SALVAGING THE UNITED NATIONS REDD PROGRAM AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

AuthorHammond, Joshua
PositionReducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries

The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) is an intergovernmental framework designed "to reduce forest emissions and enhance carbon stocks in forests while contributing to national sustainable development." (1) Deforestation--the permanent removal of forest cover--contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide emissions. (2) This, in turn, contributes to global climate change which adversely affects the livelihood of indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities. REDD allows for nations and private stakeholders to offset their own carbon emissions by purchasing carbon stock stored inside forests, and, in effect, keep them standing.

However, nearly ten years after its launch, critics have scrutinized REDD for its impracticality. Additionally, many critics have recently shifted their critiques towards the program's unintended consequences. This sector of critics argues that, despite its many potential environmental benefits, REDD effectively permits violations of the international human rights of many indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities worldwide. (3) Herein lies the conundrum, illuminated by a particularly bizarre tension in which the program's widespread benefits also impose significant, countervailing costs.

Ultimately, the United Nations (UN) must prioritize safeguarding the international human rights of indigenous peoples while simultaneously striking a balance between REDD's program efficiency and transparency. In the face of financial adversity, socio-cultural confusion, and lower political bargaining power status, indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities must proactively assert their political voices. This must occur first locally and regionally as an entryway to national and international negotiations. Indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities must first identify what they perceive as negative inflictions on their rights and sovereignties at a grassroots level. This Article posits that indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities can garner international attention, funding, and support by cooperating closely with public and private entities that have mutually invested interests in REDD. Together, these forces can direct their efforts towards targeted application of local, national, and international legal frameworks that provide clarity, uniformity and a more likely avenue for change and enforcement. (4)

Part I of this Article traces the origin and purpose of REDD. Part I also examines the program's significant role in implicating political and socio-cultural issues and its effects on indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities. Part II addresses international laws and regulations that seek to protect the international human rights of indigenous peoples. Part III analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of Brazil's national mitigation strategies, which are unassociated with the UN and REDD altogether. This section also compares Ecuador's REDD-stamped national strategy to that of Brazil's, and lends particular focus to the widespread neglect of international human rights effectuated by emissions reduction plans in both of these Amazon countries.

Part IV of this Article offers suggestions that can not only enhance the existing REDD framework, but can also provide an avenue by which the voices and demands of indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities are not stifled. Finally, Part V of this Article concludes by refraining the juxtaposition between REDD and the international human rights of indigenous peoples in order to demonstrate how the two are intertwined.

  1. The UN REDD Program and REDD+

    The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) tasks itself "to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." (5) REDD+, borne in 2010 out of the UNFCCC's mission, supports national mitigation strategies and promotes "the informed and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities." (6) Accordingly, the UN REDD program supports the nationally enforced REDD+ frameworks by offering results-based payments to incentivize developing countries to reduce or remove forest carbon emissions.

    REDD currently serves sixty-four nations from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean. (7) The program provides a range of funding mechanisms such as support to the design and implementation of national REDD+ programs, tailored support to national actions, and technical capacity building support through the sharing of expertise, common approaches, best practices, and facilitated knowledge sharing.

    These funding mechanisms support five REDD initiatives: reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. The five REDD initiatives can be practicably implemented at different phases to achieve results-based actions such as the effectuation of comprehensive national strategies, sustainable development plans, and capacity building measures. It is important to recognize that the capacities and circumstances of participating countries can vary immensely. As a result, the magnitude and pace at which countries are able to provide oversight and decisionmaking fluctuate.

    1. The Copenhagen Accord Fails to Capture a REDD Framework

      In November of 2009, the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UNFCCC (COP-15) gathered in Copenhagen with the hopes of securing a binding post-Kyoto Protocol agreement. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen Accord was deemed a failure for its inability to legally bind the 193 ratifying Parties or manifest into anything of significance. (8) Notwithstanding this grave impasse, the COP-15 did ensure the continued importance of forest emissions reduction strategies in shaping future legislation and agreed that an incentive-based emissions reductions credit would be one of the centerfold selling points of any binding multi-national agreement. (9) Still, the Copenhagen Accord only provided vague guidelines for explaining the scope of REDD and did not construct concrete plans to pursue specific initiatives.

    2. Cancun: From REDD to REDD+

      In December of 2010, following the disappointing and unfulfilling Copenhagen Accord results, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP-16) gathered in Cancun to discuss the possibility of formulating a binding successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. (10) The Cancun Adaptation Framework (CAF) marked the international community's shift in thinking. Rather than focusing solely on binding constituents to a specific agreement, the COP-16 enhanced the access and implementation of mitigation strategies vis-a-vis capacity-building mechanisms. The rationale was that, by creating a foundation for the good faith exchange and sharing of information, those countries initially opposed to the Kyoto Protocol will be more likely to bind themselves by signing onto a mandatory, international REDD instrument. Although the attempt to effectuate a binding post-Kyoto Protocol agreement failed, Parties to the COP-15...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT