlands Development Organization, discussed institutional challenges of implementing REDD and presented recommendations for a negotiated decision on REDD. Speakers: emphasized involving indigenous peoples; insisted that policies must be transparent; said corruption should be stopped; suggested facilitating a process to develop a clear definition of forests; expressed concern that “carbon crime” would result if a REDD agreement does not include enforcement safeguards and monitoring provisions; suggested that enforcement officers should be involved in the negotiations; highlighted the need to provide civil society with technical capacity and knowledge to participate in REDD; emphasized South-South cooperation funded by Annex I countries; and supported the call for monitoring and verification, stating “people do not do what you expect, they do what you inspect.” The necessity of good leaders to inspire successful programmes was also highlighted.
LANDSCAPE APPROACHES TO MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION: This learning event was co-hosted by the World Agroforestry Centre, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Bank. Panelists discussed: tools and dynamics of ecosystem-based approaches to maintain the resilience of intact natural ecosystems at landscape and seascape scale; a case study on wetlands for climate mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity protection; an ecosystem services-based approach for globally, nationally and locally appropriate mitigation actions (GAMAs, NAMAs, and LAMAs) in Kenya; and ecosystem management in landscape approaches for mitigation and adaptation in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya.
Ensuing comments highlighted: a successful wetlands carbon sequestration programme which re-greened Niger through engagement with farmers; the need to move from sectoral thinking to adaptable landscape solutions; the question of managing both uplands and lowlands as one system for their biodiversity values, which underpin forests’ carbon storage capacity; and the desirability of coupling community MRV with top-down approaches.
Participants also commented that: achieving global objectives must start from focusing on local-level costs and benefits; policy frameworks must allow community involvement at the local level; management approaches involving ecosystems are more cost-effective than addressing the consequences of climate change; the reduction of carbon emissions is a co-benefit from projects targeting water and other local-level ecosystem services; governments must adapt their current sectoral thinking to the landscape approach; and, in 2010, Forest Day and Agriculture Day should be combined into two “rural landscape days.”
BIODIVERSITY: This event was organized by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN-REDD Programme, the GEF Secretariat and Conservation International. One panelist stressed that REDD biodiversity co-benefits depend on recognizing the contribution of diverse forests, particularly primary forests, respecting indigenous and local communities’ rights and enhancing forest governance. Another addressed links between REDD+ and various forests activities. A panelist reported on successful combinations of biodiversity conservation and community-based mitigation, noting the need for national-level intervention to resolve conflicts over forest use and land tenure rights. Another panelist explained that indigenous peoples’ resilience depends on their access to traditional land and resources, and called for the recognition of indigenous peoples’ collective rights, including ownership of traditional knowledge and prior informed consent, as safeguards for REDD.
The last panelist stressed that protected areas (PAs) are an important, tested policy tool for addressing climate change and can be designed to be equitable. He called for adaptive PA management, expansion of PA networks, and assured sustainable financing. Discussion focused on the importance of micro-hydropower projects in the context of REDD and on channeling benefits to the local level.
Frances Seymour noted that discussions during Forest Day 3 had focused equally on implementation issues and on the ongoing negotiations. She read a summary statement produced by a drafting committee representing members of the CPF, which focused on the results of the votes in the sub-plenary sessions and reviewed key points raised during the statements and events at Forest Day 3.
Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, called for capitalizing on the present historical moment, with 43,000 participants registered at COP 15 and 120 Heads of State and government scheduled to attend the high-level segment. He noted that with the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, attention to climate change had shifted away from a broader agenda on sustainable development, biodiversity and food security, and added that the Bali Roadmap provides an opportunity to address other issues than industrialized country emission reduction targets. He suggested that, while politicians will focus on targets, finance and MRV, other relevant constituencies should ensure that attention is not diverted from the four building blocks (mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance), capacity building and REDD+, even “when the spotlight shifts elsewhere.” He thus called on Forest Day 3 participants to contribute to ensuring the social and environmental integrity of the architecture of the Copenhagen outcome.
Minister Poulsen thanked participants for the engaging exchange of ideas and closed the meeting at 7:26 pm.
UNFCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: These meetings will convene from 31 May-11 June 2010, in Bonn, Germany. For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2010
18TH COMMONWEALTH FORESTRY CONFERENCE: The conference will be held from 28 June-2 July 2010, in Edinburgh, Scotland. The theme of this conference is “Restoring the Commonwealth’s Forests: Tackling Climate Change.” For more information contact: tel: +44-131-339-9235; fax: +44-131-339-9798; e-mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.cfc2010.org/
WORKSHOP ON FOREST GOVERNANCE, DECENTRALISATION AND REDD IN LATIN AMERICA: This meeting will convene from 30 August-3 September 2010, in Mexico City, Mexico. For more information contact: tel: +62-251-8622-622; fax: +62-251-8622-100; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Events/CIFOR/decentralisation-redd.htm
TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE FAO COMMITTEE ON FORESTRY (COFO): The meeting is expected to convene at FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy, in October 2010. For more information contact: FAO Forestry Department; tel: +39-06-5705-3925; fax: +39-06-5705-31 52; e-mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.fao.org/forestry/57758/en/
SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNFCCC COP AND SIXTH MEETING OF THE COP SERVING AS THE MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL: This meeting is expected to convene at the end of 2010, in Mexico City, Mexico. For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://unfccc.int/meetings/unfccc_calendar/items/2655.php?year=2010
ITTC-46: The 46th meeting of the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC-46) and associated sessions of the four committees are scheduled to convene in Yokohama, Japan, from 13-18 December 2010. For more information contact: ITTO; tel: +81-45-223-1110; fax: +81-45-223-1111; e-mail: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.itto.int
The Forest Day Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <[email protected]>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <[email protected]>. This issue was written and edited by Deborah Davenport, Ph.D., Elisa Morgera, Ph.D., Lynn Wagner, Ph.D., and Simon Wolf. The Digital Editors are Kate Harris and Diego Noguera. The Editor is Robynne Boyd <[email protected]>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <[email protected]>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF formats) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://enb.iisd.org/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <[email protected]>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11A, New York, New York 10022, United States of America.