TFG’s 2011-2012 Initiaves
Reference Levels
Tracking US REDD+ Finance
Proposed Terresterial Carbon Accounting Course
Agriculture/REDD+ Linkages
Humanitarian Carbon Portfolio

For Immediate Release: December 2, 2011

 

The Review Process for REDD+ NFRELs/NFRLs

Source: FCCC/SBSTA/2011/MISC.7

Summary
Document “FCCC/SBSTA/2011/MISC.7” aggregates 16 submissions representing views of 69 countries concerning REDD+ methodological guidance.  Of these submissions, 10 of them, representing the views of 56 countries, asked SBSTA35 to establish a process by which national NFRELs/NFRLs would be subject to an independent, transparent review under the auspices of the UNFCCC.  Paragraph 14 in version 1 of draft text for SBSTA 35 agenda item 4 delays the decision for establishing a review process until SBSTA36 despite substantial support for a SBSTA35 decision.  Although version 1 draft text contains strong language for NFRELs/NFRLs modalities, a delay in establishing this review process would undermine efforts by all Parties to ensure robust technical underpinnings of REDD+ NFRELs/NFRLs and ensure that any eventual positive incentives for REDD+ are made on the basis of adequate environmental integrity. 
Recommendation
The Tropical Forest Group recommends SBSTA 35 add language that establishes an independent and transparent review of NFRELs/NFRLs by a team of independent experts. This recommendation is supported by 56 of 69 contributing countries.
Para 14. “Agrees to establish a process of independent, expert, and transparent review of country’s national forest reference emission level and/or national forest reference level coordinated by the Secretariat, and requests SBSTA 36 to develop guidance for the review.”                                  
Countries with submissions regarding REDD+ Reference Level methodological guidance for SBSTA 35
(Bold = countries with explicit support for a review process )

  1. Australia
  2. Belize
  3. Cameroon
  4. Central African Republic
  5. Congo
  6. Costa Rica
  7. Côte d’Ivoire
  8. Democratic Republic of the Congo
  9. Ecuador
  10. Gabon
  11. Ghana
  12. Guyana
  13. Honduras
  14. Kenya
  15. Panama
  16. Papua New Guinea
  17. Solomon Islands
  18. Togo
  19. Uganda
  20. Botswana
  21. Brazil
  22. Colombia
  23. Mexico
  24. Costa Rica
  25. Dominican Republic
  26. El Salvador
  27. Panama
  28. Austria
  29. Belgium
  30. Bulgaria
  31. Cyprus
  32. Czech Republic
  33. Denmark
  34. Estonia
  35. Finland
  36. France
  37. Germany
  38. Greece
  39. Hungary
  40. The Irish Republic
  41. Italy
  42. Latvia
  43. Lithuania
  44. Luxembourg
  45. Malta
  46. The Netherlands
  47. Poland
  48. Portugal
  49. Romania
  50. Slovakia
  51. Slovenia
  52. Spain
  53. Sweden
  54.  United Kingdom
  55. Brunei Darussalam
  56. Cambodia
  57. Indonesia
  58. Lao People’s Democratic

Republic

  1. Malaysia
  2. Myanmar
  3. Philippines,
  4. Singapore
  5. Thailand
  6. Viet Nam
  7. Japan
  8. Norway
  9. Philippines
  10. Switzerland
  11. United States of America

* Note: Brazil’s submission only included guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected

###