Reporting REDD+

8/11/2019 Reporting REDD+

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/reporting-redd 1/14

Reporting REDD+

Media pack



Cover: Rural residents often walk longdistances for water and health care.eff walker | cifor

nside cover: Primary growth rainforest,Gunung Leuser National Park,North Sumatra.rod harbinson | diversity photos

This media pack is a joint initiative of theClimate Change Media Partnership (CCMP),the Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR), and the United Nations CollaborativeProgramme on Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and Forest Degradationin Developing Countries (the UN-REDDProgramme).

This media pack is a 2010 update of ‘ReportingREDD’,that was prepared by Panos Londonin 2009 for CCMP, a partnership betweenInternews, Panos and the International Institutefor Environment and Development (IIED) toimprove media coverage of climate changeissues in developing countries.www.climatemediapartnership.org

The CCMP is editorially independent and theviews expressed in this media briefing are notnecessarily those of its donors.

The CCMP would like to thank Write ThisDown Productions in the UK and AmazingProductions in Indonesia for their part inproducing the ‘Local impacts of REDD’ DVD.

UN-REDD would like to thank Television for theEnvironment (tve) for their part in producing theREDD Revolution video news release.

Copyright

The text in the media briefing and theWhat’s a forest worth? video are licensedunder the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: Englandand Wales Licence. They may be freely quoted,reproduced or translated, in part or in full,providing the source is acknowledged and anyresulting products are made freely available.

©CCMP, November 2009Some rights reserved.

All photography:©PHOTOGRAPHER | PICTURE AGENCY All rights reserved.

The REDD Revolution video news release isfree to use.

Forest figures

Deforestation, mainly through the conversionof forests to agricultural land, continues atan alarming rate of approximately 13 millionhectares per year, based on data from 1990to 2005. Deforestation results in the release ofthe carbon originally stored in trees as carbondioxide emissions. This occurs rapidly if the

trees are burned and slowly if the wood andleaves decay naturally.

Approximately 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon are released annually due to land use change,mainly from tropical deforestation. Thisrepresents about 17 per cent of annual globalemissions, greater than the amount emitted by

the global transportation sector.

The world’s total forest area is about 4 billionhectares, nearly 30 per cent of the Earth’s landarea. Approximately 56 per cent of forests arelocated in tropical and subtropical areas. Anestimated 1.2 billion people rely on forests for their livelihoods, while more than 2 billionpeople – a third of the world’s population –use biomass fuels, mainly firewood, to cookand to heat their homes.

Sources: FAO, World Bank, IPCC



1

Reporting REDD+: a journalist’s guide to

the role of forests in combating global

climate change

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change.REDD+ is an initiative that aims to slow the loss of forests.But how it will work in practice is proving controversial, raisingcomplex and emotive issues of national sovereignty, humanrights, big money and corruption.

What is REDD+?

REDD+ is the abbreviaton for reducing emissionsfrom deforestation and forest degradation andenhancing carbon stocks in developing countries.This proposed mechanism aims to slow climatechange by paying developing countries to stopcutting down their forests.

It has been the subject of heated argumentssince Papua New Guinea and Costa Ricatabled a proposal for reducing emissions fromdeforestation at international climate changetalks in 2005.

The idea was soon extended to include ‘forestdegradation’, and was followed by proposals thatagroforestry and agriculture should be added.The ‘plus’ in REDD+ builds in conserving andsustainably managing forests, forest restorationand reforestation, as well as the enhancement offorest carbon stocks.

REDD+ has rapidly become more prominentin international climate change negotiations.More than 30 models of how REDD+ shouldwork have been put forward by countries,

The value of forests stems not only from timber andcarbon storage but also from their roles as watercatchment areas, weather regulators and a source

of food and medicines. They are also valued fortheir rich biodiversity, the loss of which is a majorglobal crisis in its own right.

Proponents of REDD+ say that if these functions arerecognised as services or commodities, the valueof forests will rise, and the different services canbe marketed and paid for. It might also boost theincomes of otherwise marginalised communitieswho serve as forest stewards.

Critics argue that dividing the forest into separatefunctions and attaching a price tag to each runscounter to the vision of forest dwellers, especially

indigenous peoples.

PES projects have had mixed results. Someprojects to protect watershed areas have haddifficulty attracting private investment without whichthey must continue to depend on development aid.

Payments for environmental

services (PES)

groups of countries and nongovernmentalorganisations (NGOs).

REDD+ would involve a massive transfer ofmoney from rich countries to poor as part oftheir commitment under the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change to decreasethe impact of their carbon emissions. It alsooffers a chance to save one of the world’s mostprecious ecosystems. Forests would no longer beviewed merely as timber waiting to be harvestedor land awaiting clearance for agriculture (seebox below).

Even if agreed, the scheme would not formally

begin before 2013, but a number of countries arealready starting pilot projects based on the sameprinciples as REDD+

Firefighter combatsa forest fire inSumatra, Indonesia.

mamat rachmat | cifor



Reporting REDD+: a journalist’s guide to the role of forests in combating global climate change2

Why now?

At a time of rising concern about the effects ofclimate change, supporters of REDD+ arguethat reducing deforestation offers an easierand cheaper way of reducing greenhouse gasemissions than most other approaches.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), the leading scientific body for theassessment of climate change, says tropicaldeforestation is responsible for more than 17 percent of carbon emissions caused by humans. Itsays that reducing and preventing deforestationwill have ‘the largest and most immediate’ impacton carbon levels in the atmosphere.

Any measures to stop dangerous climatechange occurring are unlikely to succeed unlessdeforestation declines drastically.

Funding

Once a system is in place, market-basedcarbon trading, other private sector schemes orbilateral funding from donor countries could beintroduced. Some proposals back a combinationof government and private sector funding.

Carbon trading is based on the idea thatcompanies and governments may in part meettargets for reducing their carbon emissionsby paying for carbon reductions elsewhere

in the global economy instead. REDD+ couldallow credits to be issued that would quantifythe amount of carbon saved through ‘avoideddeforestation’ – not cutting trees down. Thecredits could then be traded on carbon markets.

An advantage of carbon trading is that itcould raise money quickly. A disadvantageis that flooding existing carbon markets withREDD+ credits could further dilute the alreadylow market value of carbon if countries’mitigation commitments are not raised. A lowcarbon price means there is less incentive for

companies to switch to technologies that reducecarbon emissions.

Developing countries would voluntarily optin to the REDD+ mechanism, so for it to workthe scheme must ensure that there is moremoney in protecting forests than in logging oragricultural conversion. Those responsible fordeforestation need to be involved in REDD+schemes. Typically, this involves paying them tomanage the forest sustainably, or not to engagein large-scale logging or land conversion. REDD+will have to compensate for income lost as aresult of stopping forest clearance – known asthe ‘opportunity cost’. While REDD+ may be ableto match this amount for poor farmers with low-

yield technologies, matching lost income fromlucrative agricultural production such as soyaand oil palm cultivation or from valuable timbermay be very costly. If payments are disrupted, orthe amount falls short of the value of the timberin the forest or what could be grown on clearedland or other economic opportunities, a return tocutting down trees and forest conversion couldquickly occur. To avert this problem, REDD+ mustensure a steady flow of funds over long periods.Negotiators concerned that fluctuations in thecarbon market would be too erratic advocate a

separate REDD+ fund based on donations fromindustrialised countries.

The main drivers of rapid deforestation are:

industrial-scale agriculture such as soya andpalm oil production and cattle ranching

industrial logging driven by internationaldemand for timber

poverty and population pressure as peopleseek farmland, fuelwood and buildingmaterials

infrastructure development, especially forroads, mining and dams.

Deforestation drivers

Reducing

deforestation

is essential.

Immediate

action on REDD

is a critical

part of the

climate change

solution.

Ban Ki-moon

Secretary-Generalof the United Nations

“

Oil palm plantationPT Bakrie in Petaling,Sumatra, Indonesia.

ouis verchot | cifor



Reporting REDD+: a journalist’s guide to the role of forests in combating global climate change 3

Carbon monitoring, reporting and

verification (MRV)

To measure the carbon benefits of a REDD+project, it will be necessary to calculate theamount of carbon stored in the forest in questionand then predict how much carbon could besaved by halting or slowing deforestation andforest degradation.

The calculation is made by setting a referencelevel, or baseline, that is usually based onhistorical rates of carbon emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation. So if 10per cent of forest cover has been lost in thepast 20 years, a prediction can be made forfuture deforestation rates (and therefore carbonemissions) based on this historical data, andtaking into account national circumstances.REDD+ would pay for the predicted carbonemissions that did not take place because ofREDD+’s intervention.

However, there is debate as to whethercountries should be credited for all emissionsbelow this ‘business as usual’ reference level,or if a separate ‘crediting’ level should be set.Negotiators are unwilling to allow REDD+ creditsfor all emissions reductions below the ‘businessas usual’ level for several reasons. For example,some expect that a proportion of emissionsreductions should be achieved through national

initiatives other than REDD+.Carbon monitoring, reporting and verificationpresent many technical and organisationalchallenges. Historical forest data, on whichpredictions are based, is often unreliable ornon-existent. Fast ways of measuring carbonstocks with new technologies such as satelliteimaging and computer modeling have provenaccurate, so it should be possible to measureand verify carbon reductions. However, groundmeasurements with traditional forest inventorymethods are still needed. Besides, who will

pay for the technology and capacity buildingrequired for developing countries to carry outeffective monitoring and accounting? There are

If we don’t

reach an

agreement on

REDD … those

who will suffer

most are the

poor countries.

Wangari Maathai

Nobel PeacePrize laureate

“

also questions of what should be monitored – forinstance trees store carbon both above and belowground – and who will be responsible for checkingand verifying measurements.

Management

Managing large-scale, expensive projects willnot be easy for countries with weak or inefficientadministrations.

For REDD+ to work, systems will need to be

put in place to ensure that project and forestmanagement is improved.

Programmes have already been set up to helpdeveloping countries improve their managementof REDD+ schemes. They include the WorldBank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility andthe United Nations Collaborative Programmeon REDD – the UN-REDD Programme. Theseprogrammes support developing countries’efforts to build capacity to reduce emissionscaused by forest losses and implement a futureREDD+ mechanism. Many developing countries

are interested in the REDD+ scheme. The first inline for pilot project funding from the UN-REDDProgramme were: Bolivia, Democratic Republic ofCongo, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea,Paraguay, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia.

Common ways to define stands oftree growth:

Primary – naturally occurring forest thatremains largely undisturbed by people

Secondary – a forest or woodland that hasregrown after a major disturbance such aslogging or fire

Plantation – tree farms often consisting of asingle tree species

Agroforestry – an agricultural systeminvolving trees mixed with other productiveplants or animals.

The current UN definition of forest includesplantations. If the definition is not changed ina final REDD+ agreement, there are fears thatit could result in governments paying forestrycompanies to clear naturally occurring forestsrich in biodiversity and to convert them intoplantations. Carbon monitoring systemsshould be able to detect these changes andtake into account the carbon lost through landclearing activity, but only if they are properlydesigned and implemented.

A forest or a farm?

Historical baseline

The reference level isestablished during thereference period (in thisexample from 1990 to2005). Crediting againstthis baseline (shownin blue) begins duringthe crediting period. Ifemissions during thecrediting period arebelow the historicalbaseline, emissionsreductions are generated(shown in orange).

Source: GlobalCanopy Programme

Emissions

(GtCO2 )

Emission reductions

References levels

Actual emissions

1.0

1990 2005 2020

References

period

Crediting

period

Year




People who depend on forests

REDD+ is a type of payment for environmentalservices that in theory can be used to help boostthe incomes of forest communities, includingindigenous people, who depend on the forest fortheir livelihoods. However, there are concernsthat poor people could lose out. They could beprevented from cutting down trees for small-scalefarming or fuel, but not receive any compensationin return because they do not own the land.

Many indigenous groups, who have lived inthe forests for centuries, are worried that theirrights are being overlooked. They know from

experience that governments and corporationscan be unsympathetic, dismissing indigenouspeople as ‘undeveloped’ and opposing theirclaims for land, rights and special status.This is often because they may present anobstacle to large-scale development projects.Indigenous people have responded to threatsto their territories by developing principles andprocedures designed to give them protection.Central to this response is the principle of ‘free,prior and informed consent’, which is a way ofensuring that forest activities do not take placewithout their permission.

People who depend on forests often lackpolitical power and fear that their interests will

not be taken into account by governments andinternational institutions.

Even when government officials are more willingto consult, the danger is that in the rush to seal aREDD+ deal corners may be cut at the expenseof people’s interests on the ground. Somenegotiators think that ‘experts’ are best placed todraw up plans while others think that for REDD+to work it is essential to involve local people in theplanning and implementation of the scheme.

A REDD+ mechanism will need to involve

networks of local communities in determininghow REDD+ plans are interpreted locally andin managing activities such as monitoring andpolicing. Geographical isolation, languagedifferences and contested rights over land areamong the issues that need to be addressed. Insome cases this will require significant changesin policy to allow communities a greater voicein governing their forests. UN and World Bankprogrammes and NGOs are looking at ways todo this.

Brazilian journalist Gustavo Faleiros wrote anarticle on the Juma reserve which shows howa REDD+ scheme might work successfully.The rainforest reserve in the Brazilian state of Amazonas houses a community who preserve theforest. Every family has a credit card.

The state government credits roughly US $50 amonth to each cardholder’s account as paymentfor their work in keeping the forest intact. Thefinancial support comes from big private groupsinterested in offsetting their carbon footprints.The scheme, the Programa Bolsa Floresta, is

considered by supporters of REDD+ to be amodel way of halting tropical deforestation.

www.climatemediapartnership.org/reporting/ features/billion-dollar-jungle

Billion dollar jungle

Gathering Brazilnuts, Brazil

amy duchele | cifor




Forest ownership

Legal systems of land ownership, or tenure,vary enormously. The main systems arestate, private and customary ownership.In many countries two or all three are inuse simultaneously.

Ownership of land may or may not include thetrees that grow on it. Proving rights over a pieceof land is often difficult, so in many forestedcountries clearing forest is an indicator ofownership. This goes against REDD+’s aim ofleaving the forest standing.

The financial promise of payments from REDD+to preserve the forest could encourage a rushto prove ownership. There are also concernsthat it could set off a forest land grab, with

bureaucrats, companies and elites seizingcontrol from rural poor people and indigenousgroups for whom ownership often relies on oraltradition and is therefore hard to prove legally.For REDD+ to work, effective systems will needto be put in place to ensure that paymentsreach those who depend on the forest for theirlivelihood – the intended recipients – and arenot diverted to companies or corrupt officials.The issue of who is liable for sustaining theforest in the long term and how to insureagainst the release of carbon also raises many

questions. Is the landowner automatically theowner of the carbon in the trees? If not, can thecarbon owner reasonably exercise control overthe landowner? If the landowner is the state,could this lead to a modern form of colonialismwhere wealthier nations with a stake in forestcarbon have a say in what developing-countrygovernments do with their land?

Investors in a REDD+ forest will want to seetheir investment protected over the long term.What if the landowner later decides to cut thetrees down?

Hilary Chiew’s investigation of the Harapan

Rainforest project in Indonesia highlightedsome of the problems that REDD+ schemesmay also face. This conservation project covers101,000 hectares of degraded lowland forestsin South Sumatra and Jambi provinces.

The Indonesian government has granted aconcession to manage the restoration of theforest to a consortium of three NGOs, knownas PT REKI. The project has angered landlessfarmers who say they were evicted fromforest land now being managed by PT REKI.In response, the consortium has accused

the farmers’ pressure group of distorting thesituation.

www.climatemediapartnership.org/reporting/ features/forest-rights-row-exposes-cracks-in-un-climate-plans

Forest rights row exposes cracks

in UN climate plans

International leakage

Forests are often isolated areas beyond thecontrol of central authorities. lLoggers are

adept at locating the next profitable area andcircumventing the rules – if necessary by bribingauthorities. This would render REDD+ schemesuseless because carbon would be released intothe atmosphere somewhere else. This outcome isknown as leakage.

Similarly, there is concern that a reduction inlogging in some countries could lead to pressureon other countries to cut down their foreststo meet demand. There would be a financialincentive to do so if reductions in logging pushedup the price of timber.

The REDD+

process is doing

precisely what

it was created

not to do. It’s

turning into the

biggest subsidy

ever for the

logging industry

and putting

us on the

road to forest

destruction.

Dr Rosalind Reeve

Global Witness

“

Certified timber iscollected in a logpond in PT SumalindoLestari Jaya 2, WestKutai district, EastKalimantan, Indonesia.Timber certificationis a tool to ensuresustainable forestmanagement.

michael padmanaba |research officer




Covering REDD+

For journalists, REDD+ is a tricky story to coverfor a number of reasons.

1 Forest statistics are often unreliableor out of date. Figures need to be carefullychecked, compared to other statistics andanalysed for their real significance. Sourcesalso need to be assessed.

2 REDD+’s final shape is unclear. Forexample, how it will function and be financedhave not yet been agreed.

3 The wording of a forest agreement may

be vague, open to interpretation or

incomprehensible to your audience. This

makes it hard for journalists to find out andexplain what is really going on. For example,the phrase in the negotiating text ‘scope andobjectives’ covers the crucial debate over thedefinition of forest (see box on p3). Similarly,‘conservation’ sounds benign, but the historyof national parks includes large-scale evictionsand loss of rights for indigenous people andlocal communities. Environmental activists alsoargue that ‘sustainable forest management’is used by commercial loggers to undertakedestructive logging practices.

4 Forestry policies vary enormously aroundthe world. Forestry specialists often disagree,for example, over how REDD+ schemes shouldbe funded.

5 There are differences of interest between

and within countries. Some governmentsmay believe that a market approach to curbingdeforestation will be most effective, whileothers argue in favour of state control overa natural resource. National governmentsmay favour policies that indigenous peoplesoppose, while social activists and logging

companies may advocate completely differentapproaches.

6 Covering the negotiations is demanding. Very few people are directly engaged inthe discussions. So it is difficult to obtaininterviews that provide personal insightand quotes as well as accurate, up-to-dateinformation on the progress of talks.

7 Talking to directly affected forest

communities is difficult. The views of the1.2 billion people who, according to the WorldBank, depend to varying degrees on forestsfor their livelihoods need to be heard, but newseditors rarely authorise the time and moneyneeded for journalists to travel to the relevantforest areas.

On the positive side, journalists can takeadvantage of the expertise and experience ofthe many NGOs, forestry research institutionsand think tanks interested in REDD+. By emailingquestions to them and using their replies to

lever more information and explanations fromgovernments, corporations, community groupsand other interested parties, journalists cantap into these resources. In this way they canreveal the huge variety of views in the forestnegotiations, the range of vested interests, thedisagreements about many forest ‘facts’ and theinternationalisation of the debate.

REDD+ controversies

Here are five contentious issues that can framethe debate:

Size of the challenge

A UK-government-sponsored review hasestimated that investments of US$13–33 billionwill be needed every year to halve greenhousegas emissions from forests by 2030. Can moneyon this scale be raised – without taking it fromaid allocations? Can relatively powerless andbadly resourced government departments indeveloping countries handle such large amountsof money? The most serious deforestationoccurs in areas where land-use rules are weakand poorly enforced. Injections of REDD+ moneyinto such areas could exacerbate corruption,exploitation and lawlessness.

Definitions of a forest

Critics of REDD+ say the scheme could leadto greater deforestation unless the currentdefinition of forest under the climate changeconvention is changed. The definition does notcurrently distinguish between natural forests andplantations. It also allows for areas of cleared

forest stating: ‘areas normally forming part of theforest area which are temporarily unstocked as aresult of human intervention’. This was originallyintended to apply to plantations, but the lack ofdistinction means it could apply to natural forests.

The concern is that this could lead to a situationunder REDD+ where forestry companies are paidby governments to convert naturally occurringforest into cultivated plantations.

In addition, the financial promise of REDD+could encourage a rush to prove ownership, withcustomary land rights being brushed aside.




Indigenous people

REDD+ could secure the role of indigenouspeople, and of forest people in general, asstewards of the forest. It could involve them in thedesign of REDD+. But many indigenous peoplesare worried that they are being left out of theplans and that their rights and interests are beingoverlooked.

New concepts

Governments and officials are struggling tounderstand the new and complex issues raisedby REDD+’s innovative approach. For example:who owns the carbon in the trees in the forest?

Winners and losers

Because payments are based on the projectedlevel of carbon saved, the biggest potentialwinners under REDD+ are countries where heavydeforestation has taken place. So care will beneeded to ensure that REDD+ does not rewardonly countries that have failed to tackle – or haveeven encouraged – deforestation. Mechanismswill be needed to ensure that countries do notattempt to increase their deforestation rate inthe run-up to REDD+ implementation in order tomaximise the income they can make.

REDD is only

made for

corporations.

We’re the

landowners.

We are the

ones living in

the jungle. We

haven’t been

taken into

account in the

design of REDD.

Egberto Tabo

Chipunavi

General Coordinator

of the Amazon BasinIndigenous People’sOrganization

“

Is REDD+ diverting attention away from the realissue – that rich countries need to change theircarbon-addicted lifestyles? Or could it provide amuch-needed stream of income to poor countriesand communities, while also helping maintainprimary forests?

How long will REDD+ need to work to make adifference to climate change?

Can REDD+ projects provide positive benefits forthe atmosphere and forest-dependent people?

Can we limit global warming without REDD+?

What are the alternatives to REDD+?

Funding

Where will the funding come from for REDD+?

What will happen to the forests if thefunding stops?

What will happen if the forest is cut down after

REDD+ payments have been made?Measurement

How is it possible to predict future deforestationrates if sound historical information aboutdeforestation is lacking, or when the movement ofpeople and fluctuations in commercial activities areso unpredictable?

How can we be sure that monitoring, reporting andverification of REDD+ schemes is accurate, fairand effective?

Assessing forest carbon requires complex

calculations using costly high-tech equipment.Is this beyond the means of poor countries?Can these techniques be quickly developed tohelp them?

Management

Will there be any checks on whether REDD+payments go to the intended beneficiaries? Willchecks be effective?

Who will receive the payments for REDD+, andhow will the money be distributed?

People who depend on forests

Should forest-dependent people be involved indesigning REDD+ schemes that will affect them?If so, how is this possible if they are isolated andunfamiliar with policy processes? If not, how canREDD+ schemes account for their needs?

Will forest-dependent people who do not own theforest still receive payments?

What are the criteria needed to ensure that REDD+can boost local income?

What do forest dwellers and people whoselivelihoods depend on forests think about

these issues?

Ownership

Who owns the land under the forest? The trees?The carbon in the trees?

If you stop loggers from cutting down the trees,won’t they just go elsewhere, where there are nopolice to stop them?

Key questions to ask about REDD+




Additionality

Extra amount of carbon saved or storedbecause of projects carried out throughclimate change agreements.

Baseline or reference level (RL)

Historical reference point (date or year)against which the rate of greenhouse gas

emissions from deforestation or forestdegradation can be compared.

Carbon rights

The right to use carbon credits or offsets tosatisfy limits on greenhouse gas emissionsor to reduce penalties for exceeding the limitimposed.

Carbon sink

Ecosystem that accumulates and storescarbon.

Carbon sequestration

Removal of carbon from the atmosphereand storage in carbon sinks through naturalor human-induced methods.

Carbon trading

The process of buying and selling carboncredits. Large companies or organisationsare assigned targets for the amount ofcarbon they are allowed to emit. A companythat exceeds its target will need to buycarbon credits to offset the extra carbon ithas emitted. A company that uses less thanits quota can sell surplus credits.

Deforestation

The conversion of forest land to non-forested land through human activity.

Degradation

Human-induced long-term loss of forest,characterised by the reduction of tree crowncover, but not yet considered as completedeforestation.

Indigenous peopleTribe or community native to a particularregion and sharing a collective identity whoretain some or all of their own social, culturaland political institutions.

Leakage or emissions displacement

When efforts to reduce emissions in onearea lead to an increase in carbon emissionsin another area.

Liability

Obligation on the implementing party toguarantee that the emissions reductioncredited in the REDD+ scheme ispermanent.

Mitigation

Actions that reduce greenhouse gas

emissions to the atmosphere.

Offsetting

Payment to emissions reduction projects tocompensate for greenhouse gas emissions.

Opportunity cost

The cost of compensating for projectedfinancial gains from deforestation practicessuch as logging or agriculture.

Useful organisations and contacts

Center for International

Forestry Research (CIFOR)

International organisation with headquarters inIndonesia specialising in tropical forest researchTel: +62 251 862 2622Email: [email protected]

www.cifor.cgiar.orgwww.forestclimatechange.org

Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations

of the Amazon Basin

Coordinating group for the nine national indigenous Amazon organisationsTel: (593-02) 3226-744Email: [email protected]

Forest and European Union

Resource Network (FERN)

Specialises in monitoring European Unionactivity on forestsTel: +44 1608 652 895Email: [email protected]

Friends of the Earth International

Campaigning environmental NGO federationTel: +31 20 6221369Email: [email protected]

Global Canopy Programme

Alliance of scientific institutions involvedin forest researchTel: +44 207 616 8408Email: [email protected]

Global Forest Coalition

An international coalition of NGOs and indigenouspeoples organisations involved in international forestpolicyTel +31 6 82071382Email: janneke.romijn@globalforestcoalition.orgwww.globalforestcoalition.org

Global Witness

Campaigns to prevent conflict andcorruption related to natural resourcesTel: +44 207 4925858Email: [email protected]

Greenpeace International

Independent global organisation thatcampaigns to protect the environmentTel: +31 (0) 20 718 2096Email: [email protected]

International Working Group

for Indigenous AffairsInternational human rights organisationsupporting indigenous peoples’ rightsTel: (+45) 35 27 05 00Email: [email protected]

REDD-Monitor

Website run by a forest expert and environmentalactivist taking a critical look at the REDD+ negotiationsEmail: [email protected]

Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples’ International

Centre for Policy Research and Education)

Indigenous peoples’ organisation working forrecognition and protection of indigenous peoples’ rightsTel: +63 74 4447703

Email: [email protected]

United Nations Collaborative

Programme on Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation

in Developing Countries (the UN-REDD

Programme)

Partnership between the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO),the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) and the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) to support developingcountries to prepare for REDDTel: +41 22 9178944Email: [email protected] [email protected]

World Rainforest Movement

International network of citizens’ groupsinvolved in defending the rainforestsTel: +598 2 413 2989Email: [email protected]

Useful websites and resources

Official REDD page

UN Framework Convention

on Climate Change

http://unfccc.int/methods_science/redd/

items/4531.php

Little REDD+ Book

Global Canopy Programme an

updated guide to the REDD negotiations

http://tinyurl.com/yge6hjb

Reading list of briefings and journal

articles about REDD

CIFOR

www.cifor.cgiar.org/Research/ClimateChange/

EssentialReading/mitigation-publications.htmhttp://www.forestsclimatechange.org/

PES – What are ecosystem services?

CIFOR Information from CIFOR on payments

for environmental services

www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/ home/index.htm

Information and briefings on REDD

International Institute for Environment and

Development (IIED), a UK-based research

organisation specialising in sustainable

development

http://www.iied.org/natural-resources/

key-issues/forestry/redd-protecting-climate-

forests-and-livelihoods (error)

Cutting corners: World Bank’s forest andcarbon fund fails forests and peoples

FERN Briefing analysing whether the World

Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is

fulfilling its social commitments

http://www.fern.org/media/documents/

document_4312_4361.pdf

Forest resources pages

Publications from Overseas Development

Institute (ODI) – a UK-based think tank on

international development

(error) http://www.odi.org.uk/work/themes/

details.asp?id=9&title=forests

Climate Change Media Partnership

Panos, IIED and Internews have joined

together to boost climate reporting in the

developing world

Tel: (+1)-202-772-5738;

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.climatemediapartnership.org

Glossary

A farmer holds oilpalm berries in hishands. He farmsnear Gunung LumutNational Parkwhere native forestis being removedand replanted with

oil palm.

j moses ceaser | cifor



To obtain a free broadcasttape or a downloadable version

of the REDD Revolution videonews release, please e-mailDina Junkerman at tve:[email protected] The video news release isavailable in English and Spanish.

To obtain copiesof What’s a forest worth?

Forest-dependent people

and possible effects

of REDD, please [email protected]



REDD Revolution is a video news release thatexplains why REDD+ is high on the agenda in globalclimate change negotiations. It also examinesthe role of the UN-REDD Programme in helping

developing countries get ready for REDD+. It hasbeen produced by Television for the Environment(tve) with the support of UN-REDD.

A document has been prepared by CIFOR with thesupport of the UN-REDD Programme in order toassist national and regional negotiators to get readyfor REDD+ and is a useful background resourcefor journalists. The state of REDD negotiations:

Consensus points, options for moving forward

and research needs to support the process can bedownloaded from www.cifor.cgiar.org/Knowledge/ Publication/Detail?pid=2870.

What’s a forest worth?

Forest-dependent people and possible effects

f REDD l k t REDD f th ti f



Produced by:

This media pack is supportedby the Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), theUnited Nations CollaborativeProgramme on Reducing Emissionsfrom Deforestation and ForestDegradation in DevelopingCountries (the UN-REDDProgramme) and the EuropeanUnion (EU). CIFOR would also

like to acknowledge the supportof the David and Lucile PackardFoundation in the production ofthis pack.

www.cifor.cgiar.org

www.un-redd.org

http://ec.europa.eu

This media pack aims to give journalists anoverview of a vital issue in global climate changenegotiations. REDD+ – reducing emissionsfrom deforestation and forest degradation indeveloping countries – is a proposed mechanismto slow the loss of forests, but how it will work inpractice is the subject of fierce debate.

Resources include:

A short media briefing explaining how theREDD+ mechanism might work and raising

some of the key controversies to be resolvedat Copenhagen and beyond.

An accompanying short film which looksat the possible effects of REDD+ on forestcommunities and contains interviews withdifferent stakeholders including environmental

journalists on reporting the subject.

A video news release on REDD+, REDD

Revolution, which includes interviews withforest communities, campaigners, economistsand politicians. These can be used free ofcharge in news packages about the subject.

Reporting REDD+

Documents

Transcript of Reporting REDD+