Saving The Rainforest 2 - 0 - 2018 - Web ID 53224

Saving the
rainforest 2.0
Next steps and better solutions for
efforts to protect the rainforest
SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 1

Content
Foreword .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Rethinking REDD+ finance: how to scale up finance for forests ............. 10
REDD+ after paris: To trade or not to trade forest carbon ............................ 18
Forest restoration ........................................................................................................................... 24
A most unlikely hope.................................................................................................................... 28
Protecting forests through logging? ................................................................................ 34
Driving deforestation ................................................................................................................... 38
Next steps for Norwegian bilateral agreements ................................................... 42
Brazil.......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Peru .......................................................................................................................................................... 48
Indonesia .............................................................................................................................................. 52
Case study: Why forest policies must confront the realities of
corruption in a decentralized Indonesia ..................................................................... 56
Dr Congo ................................................................................................................................................ 58
Case study: Mai-Ndombe ........................................................................................................ 62
End notes .............................................................................................................................................. 64
SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Editor: Anders Haug Larsen
Cartographer: Riccardo Pravettoni
Contributors text: Article authors: Charlie Parker is an internationally recognized expert in REDD+ and climate finance having worked
for institutions like UN-REDD, CIFOR and Climate Policy Initiative; Bård Lahn is a climate policy researcher at CICERO, Center for
International Climate Research in Oslo. Fred Pearce is a science journalist having contributed to New Scientist magazine and British
newspapers Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent; Glenn Hurowitz is CEO of Mighty, a global environmental organization
that has secured groundbreaking conservation and human rights policies from the world’s largest agribusinesses; Solveig Firing Lunde
is policy advisor at Rainforest Foundation Norway working on timer and logging issues; Dr Chis Malins is a globally recognised expert
on alternative fuel policy and sustainability. He is the founder of the London based consultancy Cerulogy; Ines Luna Maira is program
coordinator for Brazil at Rainforest Foundation Norway; Anders Krogh is senior advisor with experience on Peru at Rainforest Foundation
Norway; Anja Lillegraven is head of the Asia and Oceania department at Rainforest Foundation Norway; Ramadani Torheim is program
coordinator for Indonesia at Rainforest Foundation Norway; Tom Johnson is head of research at Earthsight, a UK-based non-profit
organisation committed to investigative research and reporting; Marine Gauthier is an independent consultant with expertize on land use
issues in DRC.
Other text contributions: Lars Løvold, Nils Hermann Ranum, Ellen Hestnes Ribeiro, Øyvind Eggen, Elna Bastiansen, Gunnell
Sandanger, Joshua Lichtenstein, Peter Wood, Erik Dale, Anders Haug Larsen.
Proof reading: Susan Høivik
Layout: Felix Media, Anna Maria H. Pirolt / Brød&tekst
Print: Grøset
The report is produced with funding from Norad – The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.
2 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Foreword
In the autumn of 2007, Rainforest Foundation Norway and Friends of the Earth
Norway sent a letter to Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, proposing that Norway
contribute large-scale funding to protect the world’s rainforests. Three months
and an intensive lobby campaign later, this pledge was made.
Almost three billion USD and ten years of intense efforts from Norway have
helped to upscale forest protection efforts in all the major rainforest countries,
and give forests an important place in the Paris Agreement on climate change.
We of RFN are proud of our contribution to this – but, in view of the continuing
destruction of the rainforest, we would rather look for new ideas than celebrate
previous achievements. The challenge seems just as demanding as ten years
ago, but we now have important new tools available. Changing political,
economic and technological realities also call for different approaches.
We hope that this report can facilitate the necessary debate on new directions
for rainforest protection. As Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative
has become the major international rainforest donor, its choices will influence
international efforts to protect the rainforest. This report should therefore be
read as input to Norway as well as to the international rainforest community as
a whole.
The articles we present represent the views of the individual authors. Drawing
on these articles, Rainforest Foundation Norway offers recommendations as
guidance to donors like Norway, rainforest countries and other relevant
stakeholders.
ØYVIND EGGEN,
DIRECTOR, RAINFOREST FOUNDATION NORWAY (RFN)

Introduction
Do you remember 2007? The first struggling with deforestation accounts they invest in. Spreading these success
iPhone was launched, Facebook was for merely 1% of global mitigation- stories to new regions, with more
a new website to check out regularly related development funding3 – companies and more investors, holds
– and the world’s forests became whereas preserving the world’s great promise.
central in international climate policy. tropical forests are essential in
A decade later, forests have become meeting the objectives of the Paris Recommendation 2:
a core component of the Paris Agreement4.
Agreement, and the major rainforest Rainforest countries and
countries have all included forests in Recommendation 1: private sector companies
their climate policies. Pivotal in getting should secure and fully
forests higher up on the political Developed countries should implement existing
scene was the launch of what we in upscale forest climate moratoriums and no
Norway call the ‘Rainforest Billions’. finance through increased deforestation policies.
development aid. The New moratoriums should
We have learned a lot over these government of Norway should be introduced, to ban the
past years, and the world is different increase its commitment to establishment of palm oil
from what it was ten years ago. This 4.5 billion NOK by 2021. concessions in forests and
offers a good opportunity to examine peatlands, and to stop soy
possible new directions and ideas for expansion into tropical forest
rainforest protection in general, and in Can the companies that destroy areas. Donors like Norway,
particular Norway’s role in facilitating rainforests now save us? should support and encourage
change towards a world that truly Recent years have shown that there establishment, and securing,
values and protects its forests. is reason to hope that many of the moratoriums in post-2020
same companies that have destroyed bilateral agreements.
Where have all the donors gone? the rainforest can also help solve the
The initial impetus for the ‘Rainforest problem (See article in this report by
Billions’ came from Rainforest Glenn Hurowitz, A most unlikely hope Governments may play an important
Foundation Norway and Friends of for more). Environmental campaigns role in supporting the companies that
the Earth Norway. The idea was to around the world forced soy suppliers commit to eliminating deforestation
get ten wealthy countries each to to implement a deforestation from their products, which many
contribute USD 1 billion annually, moratorium in Brazil which within three governments have now promised to
which the Stern Review had estimated years almost ended the deforestation do through the New York Declaration
would end deforestation in the eight caused by soy plantation in the on Forests. By using their purchasing
largest rainforest countries.1 Norway Brazilian Amazon. A similar moratorium power to buy only products from
leapt on board, pledging USD 500 has since been extended to cover companies that do not aggravate
million annually, but there were few the Brazilian beef industry, and most tropical forest destruction, govern-
others who followed. Until today, palm-oil production in Southeast Asia ments can help the most progressive
Norway’s contribution has represented is now covered by ‘no deforestation’ companies substantially. Governments
more than 40% of all international policies, although work remains until can also introduce import regulations
tropical forest funding.2 That is indeed this is fully implemented. Investors, and taxes to limit products that
commendable, but the lack of other spearheaded by the Norwegian contribute to deforestation – and
donors has been a major obstacle to Government Pension Fund Global, such measures could be introduced
saving the world’s tropical forests. have also started to demand reduced without requiring direct increases in
Finance for forests in countries deforestation from the companies public budgets.

New
moratoriums
should be
introduced,
to ban the
establishment
of palm oil
concessions
and soy
expansion in
Photo: Thomas Marent
forests and
peatlands

Recommendation 3: Rethinking REDD+ Finance: how to primary and intact forests. Several
scale up finance for forests). REDD+ institutions and organisations
Developed countries and should instead be recognized as an working for forest protection have
sub-national jurisdictions important and promising development argued that large scale ‘sustainable‘
should support companies option for mobilizing finance from the logging is one way of promoting
that implement zero wider economy, for example by forest protection, as this would give
deforestation in their supply avoiding and redirecting finance the forest ‘a value’ (see article by
chains through public flows that results in deforestation and Solveig Firing Lunde, Protecting
procurement regulations, forest degradation. forests through logging?). Even though
import regulation and taxes tropical forest logging is largely done
on products that contribute A broader REDD+ framing would ‘selectively’, in that only a small
to forest destruction. open for new finance opportunities. proportion of trees are harvested, it
Estimates indicate that public and remains highly problematic. Intact
private finance to sectors that ecosystems are important for
contribute to forest destruction is 39 biological diversity and carbon
Unfortunately, many governments
times greater than support to forest storage, and environmental values
are moving in the wrong direction
protection.5 While significant attention are seriously harmed even by
– for example, through policies for
has been paid to phasing out fossil- selective logging. Logging also
greater use of biofuels for transport
fuel subsidies, there has been far too requires the construction of roads,
that serve to increase the demand for
little focus on the impact and scale of often in remote areas, thereby
palm oil. If all these biofuel policies
domestic subsidies that drive opening up previously inaccessible
came together in a high-growth
deforestation in developing countries. areas to illegal logging and agriculture
scenario, with no restrictions on
We need an international initiative for – and eventual deforestation.
feedstock, global demand for palm oil
phasing out deforestation subsidies.
from biofuels would increase five-fold
Further, donors – including Norway Logging is the main driver behind
by 2030 (see article by Chris Malins,
– should demand that rainforest forest degradation6. Better monitoring
Driving deforestation). Because they
countries who receive funding for of degradation has resulted in new
contribute to tropical deforestation,
forest protection stop subsidizing research which finds that forest
biofuels from palm oil have higher
destructive activities within the palm-oil, degradation or disturbance accounts
CO2 emissions than conventional
soy, paper and beef industries. for almost 70% of the carbon loss in
fossil fuels. Biofuels in the transport
tropical forests, much higher than
sector must therefore leapfrog harmful
Recommendation 5: previous estimates.7
biofuels, based on feedstock such
as palm oil.
A global initiative to phase Each country has the right to control
out deforestation subsidies its own natural resources, so it is not
Recommendation 4: should be established. up to Norway, or any other donor, to
Donors like Norway should decide what a rainforest country
Regulations should be include domestic subsidy should do. But it is a different matter
introduced to restrict biofuels reform as part of post-2020 whether donors should subsidize the
from palm oil and soy. This bilateral agreements. international logging industry and
call goes especially to the provide financial support for timber
European Union, Indonesia harvest in intact rainforest areas.
and the aviation industry, Ensuring that international aid is That is irresponsible – international
where the greatest demand aligned with forest protection also donors should not finance logging as
is expected. holds considerable potential. part of efforts for forest protection.
Calculations made in connection with
this report (see article by Charlie Recommendation 6:
New finance opportunities Parker) show how international aid
Progress on scaling up international with potentially negative impacts on Rainforest countries should
finance for forest protection has been forests is more than 3.5 times greater develop land-use plans that
hampered by the narrow focus on than support for forest conservation protect the remaining primary
Official Development Assistance and forest restoration. With appropriate and intact forests, and not
(ODA) to support forest protection, safeguards and relatively modest allocate such forests to
and the negative framing of efforts to reforms, the impact on deforestation industrial scale logging.
reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation from interna- Donors like Norway should
and forest degradation, and foster tional aid could be minimized. support such efforts and
conservation, sustainable manage- avoid supporting programs
ment of forests, and enhancement of Protecting primary and intact or projects that stimulates
forest carbon stocks (REDD+), as an forests – logging is not a solution industrial scale logging in
incentive for not doing something Scientific evidence underlines the these areas.
(see article by Charlie Parker, importance of protecting the remaining

Forest people are the best guardians
Most of the world’s remaining There has emissions. This is no longer an
alternative. Developing countries
tropical forests lie in areas that are
traditionally managed or owned by
been far too little now have their own, unconditional,
mitigation targets, so these emission
indigenous peoples and local
communities.8 Areas under such
focus on the reductions will not necessarily be
available for sale. Achieving the
management have been shown to impact and scale temperature goal set by the Paris
have lower deforestation rates and Agreement will require emissions
higher carbon stocks than other of domestic reductions and carbon removals from
areas.9 However only 15% of the forests, in addition to deep and
forest is owned or controlled by subsidies that immediate reductions in emissions
indigenous peoples and local
communities. drive deforestation from fossil fuels. International forest
finance should be reframed as
Securing greater control over forest

in developing support to help developing countries
raise their own ambitions, without
lands by indigenous and other rural
communities is an undervalued and
countries tying it to continued emissions in
developed countries (see article by
underfinanced topic in forest protection Bård Lahn, REDD+ after Paris: To
efforts. Although the main decisions trade or not to trade forest carbon).
on tenure are taken within each solutions, all rainforest countries will
country, far more attention should be need to introduce new and improved Recommendation 9:
given to collective tenure rights and policies.
local management in climate International forest finance
negotiations and international finance Various alternatives have been should be to support
priorities. It is encouraging to note suggested for drawing carbon out of developing countries increase
the progress related to indigenous the atmosphere – however, many their own ambitions and
peoples’ land claims and participa- with severe negative consequences commitments.
tion, for example in Indonesia, over if implemented at scale. Restoration
the past decade. Norway has helped of tropical forests holds high promise
in keeping indigenous peoples and and could make the greatest Payments for verified emission
local communities on the agenda in contribution among natural climate reductions as a measure, not a goal
several countries, and that should be solutions.10 If done properly, this Many see results-based payments
maintained and intensified. would be good for nature, for the for verified emission reductions as
climate and for human beings (see the ultimate goal of international
Recommendation 7: article by Fred Pearce, Forest forest finance. Paying for such results
Restoration). Attention should be may be an attractive idea, but there
Rainforest countries, and directed at proven, natural climate are several pitfalls. It is easy to become
donors like Norway, should solutions when looking for ‘carbon- carbon-blind, ignoring measures that
prioritize securing land negative’ alternatives. could bolster political ambition for
rights for indigenous and policy reform and measures that
other forest-dependent Recommendation 8: secure land rights and intact ecosys-
communities, and support tems. The demands for monitoring,
plans for the sustainable Rainforest countries should reporting and verification have also
management of these areas. develop regulations and proven very complex. If future
financial incentives for forest payments are to be based on
restoration. Allowing natural emissions reductions from current
Post-Paris reality recovery and regeneration Nationally Determined Contributions
Reaching the Paris Agreement goal should be prioritized when (NDCs), it is very likely that loopholes
of keeping global warming to well restoring forests. It is best will obstruct effects on the ground,
below 2°C and pursuing efforts to done with the full participation because of inflated reference levels,
limit the increase to 1.5°C will not be of local communities. insufficient forest definitions and
possible without deep reductions in insufficient monitoring.
greenhouse gas emissions and an
increase in removals of CO2. Forests The Paris Agreement on climate Creating the conditions for transfor-
can contribute substantially to both change has also changed the mational change should be the
reductions and removals of carbon dynamics of international forest ultimate goal of international forest
from the atmosphere. This has been protection finance. Previously, finance. This implies that the bar for
shown in Brazil, where emissions developed countries could see forest when a country is ready for results-
from deforestation have been finance as an option for achieving based payments must be set high and
substantially reduced. To unleash the quick, cheap and large emissions that support for policy deliverables
great potential from natural climate reductions to offset their own continued will often be a better option.

Recommendation 10: The economic, social and environ-
mental opportunities of forest
Results-based payments for protection are under-communicated
verified emission reductions and not well integrated in the political
should only be done when discourse in rainforest countries.
the highest possible Documenting such opportunities, for
environmental, technical example by showing the effects on
and social standards job creation and new business
are met. opportunities as well as for food
security, fresh-water resources and
biodiversity will be important in
Creating political will raising the political importance of
Experience from Norwegian bilateral forest protection.
agreements (see country articles on
Brazil, Indonesia, Peru and DR Congo) Recommendation 11:
has shown that the challenge of
ending tropical deforestation is more International donors should
difficult than many considered ten support actors that can
years ago. In launching Norway’s stimulate increased political
International Climate and Forest will for protecting forests,
Initiative, Prime Minister Jens like civil society, indigenous
Stoltenberg stated: ‘the technology is peoples’ organizations and
well known and has been available communication efforts.
for thousands of years. Everybody
knows how not to cut down a tree.’ In
practice, however, changing industrial REDD+ at a crossroads
agriculture practices in agriculture- International cooperation for reduced
dependent countries represent a deforestation and forest degradation
major challenge, with vested industry is at a major crossroads. Elections in
interests, large illegal markets and Brazil, Indonesia and DR Congo will
conflicts between forest preservation define national political will in these
and national development strategies. countries. Ambition and clarity in the
contributions under the Paris
A general lesson from international Agreement are important for national
forest finance and Norway’s bilateral efforts and for how international
agreements is that results hinge on finance should be channelled to
domestic political will. International rainforest countries. The Sustainable
finance can help ambitious leaders to Development Goals and post-2020
get results. Where the political will is targets under the Convention on
lacking, the results will be slower and Biological Diversity could also define
less visible, as shown by the recent national efforts.
setback in Brazil. That being said,
there is a very real need for policies Norway has pledged to continue its
that can protect forests also in times International Climate and Forest
of reduced political will. Initiative at today’s high levels until
2030, but current bilateral agreements
run only to 2020. This opens an
opportunity for redefining efforts and
The economic, including new deliverables within the
social and existing agreements. We at RFN hope

our recommendations can help to
environmental define these efforts.
opportunities of
forest protection
are under-
communicated

The Paris
Agreement
will require
emissions
reductions
and carbon
removals
from forests,
in addition to
deep and
immediate
reductions in
emissions
from fossil
fuels
A major
barrier to
scaling up
REDD+ finance
has been the
‘negative’
framing of
REDD+ as an
incentive for
not doing
something
Photo: Rainforest Foundation Norway

Rethinking REDD+
Finance: how to
scale up finance for
forests
CHARLIE PARKER, INDEPENDENT LAND USE CONSULTANT
Since its inception, REDD+ has been REDD+ in unforeseen ways. The ‘negative’ framing of REDD+ as an
framed as a financial mechanism ‘aid-ification’ of REDD+,14 and the incentive for not doing something:
intended to provide ‘positive incentives’ focus on international payments as a REDD+ has often been portrayed as
to developing countries to reduce their source of REDD+ finance, have a payment for not cutting down trees,
emissions from deforestation and unintentionally drawn attention away or for leaving trees standing. This
forest degradation and enhance their from the important role that domestic perception is best demonstrated by
forest carbon stocks.11 Yet, while all policies and subsidies play in shaping the opportunity cost models associated
other areas of the REDD+ negotiations private sector activities related to with REDD+. These models calculate
are essentially complete,12 the decisions forest conversion and / or forest costs based on foregone revenues to
on how REDD+ should be financed clearing activities. These domestic the economy – the cost of not
and how finance can be delivered at subsidies are orders of magnitude producing a certain commodity such
scale remain elusive. larger than foreign aid contributions, as palm oil, beef or soy that drives
and REDD+ outcomes cannot be tropical deforestation. This framing
Progress on scaling up REDD+ achieved without reform of domestic has made it difficult to identify
finance has been hampered by two deforestation-risk subsidies. Further, financing strategies that can deliver
underlying causes. Firstly, the national framing REDD+ as a payment for mitigation outcomes related to
and international policy process has performance unrealistically set REDD+, and has inadvertently given
focused on two dominant sources of expectations that large-scale finance REDD+ an anti-development bias. A
finance for REDD+: Official Develop- would await countries who could more positive framing of REDD+
ment Assistance (ODA) through demonstrate that they had success- finance would promote and incentivize
bilateral and multilateral finance fully reduced their emissions from activities that help a country to
institutions, and voluntary and deforestation and forest degradation. develop economically, e.g. through
compliance carbon markets supported While there have been significant the production of agricultural and
by developed-country offsetting commitments from bilateral and mining exports, but without clearing
commitments. These sources of multilateral donors, including Norway, tropical forests.
finance are unlikely to deliver REDD+ international aid contributions are still
finance at scale; additionally, they a drop in the ocean in comparison to Why is REDD+ finance needed?
create challenges in mobilizing the other sources of finance that drive While it has proven difficult to scale
finance from the broader economy.13 deforestation and forest degradation. up REDD+ finance, there can be no
doubt that additional finance will be
This narrow framing of REDD+ The second major barrier to scaling needed to achieve REDD+ outcomes.
finance has shaped the evolution of up REDD+ finance has been the For the private sector, the costs of

REDD+ can be described as the
additional finance needed to imple- While Mexico) showed that domestic
agricultural subsidies are – on average
ment sustainable land-use activities
rather than unsustainable practices.
significant – 100 times greater than international
REDD+ finance.19 Similarly, biofuel
Under unsustainable practices, there
is a profit motive for producers to
attention has subsidies, which are a primary driver
of deforestation in many developing
engage in deforestation-based been given countries, are almost ten times greater
production; by contrast, under than current REDD+ finance flows.
sustainable production systems, the to phasing out Efforts to reform domestic subsidies
costs of production are typically fall into two broad categories: scaling
increased due to factors that include fossil-fuel up ‘REDD-aligned’ subsidies i.e.
certification costs, land titling, policy
enforcement, and so on, while subsidies, little subsidies that promote REDD+
outcomes, such as reforestation, and
revenues often stay the same or
increase only slightly.
has been done forest conservation; and phasing out
‘REDD-misaligned’ subsidies that
Finance is therefore needed to reduce

to understand lead to forest conversion.20
the viability gap and improve the and reduce the Countries where subsidy reform would
competitiveness of sustainable land- benefit the REDD+ process are
use activities. In general, there are impact of numerous. Indonesia, for example,
four ways in which finance can play a now accounts for 53% of global
role in the shift to sustainable from REDD-relevant production of palm oil, and has
unsustainable land-use activities:
1) increase the costs of unsustainable domestic subsidies throughout the supply chain
that directly and indirectly contribute to
activities; 2) decrease the revenues
to be gained from unsustainable
subsidies in land-use change. These include credit
subsidies, government guarantees,
activities; 3) decrease the costs of
sustainable activities; 4) increase the
developing tax concessions, and a price floor on
biofuels; unless these are reformed,
revenues from sustainable activities. countries it is difficult to see how Indonesia can
Any combination of these approaches meet its REDD+ targets.21 One
can help to tip the balances of land- intervention that could improve
use investments and create a more Greening domestic subsidies sustainable land-use activities in
even playing field for sustainable The first area to consider in scaling Indonesia is a revision of the
land use activities.15 up REDD+ finance is the role of disbursement criteria of the CPO
‘REDD-relevant’16 domestic subsidies. fund. The CPO fund is a parastatal
To scale up REDD+ finance, a more In developing countries, subsidies entity that collects revenues from
targeted focus is required in four key play a key role in supporting basic palm-oil export levies to provide
areas. First, developing countries needs such as food, fuel, and health subsidies for domestic biodiesel
engaging in REDD+ will need to that might otherwise be inaccessible producers. The Fund recently
ensure that domestic subsidies are to poor and marginalized groups. developed a subsidy programme for
aligned with forest-friendly objectives, Subsidies can also promote economic replanting old or low-yielding
including reversing harmful subsidies growth by reducing the price of smallholder oil-palm estates.22 This
that drive forest loss, and developing production or consumption of natural subsidy could be targeted instead to
green subsidies to promote forest resources, which may have a distorting palm-oil producers who avoid
conservation. Second, donors, effect on investment and consumption deforestation, and could additionally
including multilateral development patterns. This in turn often leads to help smallholders to achieve
banks, will need to ensure that ODA accelerated environmental degradation compliance with agreed sustainability
that is not necessarily targeted at and forest loss.17 criteria such as the Roundtable on
REDD+ does not inadvertently lead Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).23
to forest clearance. Third, supply- While significant attention has been
chain actors will need to develop given to phasing out fossil-fuel Safeguarding international aid
sustainable production and subsidies,18 little has been done to The second area of interventions for
procurement practices and ensure understand and reduce the impact of scaling up REDD+ finance concerns
that commercial agriculture, mining REDD-relevant domestic subsidies in ensuring that international aid does not
and infrastructure are not drivers of developing countries. This poses lead to forest clearance. Foreign aid
deforestation. Finally, the financial challenges for the implementation of plays a major role in the economies
industry should develop forest- REDD+, since these subsidies are by of many developing countries, and
friendly lending practices to screen far the largest pool of public finance supports domestic fiscal policy
investment opportunities in in REDD-relevant sectors. A recent through structural adjustment loans,
developing countries. study across five REDD+ countries credit support and direct project
(Brazil, Chile, China, Indonesia and lending.24 While large portions of

REDD-alignedvsvsREDD-MISALIGNED
REDD-ALIGNED REDD-misalignedOFFICIAL
Official Development
DEVELOPMENTAid
AID
Sectors that contribute to deforestation

Sectors that promote forest and forest degradation
conservation and forest restoration
9.7
2.7
Million USD
Million USD
i
J
i i
J
i ii
J
i i
i i i i
i
i ii
i
i
iii i i i i i
ii ii i
i i
ii i
ii
i i i
i i
i ii i
Illustration: Riccardo Pravettoni

i ii i i i
ì
i
` i ì
i i`
T
i ì
T
i` i` ì i
ODA go to humanitarian causes, such Most of this REDD-relevant finance, found that, between 2008 and 2014,
as emergency response services USD 9.7 billion, has a negative impact over USD 100 billion was committed
(10%) and refugee support (7%), on forest cover through support to to sectors that drive deforestation
significant amounts of international sectors that directly or indirectly across 1,118 projects28 – as against
aid are allocated to sectors that contribute to deforestation and forest only USD 3 billion for 74 REDD-
directly or indirectly contribute to degradation, and only USD 2.7 billion aligned projects. Similarly, a global
deforestation and forest degradation. is targeted at sectors that promote study of International Finance
forest conservation and forest Corporation (IFC) projects found that
While little data exist on the role of restoration.27 Global REDD+ finance over USD 5 billion was invested
foreign aid related to forests broadly, is therefore in the red – to the tune between 2008 and 2014 in private-
on balance, ODA is more likely to of USD 7 billion – with the balance sector companies that may have
drive deforestation than prevent it.25 of finance favouring forest conversion negatively impacted deforestation,
In 2015, for example, global ODA rather than forest conservation compared to a mere USD 238 million
disbursements totalled USD 174 activities. in REDD-aligned projects.29 Finally, a
billion, of which USD 70 billion went detailed country-level study in Côte
to REDD+ countries (see figure).26 Of This global picture of REDD+ finance d’Ivoire, which analysed not only
this, some USD 12.5 billion (17%) is supported by more detailed studies foreign aid but also domestic
can be considered REDD-relevant, at the donor and country level. A 2015 budgetary expenditure and private
i.e. contributing either positively or study analysing the impact of World investment, found that REDD-
negatively to forest carbon stocks. Bank finance on forests, for example, misaligned finance outweighed

REDD-aligned finance by a factor in scale, due in part to the lack of To progress beyond the current scale
of more than five to one.30 demand for sustainably produced of voluntary sustainability standards,
commodities - in particular from both producer and consumer countries
Many of these REDD+ misaligned emerging economies. In sectors with will need to adopt stronger regulations
projects – like road building, dam well-established sustainability controlling supply and demand in
construction and transmission lines standards, such as palm oil, coffee and deforestation-risk commodities.
are essential for economic growth tea, there is a persistent oversupply in
– and, with the appropriate safeguards sustainable commodities.36 Voluntary Early examples of demand-side
and modest reforms, the impacts on certification is not a silver bullet, and regulation include the Dutch Alliance
deforestation and forest degradation other approaches are needed, including for Sustainable Palm Oil, which made
can be minimized. Forest loss occurs reductions in demand for unsustainable a commitment in 2010 to source all
as a result of these projects, however, products, and careful attention to the palm oil used in the Netherlands
because the safeguards surrounding indirect impacts of biofuel production, to sustainably by 2016.39 More recently,
these activities are not adequate or ensure that expansion of commodity the EU has committed to 100%
not well implemented. production - in general - does not sustainable sourcing and trade of palm
result in increased deforestation.37 oil across all EU companies by no later
Forest-friendly supply chains than 2020.40 Although the EU is the
The third area for scaling up REDD+ Additional challenges in scaling up world’s second largest importer of palm
finance is the development of sustainable production include the globally (after India), it represents
sustainable supply chains to ensure lack of transparency and traceability just 15% of market share (6.5 billion
that the production of food, fuel, and in soft-commodity supply chains; tonnes in 2016) and could easily be
fibre (soft commodities) and mining inadequate access to finance, absorbed in current sustainable
(hard commodities) does not drive especially for smallholder farmers; production volumes. Demand-side
deforestation. The private sector is and poor regulatory environment in approaches would therefore need to
by far the largest source of finance producer countries, including weak include, at a minimum, India and
for land-use and land-use change governance, the absence of clear China, in order to create a realistic
activities. Food and agribusiness alone land titling, and capacity constraints.38 market signal for sustainably
is a USD 5 trillion global industry that produced palm oil. As yet, however,
represents 10% of global consumer these two countries have shown
spending, 40% of employment, and To progress relatively little inclination towards
30% of greenhouse gas emissions.31
Supply chains, however, can be both beyond the sourcing commodities sustainably.
a force for good: through the use of

sustainable production practices, or
current scale To address supply-side issues, more
and more companies are going beyond
as a driver of forest loss through
unsustainable production practices in
of voluntary plantation-level certification and
adopting voluntary no-deforestation
soft- and hard-commodity supply sustainability polices to demonstrate to consumers,
chains.32 clients and investors that they are
standards, both working to reduce the risks related to
Historically, certification has been the deforestation and related problems.41
primary instrument to demonstrate producer and One benefit of companywide policies
sustainability within agricultural and
forestry supply chains.33 Voluntary consumer over certification of specific plantations
is that it covers all operations in a
certification standards aim to ensure
that companies producing forest-risk
countries will company. That solves the problem of
parallel supply chains, where a
commodities meet certain environ-
mental and social criteria; in return,
need to adopt company may sell certified commodities
to one market while simultaneously
producers receive price premiums to stronger supplying deforestation-linked products
cover the additional costs of sustain- to others.
able production. Premiums vary by regulations
commodity: standard-compliant cocoa, Ultimately, major exporting countries
for example, has premiums ranging controlling will need to put in place systems to
from 5% for UTZ certified cocoa, to
18% for organic cocoa;34 premiums supply and ensure the sustainable production of
deforestation-risk commodities. Early
for standard-compliant palm oil range
between USD10 and USD50 per
demand in examples of country- or jurisdictional-
level supply-side initiatives include
metric ton (i.e. between 1 and 5% of
the price of palm oil).35
deforestation- Brazil’s soy and beef moratoria, and
Indonesia’s palm-oil moratorium.42
risk
V
oluntary certification, despite its early Finally, recent advances in remote
successes, however, has been limited commodities sensing technologies and smart-phone

applications can radically scale up
sustainability in supply chains, through Examples sustainability – making it easy for
unsustainable producers to continue
improved transparency and traceability.
A 2013 study of Brazil’s Real Time
are emerging to access finance, despite the
responsible lending criteria of other
System for Detection of Deforestation
(DETER), for example, estimated
of investors banks.56 Unless a larger share of
FSPs implement sustainability
that satellite-based monitoring and who have criteria, the penetration of ESG and
law enforcement policies prevented sustainable lending practices will
the clearing of approximately 6 million taken steps to remain limited.
hectares of Amazon forest area from
2007 through 2011.43 Various smart- screen against Efforts to draw in more FSPs are
phone applications have also emerged
from companies and NGOs including unsustainable currently hampered by several factors:
these include a lack of data and
SNV,44 SAP45 and SHARP46 that have
the potential to bring traceability from
land-use expertise to identify sustainability
practices in the land-use sector;
the individual smallholder through to
the end consumer. In addition, globally
investments internal organizational constraints in
financial institutions (such as a
available data on deforestation and dedicated ESG department), and the
commodity supply chains, available persistent view that deforestation is
through initiatives such as Global and corporate governance (ESG) simply not materially significant, which
Forest Watch47, Google Earth Engine48 ratings. leads to short-termism in investment
and TRASE49, make it easier for policies.57 Underlying this is the
supply-chain actors and governments Very little data exist on the overall scale absence of regulation in the financial
to transition towards more sustainable of REDD-relevant SRI investment, but sector relating to ESG investments
production. examples are emerging of investors in general, and deforestation risk
who have taken steps to screen against investments in particular.58
Bringing land use into responsible unsustainable land-use investments.
investment HSBC, for example, introduced its Improving data availability so that
The final area of interventions relates first forest-sector policy covering FSPs can easily identify and screen
to the role of the financial industry in various types of deforestation-risk companies that are contributing,
scaling up sustainable finance for lending in 2001; in 2014, it issued an whether positively or negatively, to
REDD+. Financial service providers updated policy with greater emphasis deforestation is one important step in
(FSPs), including microfinance on independent certification of scaling up sustainable lending.
institutions, commercial banks, companies showing that they operate Initiatives like CDP Forests,59
investment banks and institutional legally and sustainably.52 Similarly, Forest500,60 Deforestation Free
investors, provide most capital to the Norwegian Government Pension Funds,61 the Tenure Facility62 and
companies involved in REDD-relevant Fund has assets in REDD-relevant Forest and Finance63 are helping to
production.50 While not on the frontline sectors totalling approximately USD provide baseline data that financial
of deforestation, these institutions can 17 billion. Following a landmark report institutions can use to assess internal
play a role in supporting companies by two Norwegian NGOs on the Fund and external ESG practices.
in converting tropical forests to other and deforestation,53 the governing
land uses, or restoring and protecting body divested from around 50 Further work is needed to standardize
natural habitats. companies involved in deforestation, and streamline assessment and
and included tropical deforestation in reporting of environmental impacts.
Socially responsible investment (SRI) its climate-change policy.54 For example, the green bonds market
has grown significantly in recent years, has seen a plethora of standards
expanding from USD 13.3 trillion in The diverse and globalized landscape emerge from several relatively small
2012, to USD 21.4 trillion by 2014, of FSPs presents a challenge to players, leading to the emergence of
and representing almost a third of all scaling up finance of sustainable questionable environmental integrity
professionally managed assets.51 land use, since the large number of of some green bond issuances.64 The
While SRI investment in Europe, North entry points allows companies to shop involvement of larger rating agencies
America, Australia and New Zealand around across alternatives if one FSP like Moody’s or Standard & Poors
is well established, SRI accounts for has too strict lending or investment could lend credibility to this market
less than 1% of investments in Asia. criteria. According to a recent study and create a more standardized
SRI can use a range of approaches of the palm-oil sector, only seven of approach for ‘green due diligence’.65
from negative screening (exclusion of the top 23 FSPs have specific policies To date, most efforts to scale up ESG
companies, based on certain criteria), on financing sustainable palm oil.55 In commitments in the financial sector
through to positive/ best-in-class Asia, where the majority of smaller have been voluntary, driven by either
screening, which prioritizes investment and medium companies seek finance, multilateral institutions like the UN
in sectors/companies that outperform none of the major banks providing Global Compact66 or UN Principles
their peers in environmental, social palm oil finance had a policy on for Responsible Investment (PRI),67

or through bottom-up civil society/ effects of climate change. In developing Finally, REDD+ finance should be
bank-led initiatives like the Banking countries in particular, this will mean reframed from its current narrow
Environment Initiative (BEI) and action to improve and maintain focus, to a broad toolkit of financial
Consumer Goods Forum (CGF)’s resilient forest and agricultural eco- options to support deforestation-free
‘Soft Commodities’ Compact.68 systems. To date, however, the vast development. The narrow lens of
majority of finance from all sources financial instruments and activities
Binding regulation, however, is more – public, private, domestic and inter- has resulted in an equally narrow set
likely to be effective in changing national – is flowing to sectors and of solutions, in turn creating a highly
investment practices in FSPs, activities that lead to forest loss and specialized discussion understood by
especially when accompanied by forest conversion. To achieve zero only a handful of experts. This has
detailed implementation guidance deforestation commitments as also overly polarized discussions on
and standardized disclosure formats.69 established under the New York how to scale up finance, to the
Some efforts are already underway, Declaration on Forests, the Paris detriment of achieving progress at
including initiatives to increase Climate Agreement, and the scale. What is needed now is a
disclosure of ESG risks across Consumer Goods Forum, all finance broader approach to REDD+ finance
pensions funds;70 these should be supporting unsustainable production – one that includes international aid
scaled up and coordinated to cover a should be phased out over the next and results-based finance, but also
greater number of financial institutions.71 several years. addresses the role of domestic
Ultimately, however, the financial finance, smallholders, communities,
industry will be able to go only so far The majority of financial flows will private companies and investors
in changing practices on the ground, come from the private sector, but across all sectors that directly or
and greater emphasis will be needed public finance plays a pivotal role in indirectly impact forest loss and
on supply-side regulation, including supporting more sustainable forest conservation.
increased transparency and production, and in covering the
accountability, to ensure that societal and environmental costs of Unless we can bring forest protection
commodities are produced without deforestation. Public finance also and REDD+ into the broader economy
driving deforestation or forest plays an important role in promoting and into the broader discussions on
degradation. innovation in the private sector, and climate change and development, it
promoting the research and develop- will continue to fall short of its
Conclusions ment of technologies and services objectives of halting and reversing
Halting and reversing forest loss is an that can ultimately be scaled up deforestation, maintaining biodiversity
essential part of the climate solution. without public sector support. This and providing sustainable develop-
To be effective, it will require significant ‘technology curve’ has been clearly ment opportunities for REDD+
additional finance. Under the 2016 demonstrated in the energy sector, countries.
Paris Agreement on climate change, with rapidly falling prices in renewable
all countries are now required to take energy, but has yet to be demonstrated
action to reduce their greenhouse gas in REDD-relevant sectors.
emissions and adapt to the adverse
Although tropical deforestation is in
part a financial problem, the solution
often lies in improved regulation and
Unless we enforcement. To date, most initiatives
to reduce emissions from deforestation
can bring and forest degradation – including
sustainable supply chains, and ESG
forest protection policies across investors – have been
voluntary, and have struggled to reach
into the broader the scale necessary to address forest
economy and loss. Where there have been large-

scale impacts, these have been
discussions on supported by producer and consumer
government regulations, such as the
climate change Brazilian soy and beef moratoria,
Mexico and Costa Rica’s payments
and development, for environmental services
programmes, and the 2013 EU
it will continue Timber Regulation. To make further
progress, these policies and
to fall short of its regulations will need to be adopted
objectives by all major economies.

REDD+
finance should
be reframed
from its current
narrow focus,
to a broad
toolkit of
financial
options to
support
deforestation-
free
development
Photo: Bo Mathisen

REDD+ after Paris:
To trade or not to
trade forest carbon
BÅRD LAHN, CICERO CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE RESEARCH
When the Paris Agreement was places on developing countries; and reduced deforestation was suitable
adopted in December 2015, it injected the new landscape of climate finance for carbon market finance. In order to
a new sense of direction and urgency after Paris. Taken together, these get agreement on the proposal to
into international climate politics. It also three issues indicate that REDD+ start negotiations on REDD+, the
gave efforts to reduce emissions from may be better aligned with the Paris question of long-term finance had to
deforestation in developing countries Agreement if it can be built on finance be kept open.73 The result was that,
(REDD+) a more prominent role than options outside the carbon market. from the very beginning of REDD+
ever before in international cooperation Rather than seeing carbon market negotiations in 2007 (and the sub-
on climate change. This is evident both finance as the end goal of REDD+ sequent establishment of NICFI),
in the Agreement’s new, ambitious readiness activities, initiatives such whether or not to include REDD+ in
targets that include achieving a as NICFI should be making REDD+ carbon markets was among the most
‘balance between emissions and investment decisions that strengthen contentious unresolved issues.74
removals‘ of greenhouse gases, and developing countries’ implementation
in the Agreement’s explicit encour- of Paris. While negotiations in the following
agement to implement REDD+. years made great progress in
The carbon trading debate in defining REDD+, the question of
However, the Paris Agreement does perspective long-term finance remained unre-
not offer clear answers as to how When the issue of reducing emissions solved. In 2010, the Cancun Agree-
REDD+ efforts should be financed in from deforestation was put on the ments provided the first comprehen-
the years ahead. The thorny question agenda in international climate- sive set of guidelines for REDD+,
of whether emission reductions from change negotiations in 2007, it was defining three sequential phases of
the forest sector should be traded in based on the idea of establishing a REDD+ implementation: from a
carbon markets – a question that has form of carbon trading that would ‘readiness’ phase focusing on building
also troubled the Norwegian Climate allow developing countries to finance capacity and planning policy inter-
and Forest Initiative (NICFI) since its efforts to reduce deforestation by ventions to reduce deforestation, via
inception – was once again side- trading carbon credits. The original implementation and demonstration
stepped in Paris. proposal for REDD+ was framed as activities, to a third phase of results-
an attempt to rectify the mistake made based payments for emissions
What, then, does the Agreement with the Kyoto Protocol, which had reductions. However, how the results-
mean for discussions on including failed to include reduced deforesta- based phase should be financed was
REDD+ in carbon markets? This tion as an eligible activity for carbon left open, creating uncertainty around
article highlights three issues: The trading.72 precisely what it was that developing
ambition challenge following from the countries should ‘get ready’ for
new goals of the Paris Agreement; However, views differed among the through the first phases: carbon
the new expectations the Agreement negotiating parties over whether trading or other forms of payments?

REDD+may
be better
aligned with
the Paris
Agreement if
it can be built
on finance
options
outside the
carbon
market

roughly equal to fossil-fuel emissions.
After the adoption of the Paris Achieving the Since then, however, land-use change
Agreement, answering this question emissions have remained relatively
has become even more difficult. While new and more stable, while emissions from fossil
the Agreement provides several
openings for countries to establish ambitious goals fuels have increased dramatically.
Currently around 10% of total anthro-
mechanisms for carbon trading or
link together existing ones, it is not
of the Paris pogenic greenhouse gas emissions
are from the land sector.80 While
clear how these mechanisms will
function or at what scale they will be
Agreement will halting emissions from deforestation
is a crucial element in achieving the
used. Other aspects of the Paris necessitate Paris Agreement goals, it is also
Agreement indicate that financing clear that action to achieve this is
REDD+ outside carbon markets deep and needed in addition to the virtual
would be more in line with the goals elimination of fossil-fuel-related CO2
and overall approach of the Agree- immediate emissions.
ment. In the following, three such
aspects are highlighted and discussed. emission With a limited and finite carbon budget,
Going negative: Forests and the

reductions in continued emissions from fossil fuels
beyond the next few decades will be
Paris goals
The Paris Agreement established a
all sectors possible only by relying on CO2
removals, or ‘negative emissions’,
series of new and ambitious goals for being developed in parallel-81 Several
the international community’s climate- options for achieving such negative
change efforts: The objective is to emissions exist, and – as noted –
hold global temperature rise ‘well increasing the carbon sequestration
below 2˚C’ – a strengthening of the target, global emissions will need to in forests is one such option. However,
previous temperature target – and to approach zero around the middle of over-reliance on yet-unproven
‘pursue efforts’ to limit warming even this century, and in most cases fall negative emission technologies
to 1.5˚C. Further, the Agreement significantly below zero thereafter entails significant risks. Even in the
specifies that, during the second half – meaning that CO2 will have to be forest sector, there are obvious
of this century, we need to achieve a removed from the atmosphere. societal and ecological limits to the
‘balance between emissions and amount of negative emissions that
removals’ of greenhouse gases. In This has two important implications can reasonably be expected to be
practice, this means that emissions for REDD+: Firstly, it shows that forests achieved. Such limits are often not
will need to approach zero, and that have a crucial role to play in meeting sufficiently reflected in current models.
any remaining emissions must be the goals of the Paris Agreement. For example, one model frequently
counteracted by equal amounts of Approaching zero greenhouse gas used to produce scenarios for staying
carbon sequestration in forests or emissions will be impossible unless below 2˚C warming assumes that by
other forms of ‘removal’ of carbon current emissions from deforestation the year 2100, the establishment of
from the atmosphere. and forest degradation can be brought new forest (afforestation) will make it
to a halt.78 Moreover, forests can possible to sequester as much CO2
The goal of achieving a balance provide significant contributions to as that which has been emitted
between emissions and removals the CO2 removals that will almost through deforestation over the past
reflects the new scientific knowledge certainly be needed over the course 200 years.82 To avoid over-reliance
about the ‘carbon budget’ required to of the century. Managing forests and on risky and unproven technologies,
meet temperature targets such as other lands in ways that restore negative emissions are best reserved
the 2˚C or 1.5˚C target. Temperature ecosystems and increase their for counteracting emissions from
rise is a response to cumulative capacity to store carbon represents a sectors and gases that are particularly
carbon emissions over time: thus, we proven form of carbon sequestration hard to mitigate, such as livestock
have a finite budget of ‘allowable’ that could also bring important and certain industrial processes, as
carbon emissions that will inevitably co-benefits for biodiversity and local opposed to offsetting ongoing
‘run out’ at some point.75 To have a livelihoods79. emissions from substitutable fossil
reasonable chance of keeping fuels.83
warming below 2˚C, the Intergovern- Secondly, the need to bring emissions
mental Panel on Climate Change as close to zero as possible indicates Therefore, achieving the new and
(IPCC) has estimated a remaining that there is very limited – if any more ambitious goals of the Paris
carbon budget of some 800 gigatons – scope for allowing reductions in Agreement will necessitate deep and
of CO2 – equivalent to about 20 years emissions from deforestation to offset immediate emission reductions are
of current global emissions76,77. The continued emissions from fossil fuels. needed in all sectors. The forest
scenarios assessed by the IPCC Until the middle of the 20th century, sector will provide a crucial part of
show that in order to meet the 2˚C emissions from land-use change were the effort that is required to stay

within the carbon budget. This is With the Paris Agreement, this potential for large and supposedly
reflected in the fact that Article 5 of situation has changed fundamentally. low-cost emission reductions as a
the Paris Agreement encourages The Agreement expects all countries, way of delivering on their own
countries to ‘conserve and enhance, developed and developing, to submit obligations, rather than contributing
as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs their Nationally Determined towards the commitments of other
of greenhouse gases (…) including Contributions (NDCs) every five countries through carbon trading.
forests’. Further countries are urged to years, describing their commitments
implement and support REDD+ based to actions aimed at climate-change Forests already play a major role in
on the rules and standards already mitigation and adaptation. The form the NDCs that were submitted prior
agreed through UN negotiations. If, and scale of NDCs will vary according to Paris. Analysis has shown that
however, efforts in the forest sector to countries’ capabilities and national about a quarter of countries’ NDCs
are financed through forms of carbon circumstances – with developed for 2030 will be met through action in
trading that merely move emission countries still expected to take the the forest sector.86 Further, many
reductions from one sector or country lead and developing countries in many developing countries have put
to another, they will not contribute to cases requiring financial assistance forward ‘conditional’ NDCs: targets
the overall emission reductions needed for implementation of their targets. conditional on receiving financial
to meet the 2˚C or 1.5˚C targets. This The implication of the Agreement is support from other countries. In total,
indicates that other sources of nevertheless that developing developing countries can be expected
REDD+ finance may be better suited countries will be expected to make to provide additional emissions
for achieving the ambitious goals of their own contributions to reducing reductions in the forest sector of
the Paris Agreement. emissions, taking on gradually more around 700 Mt CO2/year by 2030, on
stringent commitments over time.84 top of their unconditional pledges, if
Against the argument put forward such support is provided.87 This
above, proponents of financing For many developing countries, the represents a significant potential –
REDD+ through carbon trading point forest sector represents an important, comparable to the total annual CO2
out that making low-cost mitigation if not the most important, mitigation emissions of Germany – to bridge
options available for carbon trading potential. To the extent that REDD+ the current gap between existing
could in principle increase the total action is still seen as ‘big, cheap and ambition and the emission reductions
amount of emissions reductions that quick’ in terms of delivering emissions required to meet global temperature
countries are willing to take on. With reductions,85 the Paris obligation to targets.88
expectations of relatively cost-efficient establish NDCs means that developing
mitigation efforts in the forest sector, countries will now be looking to the In other words, finance for REDD+
linking REDD+ to the carbon market represents one opportunity for
would allow forest countries to supply increasing ambitions in current
REDD+ carbon credits to developed NDCs. However, the situation is
countries, which in turn would be different from when the idea of
able to commit to more ambitious
targets because of access to low-cost
Developing REDD+ was launched: at that time,
the focus was on how to enable
credits. On this basis, it is argued, countries can developed countries – the only
financing REDD+ through carbon countries from which quantified
trading could increase ambition be expected emissions reduction commitments
beyond what would otherwise be the were expected – to increase their
case. However, the Paris Agreement to provide ambitions by supplying low-cost
has put also this argument in a new
light – to which we now turn. additional carbon credits. After Paris, the
question is how to enable all countries
Developing countries face new

emissions to increase their ambitions over time,
and especially how to assist developing
expectations
The idea of REDD+ was introduced
reductions in countries in realizing the potential of
their ‘conditional’ pledges. Additional
at a time when emissions reduction the forest finance will be required for developing
commitments were reserved for countries to realize this potential. If,
developed ‘Annex I’ countries. sector on top however, this finance is mobilized
Developing countries were not through trading in carbon credits, the
expected to take on mitigation of their resultant emission reductions would
obligations, and REDD+ was
therefore envisaged as a way of unconditional be counted towards the NDC of the
donor (developed) country. Rather
incentivizing action in forest-rich
developing countries which were
pledges, if than spurring additional ambitions, this
would in effect merge the conditional
otherwise assumed to have no
incentives to curtail their deforestation
such support NDC of a developing country with the
unconditional NDC of a developed
emissions. is provided one. The result would be lower

overall mitigation ambition than what towards transfers of ‘mitigation In sum, this means that climate
might be possible if the full potential outcomes’ will mean that carbon finance under the Paris Agreement
of the conditional forest-related NDCs trading will become increasingly may take many different forms, and
could be achieved. decentralized and fragmented, with that – with details still to be worked out
different systems at different levels as regards carbon trading and other
Assisting developing countries in operating under different standards. forms of finance – the implications for
meeting conditional pledges is REDD+ finance are far from clear.
important not only from the perspec- However, carbon trading is not the only However, Articles 6 and 9 do indicate
tive of increasing total ambition, but avenue that the Paris Agreement has two broad approaches to climate
also from a political perspective. The to offer for channelling climate finance. finance under the Paris Agreement:
Paris Agreement signals a significant Its Article 9 establishes that developed one that is tied, in some form, to the
increase in the climate-change efforts countries ‘shall provide financial transfer of ‘mitigation outcomes’ in
expected from developing countries.89 resources to assist developing order to achieve emissions reduction
If the momentum from Paris is to be country Parties with respect to both targets in the financing country’s
sustained, and if developing countries mitigation and adaptation’. The NDC; and one that allows the pledging
are to feel comfortable with their new Agreement also specifies that the and reporting of funds additional to
obligations to the extent that they might mobilization of such finance should such targets, for a broader range of
be willing to increase their commit- ‘represent a progression beyond objectives, including mitigation
ments further over time, then it will previous efforts’ – that is, it should be outcomes, adaptation outcomes, or
be necessary to show in practice that increased – and that developed capacity building and planning
the promise of providing support for countries are required to report on processes that might lead toward
implementing their commitments is the finance being provided. As to the such outcomes.
actually followed through. sources and channels of funds,
Article 9 leaves the door wide open, As the Paris Agreement points toward
What are the implications for the noting only ‘a wide variety of sources, a more decentralized and fragmented
discussion of long-term REDD+ instruments and channels’. As with future for climate finance, we should
finance? Basically, that it should carbon trading, the result is likely to not expect a definitive answer from
focus on forms of finance that allow be increased fragmentation over time. the UN negotiations level to the
forest countries to count the mitigation question of how REDD+ fits into the
achieved through REDD+ toward their picture. The changing landscape of
own NDCs, rather than transferring climate finance allows for different
any mitigation outcomes to the donor roads to be taken by different actors.
countries through systems of carbon
trading. This brings us to the question
After Paris, For REDD+, donor countries and
forest countries alike will need to
of how different forms of climate
finance are affected by what was
the question is develop their own strategic choices
as to whether to position their efforts
agreed in Paris. how to enable under the broad umbrellas of Article
6 or Article 9, based on assessment
The changing landscape of climate all countries to of what best aligns with their
finance objectives.
In its Article 6, the Paris Agreement increase their
If the objectives of a donor country
opens up for several forms of carbon
trading, but the details of the possible ambitions centre on financing mitigation
trading systems are as yet undefined.
Through internationally transferred
over time, and outcomes that can be transferred in
order to help achieve its own NDC,
mitigation outcomes (ITMOs),
emission reductions achieved in one
especially how then moving towards some form of
carbon trading finance in the context
(host) country may be transferred to to assist of Article 6 is an obvious choice.
another (donor) country in order to Given a sufficient low-cost supply of
be counted against the donor’s NDC. developing REDD+ emissions reductions, this
This could be done through bilateral might, over time, help to persuade
agreements as well as through market countries in developed countries to adopt more
ambitious NDCs, and thus to an overall
transactions; it also provides a super-
structure for linking together existing realizing the increase in ambition. However, if the
national or regional carbon trading
systems. While the Article also
potential need to increase overall mitgation is
the starting point, a more direct route
establishes a more specific market
mechanism (the ‘Sustainable Develop-
of their would be to provide support under
Article 9 that could help developing
ment Mechanism’ modelled on the ‘conditional’ countries to achieve, or even exceed,
‘Clean Development Mechanism’ of their conditional NDCs. This approach
the Kyoto Protocol), the broad opening pledges has the political advantage of also

helping to build confidence in the
availability of support needed to get
Rather than does provide a new opportunity for
defining a niche for REDD+ finance
developing countries to make their
NDCs increasingly more ambitious.
seeing carbon in general, and NICFI’s funding in
particular.
trading as an
Towards a new role for REDD+ and Firstly, the new goals established by
NICFI? end-result of the Paris Agreement highlight both
Since it was first put on the agenda the need to bring emissions toward
in international climate change investments zero in all sectors, and the limited
negotiations, REDD+ has shifted
from an exclusive focus on carbon to in REDD+, scope for offsetting between forest
carbon and other emission sources if
a broader approach with multiple
objectives.90 With its exclusive focus
therefore, ‘negative emissions’ are ultimately to
be achieved. Secondly, the Agree-
on emissions reductions, carbon
trading is not ideally suited for
NICFI can find ment’s architecture establishes new
expectations for developing countries
achieving a broad range of a sound basis that allow REDD+ finance to be
objectives.91 Indeed, research has redefined as ‘enabling support’ that
indicated that a narrow focus on in the Paris can help to boost these countries’
economic incentives in general is un- own ambitions over time.
likely to lead to reduced deforestation Agreement for
in developing countries, especially
countries with weak institutional more clearly Incidentally, this is precisely the type
of support that experience from
capacity.92
defining its role NICFI funding has shown to hold the
greatest potential: support that can
Lessons learnt from implementation
of REDD+ on the ground show that
as a provider of build political momentum for and
national ownership to necessary
moving towards a purely carbon- climate finance policy reform work in developing
focused pay-for-performance phase countries – which in turn may enable
has been a slow and difficult process. aimed at a transformation of forest manage-
The focus on this financial model as ment and reduced emissions from
the end-result of REDD+ investments strengthening deforestation.
has sometimes meant paying less
attention to the intrinsic value of developing Rather than seeing carbon trading
REDD+ funding and to the ‘no-regrets’
results that can be achieved along
countries’ own as an end-result of investments in
REDD+, therefore, NICFI can find a
the way.93 It has nevertheless been
deemed necessary to move towards
ambitions sound basis in the Paris Agreement
for more clearly defining its role as a
such a model, partly because carbon provider of climate finance aimed at
trading has been the preferred long- strengthening developing countries’
term financing option of many actors, need to be tied to emissions own ambitions toward what will be
and partly because a strict focus on reductions as an end-result, but necessary to stay within a limited
results-based finance of emissions can be designed so as to maximize carbon budget.
reductions has been seen as the only multiple objectives beyond emissions
way to achieve greater mitigation reductions. Linking REDD+ finance
action in developing countries. to Article 9, rather than to carbon
trading, is clearly the most promising
With the Paris Agreement, this approach in this regard.
situation has changed. The Agree-
ment provides a framework that Since its inception, Norway’s Inter-
commits developing countries to national Climate and Forest Initiative
deliver emissions reductions under (NICFI) has been troubled by a lack
their own responsibility. This makes it of clarity with regard to long-term
possible to re-envisage REDD+ financing for REDD+. Even with the
finance as a way of enabling entry into force of the Paris Agree-
developing countries to develop their ment, such clarity cannot be expected
own ambitions, by achieving their to emerge soon. A clearer sense of
conditional NDCs and then going the role that NICFI’s funding should
beyond them in subsequent NDC play in the overall climate regime can
cycles. Seeing REDD+ finance as therefore only come from NICFI itself.
enabling support also means that the And while the Paris Agreement does
funding itself does not necessarily not provide any definitive answers, it

Forest restoration
Reviving natural forests can stem warming
and help rural communities
FRED PEARCE, SCIENCE JOURNALIST
Deforestation has not ended. But it provide the ‘negative emissions’ of change by mid-century. To cap
has slowed. The UN estimates global CO2 that climate scientists argue may warming at around 2°C, and achieve
forest loss since 2010 at around 65 be crucial to keeping global warming the Agreement’s aspirational 1.5°C
000 km2 a year. That still means an to the Paris Climate Agreement target target, will require the deliberate and
area the size of Norway is lost every of 1.5°C. organized removal of CO2 from the
five years, but it is only 60% of the atmosphere.
rate in the previous two decades. And It would be good for people, too.
in some parts of the world, people are Restored natural forests would provide The most feasible options for
actively bringing back natural forests. myriad benefits for humans within and achieving those negative emissions
They are doing this as much for their beyond their borders. Besides forest will involve harnessing photosynthesis
own good as for the good of nature. products, such as timber, fruits and in plants to convert atmospheric CO2
With the right assistance, such forest medicinal plants, those benefits into living tissue. In practice, that
restoration could become a global include ‘ecosystem services’ such as usually means trees, because of their
movement. cleaning air and water, controlling high carbon density. So we need to
floods and soil erosion, protecting bring back forests – not just halting
The signs of a global shift from rivers and their fisheries and catch- deforestation but by embarking on
deforestation to reforestation are ments, and recycling rainfall by planetary reforestation.
increasing. In 2011, governments and evaporation to maintain rainfall
agribusiness corporations signed the downwind. Some climate policymakers have
New York Declaration, pledging zero proposed monoculture plantations as
deforestation by 2030. In Bonn in 2011, Forest losses have impoverished purpose-made carbon ‘sinks’. But the
most governments agreed to restore many; their return would benefit many planting or regeneration of natural
1.5 million km2 of forests by 2020, more. Restoration should be seen as forests would be a much better option,
and 3.5 million km2 by 2030. That a social movement as much as an for four reasons. First because they
implies a rate of recovery more than ecological objective or climate ‘fix’. nurture biodiversity. Second because
twice the current rate of forest loss. Governments can catalyse this they generally store more carbon,
process, but it will be sustained by the particularly in their soils.94 Third,
Forest restoration would be good for support, engagement and often control because that storage would be more
nature. The world’s forests are home of forest communities themselves. secure in biologically diverse forests,
to more than half the planet’s terrestrial which are less vulnerable to fires,
species. Restoration would provide Negative emissions pests and drought.95 And fourth,
refuges for many currently threatened The drive for negative CO2 emissions because they provide multiple
species. is likely to rise higher on the political benefits for forest communities who
agenda. According to the UN’s Inter- can harvest them for food and for
Forest restoration would be good for governmental Panel on Climate marketable forest products. Restored
climate – locally, because forests have Change (IPCC), the promise in the natural forests would be part of local
a moderating influence on local Paris Agreement means eliminating communities, rather than fenced-off
climates; and globally, by storing emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel enclaves.
carbon. Forest restoration could burning, deforestation and land-use

So we need
to bring back
forests – not
just halting
deforestation
but by
embarking
on planetary
reforestation

Land rights
The support of local communities will There is Restoring degraded forests
Future forest restoration strategies
be vital to successful and sustainable
reforestation. Around two-thirds of
growing are likely to give priority to bringing
back forests degraded by land use in
current and former forest lands are
claimed under customary or traditional
evidence that the recent past, but not completely
lost. Though often dismissed as
land ownership. So, to succeed, community ‘wasteland’ ripe for development,
restored forests will need to work with degraded forests can be a valuable
and complement local land needs and indigenous resource in their own right, retaining
and rights. much of their biodiversity and rapidly
management capturing carbon from the atmosphere
This is not a trade-off, but a win-win
solution. There is growing evidence of forests is as they regrow.100 Estimates vary, but
the World Resources Institute puts
that community and indigenous
management of forests is better for
better for the the area of degraded forest globally
at around 20 million km2.101
the forests, their biodiversity and
their carbon storage than much state
forests, their One approach with considerable
or commercial management.96 biodiversity potential for upscaling and replication
is exemplified by the Xingu Seed
In summary, restoring forests can be and their Network, aimed at reinstating forests
pro-poor and a force for democracy in the cerrado grasslands of Mato
and a fairer future; it can foster the carbon storage Grosso in the far south of Brazil.
sustainable uses of forests; and it
can reinforce the existing roles of than much Over the past quarter-century, cattle
ranchers and soya farmers in the
forests as anchors of ecosystems
and the services they bring.
state or valley of the River Xingu have caused
some of the fastest rates of deforest-
The track record of forest

commercial ation in the world. With the loss of
trees, water supplies have dried up
restoration management and fish have disappeared, also in
In recent decades, most deforestation the Xingu Indigenous Park, where
has been in the tropics. But a few the river begins and where more than
tropical countries have bucked the a dozen indigenous groups live.
trend by purposely restoring their
forests. Costa Rica saw its forest reforestation projects with specific Now, local NGOs have initiated a plan
cover decline from 75% in 1940 to targets for carbon sequestration. to bring back the forests. They have
20% by the late 1980s, mostly through NICFI already supports Ethiopia, which commissioned indigenous women to
clearing for cattle ranches. But since has committed to restoring millions of collect seeds from forests in the park,
the government began paying land- hectares of degraded forest lands, and have sold the seeds to land-
users to nurture new forests, partly to building on work in Tigre, a province owners in deforested areas. Land-
stimulate eco-tourism, the forests have that bore the brunt of famines in the owners have been reinstating forest
recovered to more than 50% cover.97 1970s and 1980s. cover – partly to comply with Brazil’s
Forest Code, but also to help protect
The governments of some other The success of state planting projects the water supplies on which they
countries have big plans for organized is mixed. But many gains have been depend.
restoration. In 2016, those south of made outside the purview of govern-
the Sahara desert initiated the Great ment. Tropical forests have often The project scatters seeds using
Green Wall, a barricade of trees 15 shown their potential for rapid recovery machinery commonly employed by
kilometres wide and 8000 kilometres by invading abandoned farmland. This farmers for crops. This is much
long that is backed by the Africa natural regeneration has happened cheaper than planting saplings; it
Union’s NEPAD. They want the ‘wall’ in a large boundary zone between mimics natural regeneration, and has
to contain more than a billion trees, forest and savannah in Cameroon resulted in far greater tree densities.102
and believe that it will hold back the over the past 20 years, for instance.98
advancing desert. This project is a rare instance of
This is a reminder that restoration of ranchers, indigenous people and
Some governments keen on reforest- forests is not new. Many parts of the poor rural communities working
ation want aid assistance from forest world have been deforested repeatedly together in a common cause to
initiatives in developed countries, through history, recovering each time protect and enhance a common
such as Norway’s International Climate either as a result of natural regrowth good. The seed network now has
and Forest Initiative. NICFI’s pay-for- or deliberate planting. If we vacated more than 400 collectors, selling
performance approach and focus of the land, many of the world’s former seeds for 200 different tree species.103
the national level lends itself to national forests would return in time.99 The aim is to restore up to 3000 km2

of forests along the river.104 The idea They decided instead to nurture the every year for some 60 years, while
has spread from Mato Grosso into trees by cultivating stems growing the forests grew.109 That would be a
neighbouring Para state, and has from stumps. total of around 180 billion tonnes of
inspired other initiatives such as the carbon added to the global forest
Amazon Portal Seeds Network. The result was bigger harvests, as carbon store – or 666 billion tonnes
the trees fixed nitrogen, stabilized of CO2 removed from the atmosphere,
Agroforestry as a restoration soils and dropped leaves that equivalent to 18 years of current
strategy maintained soil moisture. Before fossil-fuel emissions.110
Many trees do not grow in forests, long, the trees were providing
and some never have. They are parts firewood, animal fodder and other The Stockholm Environment Institute
of other ecosystems, such as grass- products, as well as shading crops has reached broadly similar conclu-
lands and wetlands, or in modern and villages from wind and sun.106 sions: it found that forest restoration
times of farming landscapes – in in tropical areas alone could absorb
woodlands and fields, around villages The initiative spread. The Niger 350-480 billion tonnes of CO2.111
and as boundary markers and shelter government helped by rescinded old
breaks. But they are often ignored. A laws that said all trees were govern- Forest restoration alone will not save
recent study mapped 4.7 million km2 ment property and stopped fining the climate. Negative emissions in
of woodlands in agricultural land- farmers for cutting branches.107 forests are a one-off gain. After a few
scapes. That is an area two-thirds the Today forested fields extend across decades, trees stop growing. Then
size of Australia, but the woodlands 50 000 km2 of Niger, and beyond. The they do not absorb more CO2.
had never been recorded because of trees capture from the atmosphere Emissions from industrial and most
technical failings in remote sensing an estimated 30 million tonnes of agricultural activities must be
systems.105 carbon annually.108 eliminated as swiftly as possible.
That said, the climate gains from
One example from the African Sahel Such findings suggest that agroforestry reforestation and forest restoration
indicates that the potential to grow may be as important as bespoke would be real – and could head off
this on-farm tree cover is immense. forests in achieving negative the worst of climate change while
Farmers there have nurtured the emissions. They also suggest that delivering many other social and
natural regeneration of some 200 forest restoration on a large scale is ecological benefits.
million trees since the 1980s – to possible, and that active support and
enhance the yields of their crops. ownership by local communities can
This initiative began in Niger, after often be the key.
farmers in one village in the Maradi
region abandoned long-standing Conclusions
advice from government agricultural The boundary between forest and
experts to uproot trees on their fields. agricultural landscapes is often fuzzy.
In the past, such transitional zones
usually occurred where forests were
in retreat as farmers invaded. In future,
they will hopefully occur where forests
The climate are advancing, or where farmers are
integrating trees and forestry into their
gains from land use in new ways.
reforestation Farmers are often seen as the

and forest enemies of forests. However, changing
their relationship with forests may
restoration provide the fastest and easiest way
to increase global tree cover and
would be capture carbon on the land. That
restoration could be a game-changer
real while for efforts to use the land as part of
the battle against climate change.
delivering
many other Richard Houghton of the Woods Hole
Research Center estimates that if 5
social and million km2 of forests could be
restored, allowing a 14% increase in
ecological global forest cover, those forests,
and a halt in deforestation, could
benefits capture up to 3 billion tonnes of carbon

A most unlikely hope
How the companies that destroyed the world’s
forests can save them
GLENN HUROWITZ, CEO OF MIGHTY
Deep in the forest of the Bolivian 100 km2 in extent. The commercial let big companies like Cargill
Amazon, fire burns through thousands farmers are proud of their technology, expropriate their natural resources
of acres of ancient Amazon rainforest. and this part of the process of growing for the benefit of their foreign owners.
It’s a crude way to destroy an eco- soy makes them feel like they’re on In Ivory Coast, for example, Mighty
system. The scene offers no hint of the cutting edge of society. Cargill, Earth has recently conducted an
all the technology that’s supposed to Bunge, and their ilk boast about investigation that showed how the
be transforming our world according efficiency – but all ignore the barbarity country let cocoa farmers who supply
to our Twitter feeds and thought at the root of the entire process. cocoa to big chocolate companies
leaders on Wall Street and Silicon like Cadbury, Nestle, and Mars
Valley. But make no mistake: this The deforestation that paved the way destroy national parks and protected
simple act of destruction, prehistoric for these vast soy operations is pure forest areas.
in its origins though modern in its barbarity. Even on its own terms –
scale, is shaping our world as much Cargill claims the purpose of their It’s not like developed countries are
or more than every iPhone, missile, operations is to ‘nourish a growing immune. Both Europe and the United
or the Internet of Things. planet’ – it’s unnecessary. There are States have extremely unwise biofuel
1.25 million km2 of previously mandates propped up segments of
This is the frontier where ‘modern’ deforested and degraded lands across their domestic agribusiness industry
agriculture meets nature, and it’s not the tropics where agriculture can be that require a certain percentage of
a pretty sight. This is where millions expanded without sacrificing forests. the gasoline burned in automobile
of years of accumulated carbon get fuel tanks to come from biofuels –
turned into the poison that is making Nonetheless, Cargill, Bunge, and palm oil, soy biodiesel, and corn
our atmosphere hot, and where other unscrupulous companies have ethanol. Forests were already being
sloths and jaguars are pushed into continued to purchase soy and other hammered just by ordinary market
ever-smaller corners of the once vast commodities that have their origins in demand for cattle and soy; these
rainforest. vast fires like those in Bolivia, which kinds of mandates are making them
are common in Brazil, Argentina, worse – which is part of the reason
Of course, once the forest is cleared Paraguay – as well as in Southeast why viable efforts are underway on
and the indigenous people pushed off, Asia’s Paradise Forests, which are both continents to end the obscene
the modernity of this scene becomes being cleared for palm oil. practice of burning food in fuel tanks.
more apparent. Commercial farming
companies financed by huge global Government: Responsible but In the age of Trump, lamenting the
agricultural behemoths like the absent lassitude of governments may be
American soy traders Cargill and Why is this deforestation still happening satisfying, but it does little to solve
Bunge plant the land with high-tech when agriculture can be expanded our planet’s foremost existential crisis.
soy once it’s cleared; in many cases, without the horrible effects? Part of It is for this reason that the hopes of
they use tractors loaded with hundreds the blame lies with governments. Too billions of people now depend on the
of thousands of dollars of computing many rainforest nation governments very companies most responsible for
equipment to monitor every square – and the societies they represent environmental destruction. I suppose
meter of a soy fields that could be – continue to tolerate corruption, and we’ve come to a pretty sorry pass if

The hopes
of billions of
people now
depend
on the very
companies
most
responsible
for
Photo: Kyrre Lien
environmental
destruction
we’re depending in significant
measure on these corporations to get
soy
Despite the those who they finance and from
whom they purchase soy and other
us out of this mess. But it’s the pass
we’re at, and there’s actually reason
plunge in commodities. The egregiousness of
their actions is especially stark when
to hope that the same companies
that got us into this mess can get
deforestation, one considers that their competitors
ADM and Louis Dreyfus have
us out. Brazilian expressed very strong support for
duplicating the success.
The proven potential of the private agriculture
sector Cargill and Bunge are getting away
I feel this confidence because they’ve didn’t stop with their continued deforestation
done it before. The Brazilian Amazon
used to be one of the big new frontiers growing because their customers are still
willing to use their soy as the raw
for soy plantations after scientists material that feeds the chicken, pork,
developed new varieties that could and beef they serve, even though they
for the first time be grown in the know it has involved deforestation.
tropics. By 2004, Brazil was clearing
almost 30,000 km2 of forest every McDonald’s, Burger King, the super-
year – equivalent to wiping a pristine moratorium went into force. Brazilian market giants Ahold Delhaize, Tesco
forest the size of Belgium of all its soy farmers have been able to and Marks & Spencer, and many
native vegetation. In response, expand their planted area in the others have all said they support an
environmental campaigns around the Amazon by 25 000 km2 – without extension of the success of the
world demanded that companies like deforestation. Brazilian soy moratorium to other
McDonald’s and Tesco stop sourcing ecosystems, but their stated support
beef and other meat raised on soy Spreading success hasn’t translated into action. More
from the Amazon. These brands This is the success we must emulate, than a year ago, these companies
turned to their soy suppliers, Cargill, but too many of the very companies saw videos, photos, and satellite
Bunge, ADM, and Louis Dreyfus and that participated in that success have evidence showing that Cargill and
told them they couldn’t sell their resisted its duplication. Just over the Bunge have for years been driving
deforestation-based soy anymore. border from Cargill and Bunge’s great deforestation in South America for
success in the Brazilian Amazon, soy at a mass level. Ten years ago,
Although those companies had long forests continue to burn in the Bolivian presented with similar evidence,
made excuses for environmental Amazon – an ecosystem no different these companies forced Cargill and
problems, once they faced real from the one they’re protecting in Bunge and other soy companies to
market pressure, they acted quickly, Brazil. Why the Brazilian Amazon is act and create the enormous success
and announced a strict moratorium worthy of protection when the Bolivian of the Brazilian Soy Moratorium.
on deforestation for soy. Within three Amazon is not is an indictment of the
years, deforestation for soy in the morality and energy of the corporations But the leadership of companies like
Brazilian Amazon had plummeted to causing this deforestation. In Brazil’s McDonald’s, Marks & Spencer, and
zero. A few years later, major leather vast biodiverse forest savannah, it’s Ahold Delhaize is not what it once
and beef customers in Brazil and the same story: Cargill and Bunge was. Marks & Spencer and Ahold
around the world put similar pressure are directly financing and buying soy Delhaize have even had the gall to
on the cattle industry, and won. from farms that are bulldozing and say that while they support an
Deforestation to make room for cattle burning this unique place that extension of the Brazilian Soy
ranches also rapidly declined, but provides habitat for Giant Anteater, Moratorium ‘in principle’, they are
wasn’t eliminated. To be sure, the endangered Maned Wolf, and the unwilling to actually do anything
government measures like the huge hyacinth macaw. Indeed, Rain- about it until the traders and soy
creation of new national parks and forest Foundation Norway and Mighty growers – in other words, the
indigenous reserves helped, but the Earth conducted an investigation into deforesters themselves – call for it
majority of progress seems to have deforestation in these two ecosystems themselves. In other words, they
been delivered by the private sector. that was covered in major media won’t ask deforesters to stop
A 2015 study in the journal Science around the globe; a few months later, deforestation unless the deforesters
found that compliance with the we again investigated the same want to do it themselves. And
voluntary private sector soy mora- locations we had gone to the first McDonald’s, Cargill’s largest customer,
torium was five times greater than time, and found that farms linked to has continued to purchase Chicken
with the Brazilian Forest Code. Cargill and Bunge had cleared an McNuggets and other products from
area the size of 10,000 football fields Cargill despite the company’s refusal
Remarkably, despite the plunge in just since our first investigation! to meaningfully address its enormous
deforestation, Brazilian agriculture contribution to deforestation. That
didn’t stop growing: soy and cattle Of course, Cargill and Bunge bear gives the lie to McDonald’s and other
production have doubled since the direct responsibility for the actions of companies’ stated commitments.

In particular, Cargill, McDonald’s, and immediately that they wouldn’t buy After decades of mass-scale
dozens of the world’s other leading from these rogue actors. But it deforestation, the Southeast
food and agriculture companies all shouldn’t have required activist Asian paper giants Asia Pulp and
committed several years ago to NGOs like ours to come along and Paper and APRIL adopted forest
eliminate deforestation from their tell these giant companies about conservation policies which at least
supply chains by 2020. Unfortunately, obvious deforestation within their partly have changed their practice.
these companies aren’t taking the own supply chains. With their USD They have also gone one step further,
deadline seriously. If they were, they 50 billion in annual revenues, the by committing to the restoration of
wouldn’t be continuing to buy raw leaders of the palm-oil industry previously destroyed forests and
materials from companies like Cargill should have the collective wherewith- carbon-rich peatlands.
and Bunge that have continued to al to monitor deforestation across
finance deforestation on a vast scale. Southeast Asia and automatically cut One example of hope for rapid
Because in order to hit that deadline, off ties with any company that fails to progress is the chocolate industry.
companies will need to set up comply with their own policies In some ways, the big chocolate
mechanisms like the expansion of immediately – before deforestation players have acted even worse than
the Soy Moratorium in Latin America, gets to even 1 km2, let alone 500 km2. those in other industries. These
and press their palm-oil, paper, and companies have been knowingly
beef suppliers to take action in other It’s essentially the same story in the sourcing cocoa from within national
areas. Unless they do, 2020 will come other industries driving deforestation. parks and other protected areas in
and go with massive private sector The opportunity to eliminate Ivory Coast and Ghana’s once lush
driven deforestation still underway. deforestation rapidly exists, but too rainforest, for decades. In Ivory
Pressing companies to meet the many companies have failed to treat Coast, the country is now only 4%
2020 deadline is one of the most the issue with the urgency required. densely forested, and cocoa has
powerful levers that consumers, In the rubber industry, only Michelin almost entirely taken over several of
investors, governments and activists has adopted a strict forest conserva- the country’s protected areas. In
must persuade companies to act tion and human rights policy. Ghana, the situation is not much
with urgency. Bridgestone, Continental, and better.
Goodyear have continued to deal
Industry-wide change with deforestation by covering their But in response to a call from rain-
The problems of insufficient commit- eyes and failing to ask questions. forest champion Prince Charles and
ment are not crop-specific. All come Indeed, the rubber industry association the Dutch sustainability organization
back to the same companies that buy charged with dealing with sustainability IDH, the chocolate industry is
palm oil, soy, beef, paper, cocoa, and requires its supplies only to comply participating in a process to identify
rubber – the top commodities driving with the laws in the countries in collective actions they can take to
deforestation. which they operate, which in many end deforestation and human rights
cases means no sustainability criteria abuse once and for all. They seem not
The palm-oil industry has in many whatsoever. to be fiddling around with the illusory
ways made extraordinary progress; notion that individual companies can
the largest traders have all adopted change much on their own, or that they
strict forest and human rights can just slough off their obligations to
policies, and have agreed to support
conservation of all high carbon stock
These ensure a sustainable future for the
countries in which they operate on
landscapes according to the same
criteria (even Cargill has supported
companies know governments. The proof will be in the
(chocolate) pudding – but the process
this action). But there are limits to
what companies can do individually
that it’s kind of as it currently stands is a model for
how industries should address urgent
through corporate sustainability hard to enjoy a forest issues.
policies. Supplies to the leaders of
the palm-oil industry – and through Big Mac if you’re An honest and liberating approach
them, the world’s biggest consumer At the end of the day, even the worst
companies – have continued with worrying that deforesters can be persuaded to stop
deforestation. In Papua, Indonesia’s
largest intact rainforest frontier and
McDonald’s and act effectively – if they hear
enough from their customers and
home to extraordinary wildlife like
tree kangaroos and birds of paradise,
beef was raised investors. These companies know that
it’s kind of hard to enjoy a Big Mac if
Korean conglomerates like Korindo
and Posco Daewoo have destroyed
through the you’re worrying that McDonald’s beef
was raised through the destruction of
500 km2 of rainforest. When presented destruction of an an ancient forest; or to luxuriate
with the evidence, all the big palm-oil under a hot shower if you’re worried
companies announced almost ancient forest that your soap was made with palm

Decent
citizens
have more
opportunities
to have their
voices heard
through the
companies
from which
they purchase
goods than
from the
governments
they have
elected to
act in their
interest
oil produced by driving orangutans to

the brink of extinction.
entire palm-oil industry that investors
were no longer going to ask them Investors, just
That’s why increasing activism is the
politely to stop destroying the
rainforest: there would be conse-
like consumers,
single most important thing needed.
That means speaking up with the
quences if they didn’t heed the calls
for action. As a result, palm-oil
need to use
companies from which you buy your companies started taking the urgings their clout to
products, it means protesting outside of other institutional investors far
supermarkets, and it means posting more seriously. Investors, just like aggressively
messages in a targeted way on consumers, need to use their clout to
social media. Investors have an at aggressively and clearly call for and clearly
least equal opportunity to drive
change. The Norwegian Government
specific change, through engagement
and shareholder resolutions. But they call forspecific
Pension Fund’s divestment from 23
palm oil companies in 2013 told the
must be willing to go farther. The
reality is that many irresponsible
change

Illustration: xxxxxxxxxx
companies engaged in deforestation willing to support the kind of hard- upside-down world, but it’s the world
don’t actually think investors will pull hitting activism that the private sector we live in. That knowledge, while
their money out because of sustaina- responds to. More is needed. upsetting, can also prove liberating
bility concerns. When companies fail – and it could pave the way for
to respond, divestment can be the The world is in a race against time agriculture to expand, without
only option: it can make companies – and our governments are either not sacrificing the rainforests our planet
realize that these concerns have an acting, or are moving in the wrong needs to survive.
immediate financial impact. direction. Paradoxically, due to
political factors, even in nominally
These are simple tactics, but they democratic societies, decent citizens
work. Unfortunately, there has been have more opportunities to have their
too little of this. In Latin America, the voices heard through the companies
Rainforest Foundation Norway and from which they purchase goods
the Norwegian government are the than from the governments they have
only major funders who have been elected to act in their interest – an

Protecting forests
through logging?
SOLVEIG FIRING LUNDE, RAINFOREST FOUNDATION NORWAY
Should industrial logging in intact is responsible for more than half of Amazon found that 16% of selective-
forests receive REDD+ funding? The tropical forest degradation (not ly logged forests were clear-cut within
question has troubled the debate on counting illegal logging). The same one year and that 32% were cleared
REDD+ since the beginning. The study concluded that, in 74 tropical within four years.115 Logging serves
Congo Basin is a current hotspot for countries, the amount of carbon to spearhead intrusion into, and
this continuous debate, with the World released because of forest degradation destruction of, extremely valuable
Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership represented one third of the emissions rainforest.
Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund and the from deforestation – exceeding
Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) previous estimates. A study from However, these indirect impacts take
considering support to a proposal Woods Hole Research Center, time to become apparent. Important
that would increase logging in the published in Science in September forest ecosystem processes, such as
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 2017, used new methods to measure seed dispersal and pollination, operate
and track changes in forest carbon, over very long timeframes, so the full
Recent research highlighted in this and found that degradation or dis- impact of forest operations may
article has shown that logging causes turbance accounted for almost 70% become known only decades later. In
larger problems than previously of the carbon loss in tropical forests. addition, damage to root structures
considered and that emissions from mighty lead to erosion; the removal
forest degradation have been largely How can it be that such forest of canopy cover might lead to forest-
underestimated. This is especially degradation is going under the radar? floor desiccation and increased
true for the reduction of intact forests. REDD+ has focused primarily on susceptibility to fire; and the introduc-
reducing, avoiding and therefore also tion of invasive species may negatively
Degradation under the radar measuring deforestation – not degra- impact local species. Depending on
When talking about the effects of dation, which is more difficult to how soon after logging the observa-
logging it is necessary to look into monitor. Only a few countries have tions are made, all these impacts
the causes and effects of forest included forest degradation in their may or may not be recorded.
degradation. Over 4 million km2 of forest reference levels.114 With new
tropical forest, or 17% of all tropical research, improved instruments and The devil in the definitions
forest, are currently designated as better methods for monitoring and Despite the negative consequences,
logging concessions.112 Most tropical measuring degradation, this important logging is still portrayed as a solution
forest logging is done ‘selectively’: emission source needs to be included to save tropical forests through the
only a small proportion of trees are in relevant inventories, and in national concept of ‘Sustainable Forest
harvested for a given hectare of forest, REDD+ targets. Management’ (SFM). The definition
due mainly to the low density of of REDD+, according to the United
commercially viable species. Further, logging often has important Nations Framework Convention on
indirect consequences. It requires Climate Change (UNFCCC), includes
Such selective logging leads to severe the construction of roads, which in ‘Sustainable management of
impacts on the ecosystem. According turn opens previously inaccessible forests’.116 However, there is no
to a 2017 analysis from Winrock areas for hunting, illegal logging and single, accepted definition of SFM.
International,113 commercial logging agriculture. A study of the Brazilian Opinion differs on fundamentals

17% of
all tropical
forest, are
currently
designated
Photo: Regnskogfondet
as logging
concessions
All industrial
logging in
intact or
primary forests
must stop
Photo: Bo Mathisen

The full Sustainable logging in primary
forests is unrealistic
degradation and logging, we strongly
recommend that Norway and other
impact of Rainforest Foundation Norway holds
that all industrial logging in intact or
REDD+ donors refrain from supporting
industrial logging of intact or primary
forest primary forests must stop, as it always
leads to some form of degradation.
forests. Forest degradation should
also be included in emissions
operations However, forest management in reference-levels and targets from
secondary and already degraded which donors calculates support, to
may become forests may be beneficial, if it is capture the emissions from selective
conducted properly and in combination logging. If not, Norway risks paying
known only with restoration efforts. That could also countries for reduced emissions from
decades ease the pressure on intact forests. deforestation, while emissions from
forest degradation due to logging
later Sustainability of forest management
must take into consideration the
continue.
long-term fate of the forest following

logging and the vulnerability created
by logging infrastructure. While the
impact of logging can be reduced by
decreasing its intensity and frequency,
question like what constitutes a ‘forest’, the most efficient way of avoiding the
what values are to be ‘sustained’, deforestation that often follows would
and over what timespan. be to control access to the roads
leading into the area.117 Strict
‘Reduced Impact Logging’ (RIL) governance in high forest-cover
generally refers to practices countries has been shown to
designed to minimize the amount moderate these pressures and
of incidental damage done to the reduce deforestation rates.118
remaining forest during the harvest
of targeted trees. However, as with Donors should not fund logging
‘Sustainable Forest Management’, Every country has the right to control
there is no one definition of what its natural resources, and it is therefore
qualifies as ‘Reduced Impact up to each country how it manages
Logging’, which in turn makes it its forests. Quite another question is
difficult to evaluate the impact how countries like Norway, and other
consistently. REDD+ donors, decide to use funds
allocated to combat deforestation,
Most arguments in favour of RIL do forest degradation and climate change.
not claim that it has no impact, but
rather that it is preferable to clear- Until now, most tropical forest
cutting the forests and immediate countries have followed a develop-
land-use change for agricultural or ment model based on rapid and
other purposes. This argument is unsustainable extraction of natural
also often extended to protected resources, without regard to the
areas and certified concessions: extensive and long-term adverse
it is claimed that since formally effects of such an approach. The
protected areas face illegal logging Norwegian Climate and Forest
and encroachment due to poor Initiative (NICFI) has been important
monitoring and enforcement on the because it has offered rainforest
ground, active management and countries an alternative, by providing
logging in a concession, if properly financial support for the elaboration
conducted, can result in comparatively and implementation of a more
better outcomes. But this approach sustainable development path, based
fails to consider that once these on keeping the forest standing. This
areas have been logged, access may should be a guiding principle also for
no longer be controlled. It also leaves decisions regarding logging, instead
to the logging companies substantial of relying on minor improvements in
power and responsibility over what is business-as-usual practices.
an issue of general, public concern,
often at the expense of local peoples’ In view of the new scientific knowledge
rights. on the negative effects of forest

Driving deforestation
How an attempt to decarbonize transport is
causing greenhouse gas emissions
DR CHRIS MALINS, CERULOGY
Over the last two decades, biofuels Finally, biofuel policy was all about problem is that land has very
consumption has come to be seen increasing the consumption of considerable environmental value,
by many as a central solution for renewable energy at the expense of providing carbon storage and
the decarbonization of transport. fossil fuels. With greenhouse gas ecosystem services. Appropriating
Unfortunately, when the biofuel is emissions from Europe’s vehicles the services from a given parcel of
made from palm oil, the attempted rising, biofuels could be presented as land for use in biofuel production
cure accelerates the disease, by an environmental policy designed to means that those services may not
increasing rainforest deforestation reduce emissions from transportation be available to other parts of the
and driving land-use change related and to mitigate climate change. Best economy, or (where land is brought
greenhouse gas emissions. How did of all for policymakers, unlike some into agricultural use) to nature.
we end up at this, and what does the environmental strategies promoted
future hold? by environmentalists (more bicycling, The founding narrative of the biofuel
moving from cars to public transport, industry as a green industry holds that
The rise of biofuel policy etc.), using biofuels would not require preventing the use of fossil fuels is
Today’s growing market for biofuels behavioural change on the part of obviously the most important thing that
was born out of the politics of the Europe’s drivers. Consumers could we can do to reduce anthropogenic
late 1990s and early 2000s, in the fill up their cars as they always did, climate forcing. In the case of
context of concerns about agricultural but with the reassuring knowledge that agriculture and land use, however,
‘overproduction’ and reform of the a growing fraction of the petrol or diesel protecting existing carbon stocks
EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. they bought would be ‘renewable’. may be even more important than
Developing a domestic biofuel industry that. This problem of carbon loss on
seemed to tick a whole list of boxes With the political backing of a wide land-use change was recognized
for European policymakers. Firstly, coalition of interests, although never when the EU’s Biofuel Directive was
biofuel mandates could create new entirely unchallenged, the use of wrapped into the Renewable Energy
opportunities for rural development, biofuels in Europe expanded from Directive in 2009, with a requirement
leading to support of much of the 2003 to 2009 under the Biofuel for biofuel producers to identify
influential farm lobby. Secondly, Directive,119 and since then has whether the land on which biofuel
biofuels produced within the EU could continued to grow with the support of feedstock was grown had been
improve energy security by reducing the Renewable Energy Directive.120 converted to agricultural use at any
the need for oil imports from countries Why, then, has a policy that seemed time after January 2008.
that might be unstable or that might to offer a win-win-win-win become
not be politically aligned with Europe’s one of the most controversial in the There is, however, a fairly obvious
interests, and therefore gained support European climate portfolio? loophole in this criterion. While it
from the security lobby. Thirdly, stops the use in Europe of feedstock
developing a new biofuel industry in Buy land, they’re not making it from a hectare of land that was
Europe would result in new jobs, so it any more recently deforested, it allows suppliers
was supported by unions and The missing piece of the environ- to cherry-pick feedstock from older
industrial interests. mental puzzle presented by biofuel farms and plantations for supply to
production is the value of land. The Europe, while feedstock from recently

Global
demand for
palm oil from
biofuel
policies could
be 67 million
tonnes by
2030. That
is a six-fold
increase from
2015, and is
equal to
today’s total
production of
palm oil
Effect of biofuel policy on forest and peatland in Indonesia and Malaysia
Total forest loss

since 1990 Deforestation for
palm biofuel by Total peat area
2030 in 'high' Country area of

scenario? The Netherlands
227,2 156,6
Peat area lost to
45,0 29,0 biofuel by 2030? 41,5
1 000 Km2
deforested land is sent to less some 35 billion litres of biofuel were Despite the concerns about land use
discerning markets. Even for countries produced from fats and vegetable and land-use change expressed by
like Indonesia, where agricultural oils, consumed primarily in the EU, governments and environmentalists,
expansion is endemically linked the USA, Brazil and Indonesia. This global biodiesel consumption has
to deforestation and ecosystem created an estimated 9 million tonnes remained on a trajectory of growth,
destruction, all that a supplier has to of demand for palm oil as biofuel not contraction. While the EU is
do to meet the sustainability criteria feedstock (mostly for use in Indonesia currently the largest source of palm-
is find a palm-oil plantation that and the EU), and a further indirect oil demand from biofuel mandates,
already existed in January 2008, demand for at least 2.5 million tonnes this could change in the coming
regardless of how many trees have of palm oil to replace other biodiesel decade. The largest potential sources
been felled or peat drained all feedstocks in existing uses.123 That of demand growth, based on stated
around it. accounts for one fifth of global palm- aspirations, are domestic biodiesel
oil production. Average palm-oil yields consumption in Indonesia and the
This gap in the sustainability regime, have remained basically stagnant for proposed dramatic expansion of the
documented in the academic the past 20 years, so the required use of alternative aviation fuels. The
literature,121 has caused attention to increase in palm-oil production to Indonesian government has set a
shift from the specific land area meet this growing demand has to legal target for 30% of Indonesian
where feedstock is produced, to the come primarily from expanding the diesel fuel to be biofuel by 2025, all
overall impact of biofuel demand on cultivated palm area. of which is likely to be based on palm
the landscape. This idea– that overall oil. That could increase demand for
demand for biofuel feedstock could biofuel-led palm oil in the country
be driving agricultural expansion, from 2.5 million tonnes to 18.6 million
even as the specific feedstock batches
used for biofuels were grown on older
Palm-oil tonnes by 2030. In parallel, the aviation
industry has set an aspirational
farms – has become known as indirect expansion target of 100% alternative aviation
land-use change.122 fuels by 2050. If the industry follows
in Indonesia the alternative fuel-use trajectory
Fats, oils, palm and biodiesel consistent with that target, which has
For the public, biodiesel is often and Malaysia been modelled by the International
associated with ideas of recycling Civil Aviation Organisation, with palm
resources like used cooking oil that is currently oil as feedstock for only one quarter
could otherwise be wasted or could
form fatbergs in sewers. The reality
endemically of the fuel required by 2030, that
would add a further 18.6 million
is that, at the global level, reused oils
of this sort represent only a fraction
associated with tonnes of palm-oil demand. Depending
on decisions taken over the next few
of biodiesel feedstocks. By far the deforestation years, further increases in demand
larger business is the conversion of are possible, notably from existing or
unused food oils into biodiesel – and and peat possible biofuel policies in the EU,
globally that business is inextricably the USA, China and Malaysia.
linked to palm-oil demand. By 2015, destruction

If all of these policies came together
in a high growth scenario, global
Those levels deaths. There are also serious social
issues associated with the palm-oil
demand for palm oil from biofuel
policies would be 67 million tonnes
of deforestation industry, including poor working
conditions and repeated conflicts
by 2030. That is a six-fold increase would cause with indigenous communities over
from 2015, and is equal to today’s land rights.129
total production of palm oil. Even in a some 2 billion
more moderate ‘medium’ scenario, Inflection point?
biofuel-driven demand for palm oil tonnes of CO2 Approaching 2020, the future of bio-
could increase by a factor of three fuel policy is at a potential inflection
compared to current levels.124 emissions point. Targets have been set by
Demand for palm-oil biodiesel is a

from biomass, several countries, and by the aviation
industry, that could lead to a significant
problem, because palm-oil expansion
in Indonesia and Malaysia is currently
and the peat increase in demand for palm oil in
the decade from 2020 to 2030. On
endemically associated with de- drainage would the other hand, the global debate
forestation and peat destruction. In about indirect land-use change has
both countries, palm-oil plantations lead to an brought greater awareness of the
continue to replace high biodiversity problematic side of using palm oil as
value tropical rainforests at an additional biodiesel feedstock, and enhanced
alarming pace. Based on past trends, sustainability monitoring is at least
without fundamental changes in 270 million on the table.
governance, we can expect at least
one third of new palm-oil area to
tonnes of CO2 In the EU, the European institutions
require peat drainage, and about a
half to result in deforestation.125
being emitted have provisionally agreed (at the time
of writing) a new policy that will cap
Delivering the volumes of palm oil every year for food-based biodiesel consumption
implied by the high end of 2030 and that it has been indicated will
biofuel consumption goals would decades to phase out by 2030 support in the EU
therefore result in 45 000 km2 of for palm-oil as a biodiesel feedstock.
forest loss, including 29 000 km2 of come 130
The European Parliament has
peat forest. That is greater than the even proposed a ban on the use of
total area of all the national parks in palm oil as a biodiesel feedstock.131
Norway or the UK. Those levels of The aviation biofuel industry remains
deforestation would cause some 2 the harm associated with the embryonic, and simple regulatory
billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from destruction of peat landscapes,127 action by the International Civil
biomass, and the peat drainage and criticizing attempts by the EU Aviation Organisation could ensure
would lead to an additional 270 and other countries to improve the that the alternative aviation fuels that
million tonnes of CO2 being emitted environmental performance of their get developed are based on cellulosic
every year for decades to come. biofuel support regimes by differenti- wastes and residues, not on much
ating between feedstocks.128 While it more valuable fats and oils. Even in
Obviously, CO2 emissions of that is predictable that the governments Indonesia, there is still time for
magnitude are profoundly inconsistent of these countries would seek to recognition of the contradictions
with attempts to limit global warming protect export revenue, we must between national commitments on
to the levels set by the Paris Agree- always remember that the primary climate and deforestation and current
ment, and would in all likelihood purpose of biofuel policy in the EU aggressive expansion of biofuel
more than outweigh any benefits and many other countries is cli- mandates. With the right regulatory
from reducing the use of fossil diesel mate-change mitigation – and that action undertaken now to refocus and
or jet fuels. Indeed, there are strong makes it nonsensical to continue to rescale biofuel policies, millions of
reasons to believe that using palm oil support fuels that are believed to be hectares of threatened rainforests and
for biodiesel is significantly worse for worse for the climate than fossil peatlands could still be saved.
the climate than continuing to consume diesel is.
fossil diesel, perhaps as much as
three times as bad.126 Beyond the climate impact of this
scale of land-use change, palm-oil
The governments of Indonesia and expansion is disastrous for biodiversity;
Malaysia have been active in it also increases the susceptibility of
opposing any limits on the use of tropical landscapes to forest fires that
palm oil for biofuel. This has included are responsible through air pollution
promoting poor-quality research to for enormous additional CO2 emissions
undermine scientific consensus on and for tens of thousands of annual

Next steps for
Norwegian bilateral
agreements

Norway’s bilateral agreements with Brazil, Indonesia,
Peru and DR Congo are set to continue until 2030,
but the current agreements define deliverables and
targets only until 2020. In view of previous experience
and current contexts, we suggest changes and new
directions for Norwegian engagement in each of
these countries.
RAINFOREST FUNDING FROM NORWAY (2008-2017)

Rainforest funding from Norway (2008-2017)
Million USD
Million USD
Global programmes and thematic support
The Forest World Bank World Bank Global Green
Civil society BioCarbon UN-REDD Investment Readiness Carbon Growth
Program Fund Fund Institute and.greenfund Others
Fund
262 92 202 105 84 195 16 31 154
Mexico
11
Vietnam
Colombia 23
42
138
Peru
12 130 Guyana Indonesia
Ethiopia
Brazil 40
952 33
Liberia 45 Tanzania
183
Congo Basin
Photo: Kyrre Lien
Source: Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative

BRAZIL
Why Brazil?
Brazil hosts 60% of the Amazon
rainforest. The biological diversity
of the Amazon rainforest is greater
than in any other ecoregion on
earth, with one third of the world’s
known species of plants and
animals, most of which are found
nowhere else. More than 25 million
people live in the Brazilian Amazon,
including indigenous peoples from
over 170 different ethnic groups.135
Under the Paris Agreement,

Brazil has committed to reduce its
national emissions to 1.3 GtCO2e
by 2025 and 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030
– corresponding to reductions of
37% and 43% below 2005 emis-
sions, respectively. Between 2005
and 2012 emissions from the land
sector (LULUCF) were reduced by
86% because of reduced deforest-
ation rates. However, deforesta-
tion and forest degradation have
increased in the last few years.
INES LUNA MAIRA, RAINFOREST FOUNDATION NORWAY
Brazil has been the poster-child of Its impressive capacity to implement there have been several setbacks,
the international REDD+ effort, as forest policies made Brazil an attractive with the reversal of important forest
policies for forest protection have REDD+ partner for Norway, which policies and increased forest-loss.
been followed by an impressive drop pledged to contribute up to USD 1 These problems may compromise
in deforestation rates. But what of the billion to the Amazon Fund by 2015 Brazil’s delivery on reducing
future? for verified emission reductions. The deforestation by 80%,134 as pledged
Norwegian contribution has since when the Amazon Fund was
When the bilateral agreement been extended to 2020. Further, established. We believe that the
between Brazil and Norway was the agreement between Brazil and collaboration with Norway can help
signed in 2008, important policies Norway established a dialogue on turn these negative trends – but that
and initiatives were already in place. climate and forest issues, and defined would require Norway to refine its
The Action Plan to Prevent and a set of deliverables and areas of current strategy, adapting it to the
Control Deforestation in the Amazon collaboration – including on current context in Brazil.
(PPCDAM) had been launched in monitoring, reporting, assessment
March 2004, resulting in a 65% and verification of greenhouse gas Getting to zero deforestation
reduction in deforestation by 2017.132 emissions from deforestation and There is an ongoing debate on the
The Amazon Fund – a mechanism forest degradation.133 reasons for the decline in deforestation
aimed at securing international since 2004. The Brazilian government
funding for forest protection – had This collaboration with Norway is attributes most of this accomplishment
been presented by Brazil during the politically and symbolically important, to improvements in enforcement of
climate summit in Bali in December and it has helped reinforce the the Forest Code136 and improved law
2007, and was in the final stages of necessary changes undertaken by enforcement through better monitoring
being established. Brazil. However, in the last few years, and control systems. Others, however,

REDUCING DEFORESTATION IN BRAZIL
Reducing deforestation in Brazil
Law enforcement and policies adopted
The Brazilian Institute for Space
Research launches DEGRAD
Plan for Protection and PPCDAM phase 2 PPCDAM phase 3 PPCDAM phase 4
Combating Deforestation in
the Amazon (PPCDAM)
Fighting deforestation
becomes a national priority
Slow-down in creation National REDD strategy
of protected areas approved (ENREDD+)
Large police campaign and Indigenous land
against illegal logging
and deforestation
Brazilian commitment to
Annual deforestation Public Forest Law Paris Agreement (NDC)
Regulates forest
1 000 km2 concessions
30 Soy moratorium Senate approves
austerity package to
Amazon Fund is freeze social spending
25 created for 20 years
Embargo on products New Forest Code

20 coming from Amnesty for previous
deforested areas illegal deforestation
15 Cattle agreement The electronic

CAR-database is
created
Photo: Kyrre Lien
10

5
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: Nepstad, D., et. al., Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains, Science, 2014; Gibbs, H. et.al(2015). Brazil's
soy moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377–378; Stokes, S. et.al(2014) Deforestation and the Brazilian Beef Value Chain. Datu Research.
argue that falling prices of agricultural collective rights and in establishing logging. In the state of Pará, 39% of
commodities, rural credits, the global comprehensive environmental the territory has unresolved land
financial crisis, soy and beef moratoria legislation.138 Social mobilization and tenure issues – and 71% of all
and the establishment of indigenous struggle – on the part of indigenous deforestation occurs in these areas.142
territories and protected areas have peoples, rubber tappers, river dwellers, Recent legislative reforms have
been the primary causes.137 landless farmers’ movements and the exacerbated this situation. In 2012,
environmental movement – have the Forest Code was weakened by a
We believe all these reasons are contributed substantially. However, major reform where amnesties were
valid, but that there are also several Brazil is ranked as the world’s most granted to landowners with plots
important lessons to be learned if dangerous country for land and between 20 to 400 ha, exempting
deforestation and forest degradation environmental defenders, and that them from possible penalties for
rates are to be lowered further. affects especially indigenous and irregular deforestation and the
other forest peoples.139 obligation to restore illegally destroyed
1. Resolving and improving land forests. However, the Forest Code
rights Much of the deforestation takes place also contains important instruments
in public forests,140 due not least to for monitoring of land-use and
Recognition of the collective, territorial the large tracts of ‘undesignated public environmental compliance, particularly
rights of indigenous peoples has forests’. In the Brazilian Amazon, there the Rural Environmental Registry
proven an effective measure for forest are 652 749 km2 of public forest141 that (CAR) which requires all landowners
protection. Since the adoption of the have not been formally defined as to register their properties and
1988 Constitution, Brazil has made regards future use. Lacking protection, provide electronic information on
important progress in the protection such lands are hotspots for land land-use, forest cover and deforested
of indigenous and forest peoples’ grabbing, land speculation and illegal areas. When and if fully implemented,

this may become an essential These moratoriums have come about 4. Monitoring, prevention and
instrument for monitoring and thanks to initiatives by active and control
combating deforestation. innovative civil society organizations
and consumer pressure. Recent An important reason for the in-
The creation of protected areas and corruption scandals in the Brazilian creased deforestation and forest
indigenous territories has been a beef industry have documented degradation in recent years is the
central element in the government’s systematic fraud and bribery, and reduction in public spending on
efforts to reduce deforestation. Some should provide ammunition for further control and monitoring. As patterns of
250 000km2 of protected areas were consumer-based campaigns and forest loss change from large-scale
created between 2004 and 2008, as initiatives directed at the companies deforestation to many small plots,
well as 100 000km2 of indigenous and their financial investors. satellite detection of deforestation
peoples’ territories. Continued becomes increasingly difficult. A third
expansion of territories for indigenous The private sector has the potential element that has caused massive
peoples, and aligning the management to play a crucial role by pressing rises in forest degradation is the
of protected areas through joint ahead with the expansion of these drastic increase in forest fires in the
management structures (‘mosaics’) moratoriums, including signing the Amazon in 2016 and 2017 – largely
and ecological corridors, hold great Cerrado Manifesto and supporting slow-moving understorey fires,
promise for improving rainforest other mechanisms to impose burning ground-vegetation and killing
protection in Brazil. It is imperative for monitoring on local cattle and soy individual trees, but normally not
Brazil to continue to move forward with production. We encourage Brazil and causing deforestation as such.148
this strategy, securing the protection donors of the Amazon Fund, such as
of undesignated public forests by Norway, to expand the scope of the During the second term of the
creating new conservation units, Amazon Fund to finance sustainable government of former President
ecological corridors and indigenous forest management, as well as Ignacio Lula Da Silva (2007–2010),
people’s territories. control and monitoring, to other 6.4 billion reais were spent on
biomes. prevention and control of Amazon
2. Expanding moratoriums deforestation (PPCDAM), whereas
3. Rural credits and subsidies during the first period of his succes-
The 2006 soy moratorium as important sor Dilma Rousseff (2011–2014), the
for reducing deforestation in the The increase in areas for agricultural figure plummeted to 1.8 billion
Amazon, and also for involving private- commodities is an important driver reais.149 This reduction in funding,
sector actors in forest protection. A behind deforestation. Although there combined with corruption and acts of
2015 study found that in the two years are about 150 000–200 000 km2 of violence against representatives of
preceding the moratorium, nearly 30% deforested and degraded areas lying environmental agencies, has made
of soy expansion in the Amazon fallow in Brazil,144 expansion into the monitoring and forest control
occurred through deforestation, forest is more profitable for the owners difficult.150 Moreover, new legislation
whereas deforestation from soy than investing in degraded areas. has been introduced to block future
production fell almost to zero after And that serves to link agriculture increases in public spending, thereby
the moratorium.143 However, overall with illegal deforestation.145 making local forest protection
soy production in Brazil has doubled activities increasingly dependent on
since the moratorium entered into One reason for the successful international donors, inter alia
force – because production has been reduction of deforestation was the through projects where funding goes
intensified in other areas, with the 2008 introduction of measures that directly to civil society organizations.
Brazilian Cerrado and the Chaco made access to rural credits condi-
forests experiencing increased tional on proof of compliance with Insufficient public funding for
deforestation due to soy. Therefore, legal and environmental regulations. monitoring and control represents a
it is imperative to expand the soy This yielded immediate results, and challenging dilemma for the Amazon
moratorium to areas beyond the is estimated to have resulted in a Fund. Norwegian support was
rainforest of the Brazilian Amazon. 15% decrease in deforestation in the originally made conditional on Brazil
Amazon.146 New fiscal measures, upholding its funding of key actions
Large companies in the Brazilian beef such as reforming the structure of against deforestation: international
industry have also pledged to secure subsidies, away from supporting support was intended to strengthen
zero deforestation in their supply activities that lead to deforestation, and supplement own efforts. In view
chains. However, cattle production is and towards supporting sustainable of the economic crisis in Brazil and
still the main deforestation driver in alternatives, can be very important; the proven efficiency of ‘command
the Brazilian rainforest, mainly likewise, proper enforcement of taxes and control’ measures, it will be
because the pledges have failed to that may prevent speculative tempting for the Amazon Fund to
address deforestation occurring at deforestation.147 finance part of such activities, since
the lower levels of the supply chain. effective control of illegalities is a

precondition for success in other countermeasure would be to environmental management of
programmes. In 2016, the Brazilian influence and work with the major indigenous territories, especially
Senate passed a controversial banks and financing institutions, since the protection agency for
spending cap that will limit public getting them to develop instruments indigenous peoples in Brazil (FUNAI)
spending in llne with inflation for the and procedures for evaluating and the Ministry of Environment have
next 20 years. Funding from the deforestation risks in their portfolios. experienced budget cuts of almost
Amazon Fund is included in this cap, half their public financing.
making it impossible to uphold the 6. The Amazon Fund
intention of supplementing the Where to go from here?
countries’ own efforts. It is essential In view of the complex human rights The difficult political situation in Brazil
to avoid a situation where international situation in Brazil, as well as the has shown the importance of political
donors end up being responsible for country’s political and economic will for achieving and maintaining
Brazil’s commitment to reduce Amazon instability, the role of the Amazonas success. Connecting forests to
deforestation by 80%. Pressure must Fund is more relevant than ever. Not job creation and new business
be put on Brazil to prioritize these only does it function as an important opportunities, and demonstrating
issues. contributor to the national REDD+ plan, their importance for food security and
it also enables the implementation of freshwater resources, could increase
5. Infrastructure strategically important policies that their political importance. As yet,
play a crucial role for the future of the these opportunities remain under-
To accelerate economic growth, Brazil Brazilian rainforest. The project communicated and are not well
plans to invest in more than 40 000 portfolio addresses issues like the integrated in the political discourse.
infrastructure projects, like roads, need for controlling deforestation at Strengthening civil society and
dams and waterways, most of them local levels; it also promotes sustain- forests peoples’ organizations could
in the Amazon region.151 Both able development initiatives that help here, but donors should also
infrastructure and extractive projects create incomes for local populations as support advocacy campaigns,
are dependent upon large-scale well as for the territorial management consumer activism and including new
financing or credit – in practice, often of indigenous territories. voices in the forest discussion, such
involving the Brazilian Development as young people (‘the millennials’).
Bank, BNDES, or Chinese capital. The Amazon Fund can continue to
It is imperative that investors adopt reinforce necessary changes. Civil That being said, it is also important
no-deforestation policies, and that society participation has been central not to be dependent solely on
governments prepare their infra- to the development of the Amazon national political will. Regional and
structure projects with full-scale Fund – indeed, the proposal for the local jurisdictions enjoy substantial
environmental assessments and establishment of such a mechanism autonomy, and also private companies
implement serious mitigating actions, was initially developed by NGOs. Civil have shown how non-state actors
like regulating tenure, establishing society organizations have contributed may go further than national policies.
protected areas, consulting indigenous decisively to the development of
peoples and local communities, and guidelines for applicants and have For large donors like Norway, such
making social investments, before influenced the orientation of the project improvements can be achieved
construction works are initiated. portfolio. It would be wise to also through financial contributions, but
allow civil society a stronger role in also through political dialogue with
In the Brazilian Congress, however, the strategic development of the Fund. Brazil. One example is how Norway
discussions go in the opposite has made it clear that if rising
direction. In 2017, over 900 bills The Amazon Fund should prioritize deforestation in the Amazon rain-
potentially harmful to the collective regularization of public lands and forest is not reversed, the financial
rights of forest peoples, or attempting strengthening the prevention and assistance will fall to zero.152 Adding
to weaken environmental legislation, control of environmental crimes in selected reforms and other deliver
were handled in the National the Amazon. We also encourage ables to the post-2020 bilateral
Congress. One example, intended to the creation of smaller funds or agreement with Brazil represents
speed up investments, is a proposal mechanisms linked to the Amazon another opportunity. The lessons
for a constitutional amendment that Fund, like a specialized fund focused learned presented in this article could
would prohibit the suspension or on the needs of indigenous and other serve as a starting point in defining
cancellation of projects once forest-dependent peoples. This is such reforms and deliverables.
environmental studies have been particularly important because forest
completed. That would undermine peoples’ own organizations have
important control mechanisms for serious difficulties in accessing
ensuring that social and environmental the funds made available for the
safeguards are respected in infra- implementation of sustainable
structure projects. An effective livelihood projects and the

PERU
Why Peru?
Peru is the fourth largest rainfor-
est country in the world, and has
the largest share of the Western
Amazon – the most biodiverse
ecoregion on the planet. Between
2001 and 2016, the country lost
almost 19 000 km2 of its rainforest,
contributing to yearly CO2 emis-
sions equal to those of Norway.
The deforestation rate in Peru has
had an upward curve since 2001,
with a historical maximum in 2014.
In 2015, deforestation dropped
11%, but rose again in 2016 by
slightly over 5%.
More than half of Peru is covered

by rainforest, of which 81% is com-
posed of Intact Forest Landscapes
(IFL) . Intact Forest Landscapes
are critical ecosystem service
providers. On average, they store
three times more aboveground
carbon per hectare than degraded
forests, and they harbour substan-
tially richer biological diversity.
ANDERS KROGH, RAINFOREST FOUNDATION NORWAY
In 2014, Peru, Norway and Germany area with both extensive peatlands Norway is the financial contributor;
agreed to collaborate on reducing and record-high biodiversity. Oil and Germany has a more technical role.
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions gas exploitation, illegal logging and Peru was to prepare for documented
from deforestation and forest unsustainable agriculture are emissions reductions by the end of
degradation in Peru. This is the most prevailing drivers of forest destruction 2017, with performance-based
ambitious and promising plan for that, if left uncontrolled, will put an payments expected to start in 2017.
combating deforestation that Peru end to Peru’s still well-preserved As of mid-2018, however, Peru is still
has ever committed to, in terms of rainforests. very much the preparatory stage.
the goals set and the amount of With implementation lagging far behind
funding involved. As the agreement moves towards schedule, it is probably too early to
a phase where contributions are expect any emissions reductions
Almost four years into this tripartite given to Peru for verified emission from reduced deforestation because
agreement, political attention towards reductions, these and other issues of the agreement.
deforestation has increased. Moreover, need to be addressed.
there has been a clear improvement However, there is little doubt that the
in monitoring of deforestation rates. The collaboration between Peru, agreement serves as an incentive for
However, threats are also on the rise. Norway and Germany the Peruvian authorities to commit to
The government has been pushing a The agreement between Peru, the issue. Political attention to
plan to construct a road, nearly 700 Norway and Germany is worth up to deforestation in Peru has become
km in length, right across Peru’s USD 300 million until 2020 if Peru more prominent. The issue is dealt
northernmost rainforest region, an complies with the established goals. with more systematically and in an

integral way. This gives room for
cautious optimism, although progress
Although political will in Peru. Norway will need
to conduct a new assessment of the
still mainly involves planning, and to fulfilment of Peruvian BAU before entering a
a lesser degree implementation. pay-for-performance phase. At a
the agreement minimum, Norway should finance
The agreement seeks to end only absolute reductions after 2020.
authorizations of deforestation for can drastically
agricultural expansion on land
classified as land for forest production reduce illegal Good on deforestation – but what
about degradation?
and forest protection, which is wide-
spread in Peru, although in principle
deforestation, Degradation is a considerable threat
to the Peruvian rainforest, but the
illegal. This will require extensive
capacity and competence building in
that focus of the Agreement is almost
entirely on deforestation.
relevant state institutions, particularly achievement (‘Degradation’ is when the tree, plant
at the regional level where such and wildlife density of a forest is
authorizations are given. The agree- may, atleast reduced, but not removed completely
ment also supports the titling of at – that is ‘deforestation’). Normally,
least half the remaining undesignated in part, by degradation occurs through selective
forest area in the Peruvian Amazon,
with a substantial focus on the titling overshadowed logging, human-induced fires and
heavy poaching. Peru is especially
of indigenous lands. It is reasonable
to expect deforestation in Peru to
by legal hard-hit by illegal logging, made
possible by poor transparency and
drop if these targets can be achieved,
as deforestation rates are by far
deforestation extensive corruption, especially at
regional and local levels. The most
highest on undesignated land. recent investigation of shipments of
Photo: Wolter Silveira
However, the agreement does not timber from Peru to the USA,
properly address legal deforestation, conducted Peru’s forest supervisory
not even for primary forests. This be reduced by 2030. The quanti- body OSINFOR, found that more
means that although fulfilment of the fication of this reduction is done in than 90% of the timber had been
agreement can drastically reduce the strategy’s goal by referring to the harvested illegally.154 As yet the
illegal deforestation, that achievement county’s National Determined Peruvian national authorities do not
may, at least in part, by overshadowed Contributions (NDC). Peru’s NDC appear to view this as a problem that
by legal deforestation. and reference level for deforestation needs to be properly addressed.
were sent to the UNFCCC in 2015 OSINFOR still has a low budget, and
The National Forest and Climate and 2016, respectively, thanks to the the first director who took the job
Change Strategy Peru–Norway agreement. In these seriously found himself fired.155
The agreement has stimulated the documents, Peru estimates a
national authorities to elaborate a business- as-usual (BAU) scenario About the only thing that in practice
national Forest and Climate Change equal to a 70% increase in emissions limits the extent of logging in the
Strategy covering more than half of from deforestation and degradation Peruvian Amazon is physical access
Peru’s GHG emissions. Of this, in the country from 2010 to 2030. to the timber. The lack of roads in
almost all emissions originate from The Peruvian mitigation target is to most of the Peruvian Amazon is the
deforestation and forest degradation reduce emissions less than the main obstacle, so most logging is
in the country’s Amazon region. This expected growth in emissions. That selective and by river access.
Forest and Climate Change Strategy means that emissions from the forest Although river-access logging is
is comprehensive, dealing with all the and land-use sectors can increase usually less damaging to the forest
main problems related to deforestation even if the targets are met – by 21% than road-access logging, the
and how to overcome these. Approved from 2010 to 2030 if external impacts on the forest are still
by Supreme Decree in 2016, it has in financial help is provided, and by 3% significant.156 Some particularly
principle become national policy. for the unconditional target.153 coveted species, like the big leafed
However, there is no clear plan for mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla),
implementation of the Strategy. On such a long timescale as from are being driven towards extinction in
2010 to 2030, no other ambition than Peru. Taking out big trees in what
As set out in the Strategy’s vision zero gross deforestation is accept- may seem moderate numbers can
and overall objective, emissions from able, and that could be a completely still dry out the forest, which then
deforestation and degradation are to realistic ambition – if backed by true becomes more prone to fires. In

addition, the construction of legal and acknowledgment of, and respect for, logging concessions and nature
illegal roads in the Peruvian rainforest the proposals of local forest com- reserves have been established on
is accelerating, opening increasingly munities, and the right to informed indigenous land without the consent
larger areas to industrial high-impact consent on matters that will affect the of the local populations.
logging. Because the GHG emis- land to which they hold either legal or
sions from forest degradation are customary rights. It also recognizes The indigenous organizations have
substantial,157 any national scale indigenous peoples’ legal and proposed that a map showing all the
REDD+ collaboration with Peru customary rights to land.160 On the areas inhabited and used by indige-
should address this issue properly. other hand, the agreement does not nous peoples in the Peruvian
emplace any explicit conditions on the Amazon should be elaborated and
Even worse is the fact that the issuing of forestry concessions or the used as a basis to prevent overlap-
tripartite agreement can serve to establishment of natural protected ping claims or unresolved conflicts
exacerbate the situation, because it areas. being designated for other purposes.
recognizes logging concessions as a Norway should support this proposal,
viable land-titling category under the This is especially problematic given and consider financing the mapping
target of designating 50% of remaining the strong emphasis the agreement project through the REDD+ agreement
undesignated land in the Peruvian places on supporting the full imple- with Peru.
Amazon. That could make sense if mentation of Peru’s Forest and
reduced deforestation were the only Wildlife Law of 2011/2012 Indigenous Political will in Peru
objective, because the main activities movements have criticized the Forest Perhaps the greatest challenge to
that drive deforestation in Peru, like and Wildlife Law for respecting only the success of the agreement is the
agriculture, are prohibited on logging the land rights of indigenous peoples lack of ownership by key state
concessions. According to official in the process of receiving title to the institutions in Peru. The only signatory
figures, deforestation is relatively low land, in addition to those who already of the agreement from Peru is the
on logging concessions.158 These have titles. It ignores the numerous Ministry of Environment, whereas
same activities are, however, a main indigenous peoples in the Peruvian achieving the agreement’s goals
driver of forest degradation in Peru, Amazon that are yet to formally claim depends heavily on other state
and they are rarely managed their traditional lands. On those areas institutions, in particular the Ministry
according to regulations. In addition, the Forest and Wildlife Law allows for of Agriculture and the regional
logging concessions are commonly logging concessions, and other non- governments. The Council of Ministers,
used for ‘laundering’ illegally extracted indigenous land categories, to be the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry
timber from protected areas and established. By supporting the of Transport, and the Ministry of
indigenous territories outside implementation of the Forest and Energy and Mines are other institutions
concession borders.159 Wildlife Law without addressing this central to the agreement. The main
problem explicitly, the agreement goals and priorities of these state
In such a situation, the most rational risks facilitating the continuation of institutions are often in conflict with
position of any national REDD+ Peru’s land-grabbing history, rather forest conservation and the interests
agreement would be to include a than halting it. In recent decades, of indigenous peoples. In addition,
temporary ban on industrial logging, thousands of square kilometres of the decisionmaking power of the
until the sector can be brought under Ministry of Environment was critically
control. At a minimum, the current weakened in the same year as the
Agreement should have included a agreement was signed,161 2014,
moratorium on the issuing of new
logging concessions in Peru. This is
The most making its success even more
dependent on other state institutions.
what Rainforest Foundation Norway rational
recommended: instead, the Norwegian How can Norway contribute?
authorities agreed, at least on paper, position of When the Forest Law was passed, it
to support Peru in issuing new was a progressive law that was
logging concessions. We hold that any REDD+ applauded by most environmental
this can lead to increased forest
degradation, producing results agreement and forest conservation organizations
in Peru. The ratification of the Law’s
contrary to the intentions of the
agreement.
would be to regulations, and the elaboration and
initial implementation of the forest
Risk of land grabbing

include a governance and monitoring
instruments defined by the Law,
The agreement with Norway and temporary ban are perhaps the most significant
Germany is ambiguous concerning achievements within the framework
the prevention of conflict between the on industrial of the Peru-Norway-Germany
land rights of indigenous peoples and agreement to date. Noteworthy are
other land categories. However, a logging the remote sensing forest monitoring
progressive aspect is the agreement’s system and its internet platform,

GeoBosques162, where deforestation mean that the logging is sustainable regulation on forest classification,
rates and forest cover data are – but the legal framework for how which is based on an analysis of the
entered on a yearly basis. The industrial logging can be undertaken soil without necessarily taking into
monitoring system also includes an in Peru is of such quality that there is consideration the presence of trees
early warning service anyone can no doubt that legally logged timber is and plants. If a fully forested area of
subscribe to for free, which sends to far more sustainable than illegally the Peruvian Amazon proves to have
one’s mobile phone weekly updates logged timber. This is all good, but if soils adequate for farming, that area
on forest loss. Although GeoBosques there is virtually no risk involved in may be classified as a farmland, and
still needs refinements and further operating illegally in Peru, legal not as forest. Thus, a deforestation
development, it represents major logging operations under such authorization can be achieved for
progress in transparency, public voluntary certification systems can at agricultural purposes.163 Some 20%
information access, and the possibility worst come on top of all the illegally of Peru’s standing Amazon rainforest
of enforcement. The plan is to train logged timber, instead of replacing it. lacks classification. In these areas,
regional governments so that they Peru must ensure that the total deforestation may be conducted
can take an active role in monitoring volumes of logged timber, whether legally if the soil is found suitable for
the country’s forest loss, making legal or not, are reduced to sustainable agriculture. Norway must insist that
GeoBosques increasingly precise levels. Peru in its forest classification
and efficient. regulations includes tree cover as a
Peru seems somewhat hesitate guiding factor.
Next step for Norway’s cooperation about combating illegalities in the
with Peru forest and land-use sector. This may The only restriction that the current
be because the illegal logging law puts on such legal deforestation
1. Tackle degradation business is controlled by powerful is that at least 30% of forest cover of
mafias that infiltrate all levels of the an agricultural unit, whether on
As mentioned earlier, forest degradation forest sector through bribery and private or public land, must be
is a major threat to Peru’s rainforest, threats. The first step should be to maintained. In the Amazon, normal
especially due to widespread illegal strengthen the capacity of the forest tree cover is close to 100%, and
logging. Despite the 2014 agreement, supervisory body, OSINFOR, and to even a significantly degraded forest
this problem has still not been properly incentivize broad interinstitutional can have much more than 50% tree
addressed. In the following years, collaboration for investigating and cover. Reducing a rainforest to 30%
there are especially two issues that unravelling the network of organized tree cover is so severe that the forest
Norway and Peru should focus on. crime associated with illegal logging. will stand no chance of maintaining
The first is to enable Peru, through Today, there is not enough capacity its ecosystem services, and can
the GeoBosques platform, to monitor to ensure enforcement, and too almost equally well be considered
forest degradation, and make much of that capacity is spent on total deforestation. In comparison,
emissions from degradation part of going the individual loggers or according to regulations in Brazil, at
its national emissions estimates. Peru corrupt bureaucrats. There are also least 80% of tree cover must be
still has relatively low deforestation more than 6 000 charges against maintained on agricultural land.
rates (approximately 0.2% annually), individuals waiting to be handled in
but degradation rates are probably court. The court that deals with
higher. Results-based payments from logging offences simply does not
Norway to Peru should be based on have the capacity to deal with even a
a combination of the two, and not just fraction of these cases: so most of
solely reduced deforestation. them will be dismissed, which leaves
the risk of being convicted at next to
2. Measures against illegal logging zero. The second step should
therefore be to strengthen the
Secondly, Peru, with support from capacity of the courts. A third step
Norway, must implement measures should be to help Peru to crack down
that substantially increase the risk on the country’s powerful logging
involved in operating illegally in the mafias.
logging business. Some progress
has been made in establishing a 3. A forest must consist of trees
traceability system for promoting
legal timber. The national forest Thirdly, Article 38 of the Forest
authority, SERFOR, is piloting a Law states that deforestation
‘legal timber pact’, which is a authorizations can be given for
voluntary certification system to agricultural purposes on land not
guarantee the legality of timber classified as forest. There are two
products. Here it should be noted serious problems with this. The first
that ‘legality’ does not necessarily has to do with Peru’s awkward

INDONESIA
Why Indonesia?
With approximately 120 000 km2 of
rainforest, Indonesia is home to the
world’s third-largest tropical rainfor-
est, characterized by varying levels
of degradation. It ranks among the
world’s highest in terms of rates of
deforestation and land degradation,
due primarily to palm-oil production
and the pulp and paper industry.
As regards greenhouse gases,
when emissions from forests and
peat are included, Indonesia is the
world’s fifth largest emitter, exceed-
ed only by China, the USA, the EU
and India.164
Indonesia’s Nationally Determined

Contribution (NDC) under the Paris
Agreement includes a forest and
land-use sector target of reduc-
ing emissions by 2/3 by 2030
compared to 2010 levels without
international support, and a target
of 90% reduction, conditional on
international support.
ANJA LILLEGRAVEN AND RAMADANI TORHEIM, RAINFOREST FOUNDATION NORWAY
In 2010, Norway and Indonesia deforestation rates are yet to decline. Improved forest governance
signed a USD 1 billion Letter of Intent This article highlights the positive
on reducing emissions from forest results of this bilateral cooperation, The bilateral cooperation involved
degradation and deforestation. This and indicates ways of achieving three phases. Phases 1 and 2 were
was a courageous move from both improved results from the Norwegian dedicated to institutional and policy
sides, with severe risks of failure. engagement in securing Indonesia’s reforms. Norway supported the
However, securing Indonesia’s valuable forests. development of an Indonesian
forests is a challenge that must be National REDD+ strategy which
taken on. Since the Second World Key results from Norwegian highlighted underlying causes of
War, our planet has lost half of its support deforestation previously not taken
rainforest – and Indonesia, with the Although the bilateral cooperation up in the public discourse, such as
world’s third-largest rainforest area, has not yet succeeded in reducing corruption, weak governance, lack
has held the dubious record of the deforestation, important results have of law enforcement and unclear
fastest deforestation rate. been achieved. None of these results land tenure. However, this National
can be attributed solely to the bilat- REDD+ Strategy never became the
Today, eight years later, Indonesia eral cooperation, but we believe that guideline for action it deserved to be.
is still not eligible to receive funding Norway has played a crucial role
based on measured and verified – not least as a relatively powerful A REDD+ Agency reporting directly
emission reductions, for which the supporter of Indonesian civil society to the Indonesian President was also
major portion of the Norwegian funding and progressive national politicians established. With staff recruited on the
is dedicated. Norway has spent and bureaucrats. basis of performance and expertise
USD 140 million, but Indonesian rather than rank, the Agency was a

fresh breath in Indonesian politics. of Indonesian officials has changed. The REDD+ Task Force (preceding
Unfortunately, it struggled with For instance, today’s Ministry of the REDD+ Agency) invited the
its authority, as other minsters Environment and Forestry is signifi- submission of maps over indigenous
disregarded this new creation and cantly more transparent and open to territories as part of official mapping
paid little attention to its attempts dialogue than the former Ministry of efforts – and this has been seen as
to create reform. When President Forestry. But there is still room for an important milestone in making
Joko Widodo took over in 2014, he improvement. For example, the indigenous peoples visible.167
dissolved the Agency as part of an Central Information Commission Mapping of indigenous territories
effort to reduce bureaucracy. At the acceded to a request from Forest increased with support from Norway,
same time, he merged the Ministry Watch Indonesia, and declared with AMAN alone compiling maps
of Environment and the Ministry of information related to plantation covering an area of 93 000 km2
Forestry, and placed responsibility for concessions as public documents, by 2017.
REDD+ under the Director General based on the Public Disclosure Act
for Climate Change. While the merger UU 14/2008 – but the data are yet President Widodo has promised to
of the two ministries significantly to be released. give indigenous and other rural
reduced the power of the reactionary communities greater control over
Ministry of Forestry, it also weakened The unified database integrating all land, and has set the ambitious
REDD+ efforts by fragmenting land-use maps currently in use in target of allocating 127 000 km2 for
responsibility within the Ministry Indonesia is expected to be launched various forms of social forestry. By
bureaucracy. August 2018, after seven years. The 2017, local communities were
‘One Map’ policy is seen as central managing 15 000 km2, and 18
Moratorium on new concessions to resolving a host of development indigenous groups had achieved
and planning problems caused by collective ownership to customary
A moratorium on new concessions in overlapping and often contradictory forests.
primary forests and peatlands was maps used by different agencies,
enacted in 2011. While criticized by including the issue of plantations Peatland protection
civil society for being too weak and being permitted inside forest areas.
for having significant loopholes, it Regrettably, there are indications Indonesia has the world’s largest
managed – at least on paper – to halt that the database will operated with area of tropical peatland, covering
the issuance of new concessions for restricted access.166 more than 150 000 km2. Peatlands
an area of almost 700 000 km2, more have layers of peat built up over
than double the size of Norway. The Indigenous peoples’ rights and thousands of years, and storing
moratorium has since been renewed social forestry enormous amounts of carbon
three times, most recently in 2017, emissions. Logging and drying these
and will last until 2019. Despite Norway’s forest protection cooperation areas for agricultural purposes
its loopholes and enforcement with Indonesia has clearly contributed releases the carbon, and makes the
problems,165 the moratorium is to putting indigenous peoples’ rights
perhaps the most tangible result and their role in forest management
of the bilateral Norway/Indonesia
cooperation to date.
on the political agenda. Indonesia’s
alliance of indigenous peoples, The
Transparency and participation
AMAN, was central in the early days
of REDD+. AMAN set the stage with
moratorium
From the start, Norway has focused
the slogan No Rights – No REDD.
Unless indigenous rights were
is perhaps
on transparency and participation recognized, there could not be any the most
as core elements in its cooperation REDD. AMAN is a powerful stake-
with Indonesia. This was like a minor holder, representing the country’s 50 tangible result
revolution: the REDD+ strategy was – 70 million indigenous peoples, and
designed on the basis of multiple with Norway’s support the alliance of the bilateral
consultations with civil society,
and the REDD+ Agency had close
forced its way into the debate. In
2014, AMAN took theForest Law Norway/
dialogue and cooperation with civil
society organizations. Unfortunately,
to the Constitutional Court, which in
a landmark decision ruled that
Indonesia
this positive trend seems to have
slowed down, but nonetheless we
indigenous peoples had rights to
customary forests.
cooperation
would argue that the modus operandi to date

peat prone to fire. In the El Niño year vested interests. The 2011moratorium Placing the management of forests in
2015, many forest fires caused severe is a clear example of this. The final the hands of indigenous peoples is
social, economic and environmental decree that emerged after many no guarantee for forest protection,
damage across the Indonesian rounds of negotiations and power but there is broad consensus in the
archipelago, as well as massive games behind closed doors was scientific literature that tenure
emissions with global impact. much weaker than anticipated by both insecurity is a significant driver of
Norway and Indonesian civil society. deforestation.171 The land-tenure
The 2011 moratorium on new reform that has been initiated in
concessions in peatlands and primary Decentralization, weak law Indonesia, exemplified by social
forests had failed to prevent the enforcement and corruption further forestry and the recognition of
destruction of these ecosystems. In complicate the picture. A 2014 study168 customary forests, has vast potential,
the aftermath of the 2015 fires a new showed how the effectiveness of the for ensuring the rights of indigenous
public agency for peatland restoration moratorium was hampered by poor peoples and for forest protection.
was established with support from understanding among district heads Importantly, it will also make it more
Norway, with the immediate task of who distributed licenses. Breaches of difficult for decisionmakers with
coordinating efforts to restore 20 000 the moratorium have resulted in short-term economic interests to
km2 of degraded peatland by 2020. massive deforestation.169 As many as enrich themselves through forest
However, restauration is of little use if 70% of the palm-oil plantations destruction.
destruction continues unabated currently operating in Indonesia do
elsewhere. A new regulation on not follow the procedures established Rainforest Foundation Norway
peatland protection was enacted in by the central government. The recommends that Norway continue to
2016, but it does not ban all peat amnesty given for non-procedural oil support the indigenous peoples’
destruction. palm companies in Central Kalimantan agenda and finance an intensification
is one example of how overlapping of mapping and recognition of
Why has progress not reduced and lax regulations erode company indigenous territories in Indonesia.
deforestation? obligations.170 Tom Johnson’s case The social forestry agenda should
Most of the Norwegian funding was study, presented in this report, also be supported, but care must be
to start flowing in Phase 3, based on shows how district heads have used taken to avoid mono-culture planta-
measured and verified emissions cash from Indonesia’s palm-oil boom tions on forest lands.
reductions. The original plan from to bankroll elections and enrich
2010 was for Indonesia to reach this themselves. Palm-oil, mining and pulp and paper
phase by 2014. However, a finance companies have effective and
mechanism for REDD+ and an Next step for Norway’s cooperation powerful lobby organizations. In the
institution for measuring, reporting with Indonesia wake of the 2015 fires, President
and verifying emission reductions For decades, the Indonesian state Jokowi announced a five-year
(MRV) are still not in place. These has handed out concessions to moratorium on new palm-oil licenses.
must be finalized before the next logging, tree plantations and However, such game-changing
phase can start. agriculture, showing scant respect for decisions encountered resistance,
local communities or the environment. and that moratorium has not been
A general lesson from REDD+ and enacted. Instead, the palm-oil
Norway’s bilateral agreements is that producers’ association GAPKI is now
results depend on domestic political
will. International finance can help
The promoting a bill intended to incentivize
the expansion of palm-oil plantations
ambitious leaders get results, but it
is unlikely to force change. Unlike
effectiveness through tax reductions. On the other
hand, more and more progressive
President Widodo, his predecessor, of the companies and investors are
Susilo Bambang Yudhyono, had adopting zero-deforestation policies.
a personal engagement in forest moratorium If these actors could succeed in
protection. However, both presidents reducing the negative influence of
attempted to initiate reforms in the was hampered associations like GAPKI, that would
forest and land-use sector, but met
massive resistance. by poor increase the chances for progressive
political decisions to be implemented.
Indonesia has built much of its

understanding Although voluntary actions by
economic development on forestry,
mining and agriculture. These sectors
among district progressive companies hold great
potential, this alone cannot protect
have contributed to building a middle heads who Indonesia’s remaining rainforest. The
class, but also a wealthy elite government must ensure better
interested in upholding the status distributed governance and regulatory frame-
quo. Reforms have been stopped or works. Existing regulations are
watered down by powerful actors with licenses causing problems for progressive

The
land-tenure
reform has
vast potential
for ensuring
the rights
of indigenous
peoples and
for forest
protection
companies who want to set aside Various incentives have served to deforestation in Indonesia, and
concessions for forest protection.172 encourage further deforestation in should encourage Indonesia to
The government must also improve Indonesia, the worst example being refocus its biofuel programme on
law enforcement, so that promising the current biofuel boom. Scientific advanced biofuels from wastes and
initiatives like the moratorium can research has shown that biofuel residues.
actually have effect, and take firm based on palm oil is worse than fossil
measures to detect and punish fuel in terms of carbon emission173. Papua is home to one third of
corruption in the forest sector. If existing biofuel targets are met Indonesia’s remaining rainforest.
through significant contributions from Forest-cover loss has been increasing
Rainforest Foundation Norway palm oil, the global demand for palm rapidly; 2015 showed the highest
recommends that Norway should oil from biofuel policies would be forest-cover loss since 2001.Norway
focus efforts on law enforcement 67 million tonnes in 2030.174That is a should continue to focus on Papua in
and anti-corruption, and support and six-fold increase from today, and is its dialogue with Indonesia, and
encourage innovative thinking on greater than the current total global encourage zero-deforestation in
how Indonesia’s anti-corruption production of palm oil.15 this region.
commission could be strengthened
and enabled to crack down on Rainforest Foundation Norway
corruption and irregularities in the recommends that Norway support a
forest and agriculture sector. study of perverse incentives driving

CASE STUDY INDONESIA
Why forest policies must confront

the realities of corruption in a
decentralized Indonesia
TOM JOHNSON, EARTHSIGHT
One morning in September 2013 I in that wall, and a vast clearing was that it was not entitled to operate
drove out from the village of Bereng emerged. yet. It had proceeded through only
Malaka in Gunung Mas, a remote the very basic stages of the permis-
district in Indonesian Borneo. I was That was a surprise to me and my sions process, and no rights had
conducting an investigation into a colleagues, a small group of Indo- been granted to clear several thou-
flood of timber that, according to the nesians from various local groups sand hectares of dense rainforest, as
hypothesis, was coming from illegal – because, according to government had in fact been done.
clearance of rainforests for palm data, there were no licenses for
oil plantations. As I drove along a plantations in this spot. Months of When we stumbled across this plan-
slippery, rutted road, small patches interviews, enquiries and dead-ends tation, Hambit Bintih, the Gunung
of light appeared in the wall of forest later, we would discover that the rea- Mas district head, or bupati, was
to my left. Soon there was a break son why this plantation was not listed bogged down in a re-election cam-

paign. Within a few weeks he would to companies like this. But it is more land, these local regents may be free
be arrested for his attempt to bribe likely that they are fully aware of to revoke and reallocate the licenses
the Constitutional Court judge Akil them, and are simply calculating that to others with no such compunctions.
Mochtar, after his election opponent there will continue to be a healthy Ultimately, the fate of Indonesia’s for-
challenged his victory. The bagman appetite for palm oil produced re- ests may lie in the hands of the bu-
in that bribery attempt was a palm- gardless of the circumstances, in the patis who have already played such
oil businessman, and the cash he growing and un-constricted markets a significant role in the unsustainable
used came from a whole series of of Asia and Africa. nature of the nation’s palm oil-boom.
land deals conducted in 2012, giving They retain a significant degree of
rise to plantations like the one I had This is not to say that such commit- autonomy and wield vast powers in
found.176 ments have no effect or value. The the mini-fiefdoms they govern. They
best (perhaps only) example we have could continue to collude with the
The story that unfolded in Gunung of an effective, significant reduction private sector as they have to date –
Mas in 2012 and 2013, which my in the rate of deforestation is in Bra- or they could decide to find ways to
NGO has painstakingly pieced zil, in the early 2000s. Analyses of cancel licenses, and implement dis-
together over the past nine months, what worked in Brazil point to similar trict-level measures to recognize the
is a reminder that deforestation and commitments made by traders of soy rights of indigenous people. Getting
land-rights conflicts are collateral and beef, to eschew commodities them to change course will require
damage in a game being played out produced because of deforestation, new, joint, concerted efforts on the
in Indonesia’s districts. Bupatis, who as an important component. But of part of the central government, the
exercise most control over the devel- equal or greater importance have international community and civil
opment of plantations within their ju- been the measures taken by the gov- society. But for that to happen, the
risdictions, have used the cash from ernment to expand protected areas world of forest policy will first need to
Indonesia’s palm-oil boom to bankroll and grant indigenous groups rights recognize their importance.
elections and enrich themselves over their territories. This has been
while in office. accompanied by genuine efforts at The 171 local elections scheduled
law enforcement to punish those who for 27 June 2018 include heav-
Analysis by the World Resources destroy forest illegally. Companies ily forested districts in Sumatra,
Institute shows that deforestation in alone cannot stop deforestation. Kalimantan and Papua. Among the
Indonesia remains high, despite a Only governments can. Political will candidates are incumbents and their
decade of growing global attention is the key. family members who have exploited
and a raft of initiatives by the govern- Indonesia’s assets for private gain.
ment, international community and There is growing support for reduc- The forces of progress start at a
Photo: Tom Johnson/Earthsight
the private sector.177 Around half of ing deforestation in Indonesia at the disadvantage. Elections are notori-
deforestation occurs in Kalimantan, highest levels of government, particu- ously expensive, and the businesses
home to districts like Gunung Mas. larly after another bout of peat and that benefit from the status quo will
Researchers at the Center for Inter- forest fires that devastated Sumatra be backing their own candidates. The
national Forestry Research (CIFOR) and Kalimantan, once again, in 2015. outcome of these elections will play
have linked the start of the boom But Indonesia is a highly decentral- a significant role in determining the
in deforestation to a similar boom ized country, and many of the most future of Indonesia’s forests.
in palm-oil permits issued since important districts and provinces
2005.178 This coincides with the first involved in the battle to halt deforest- But the game isn’t over when the
direct elections for bupatis, when the ation are under the control of elected victors take office. This is when the
modern era of ‘money politics’ began officials whose motivations are very hard work must start, for NGOs
in earnest in Indonesia. different. and journalists who want to make a
difference – of intensively scrutinis-
It is also a reminder that there is a Can the ‘zero deforestation’ move- ing decision-making. By doing so
thriving demand for palm oil pro- ment engender a transformation they can begin to close down the
duced as a result of deforestation, in the management of Indonesia’s fertile space in which corruption has
despite the cascade of commitments forests, in the absence of political will flourished, and perhaps ensure that
to ‘zero deforestation’ by major palm- throughout all levels of government? by the next round of elections, the
oil traders. The companies that ben- Arguably not. More than 60 000 km2 shadowy forces that have influenced
efited from Hambit Bintih’s largesse of forest and peatland remains in political behaviour are put under the
in 2012, when he was bankrolling his unexploited oil-palm concessions in spotlight.
election, have kept on destroying the Indonesia, part of the 210 000 km2 of
forests. It is possible that the market land handed out largely by bupatis.
signal sent by the zero-deforestation Where companies with zero-deforest-
commitments may travel upstream ation pledges will not develop the

DR CONGO
Why DRC?
The Congo Basin rainforest is the
second largest rainforest area in
the world, after the Amazon. Thus
far, it has largely escaped the
extensive destruction suffered by
other major rainforest areas. The
Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) hosts half of this valuable
forest. Despite the DRC’s high
forest cover (65%) and low rate
of deforestation until 2010, recent
findings have revealed increased
rates of deforestation in the Congo
Basin, mainly due to land-use
change and forestry. On average,
1.25% of the forest of the DRC dis-
appeared each year between 2010
and 2014, and this is expected to
rise.
However rich the country is in natu-

ral resources, the inhabitants of the
forest, estimated at around 40 to 50
million people, among which 800
000 belong to various indigenous
groups, suffer from poor livelihood
conditions, are regularly exposed
to violations of human rights, and
continue to be neglected in issues
of forest governance.
MARINE GAUTHIER , INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
The Democratic Republic of the Congo stopped short of their original goals, mechanism was launched in 2009
(DRC) can be considered Ground Zero and there are no guarantees that through a joint mission between
for current debates on international local communities and indigenous UN-REDD and the World Bank’s
REDD+ finance. All major donors are peoples will benefit from REDD+ Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
involved in the DRC, and new models revenues. The lack of recognition, (FCFP). With this, the country
for payments for verified emission and security, of community land entered the ‘readiness phase’, which
reductions are being tested. More rights continues to be a threat to the saw the development of a series of
than USD 500 million has so far been objective of securing the valuable pilot projects, a national REDD
pledged, with the largest contribution forests of the DRC. strategy and a series of governance
coming from Norway. and safeguards tools. In 2015 the
‘Bottom–up’ grants to civil society DRC became a pilot country in the
Funds are given for the DRC to have shown the greatest potential. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of
achieve REDD+ readiness, to create They should be maintained as a the World Bank. Having joined the
governance tools and to implement stepping stone to build the enabling FCPF, it later became the first
necessary reforms. Despite available conditions needed to deliver results. country to submit an Emissions
funds, the country still lacks key Reduction Programme Document
governance tools and policy reforms The ‘REDD pilot’ (ER-PD) to the FCPF Carbon Fund,
to enable REDD+ to be implemented. The DRC was early targeted for which was approved, with some
Many of the investments have REDD initiatives. The national REDD conditions, in June 2016. The most

REDD+
REDD+ Funding
FUNDING to CONGO
IN DR the Democratic
SINCE 2008 Republic of Congo since 2008
Norway
Sweden
Canada UK
Denmark
Germany
EU France
Spain Switzerland
United States
Funding by donor country

Million USD
229
DR Congo
50
5
Funding by program
Million USD
200
225

97 96
66 Private sector
60 Others
CAFI Expected 39.2
Emission UN-REDD
FCPF FIP
Reduction CARPE CBFF/
Payments AfDB 16 7.4
recent estimates, presented at the Programme; the Congo Basin the case in other important forest
2017 meeting of the Carbon Fund, Forest Fund; the World Bank’s countries such as Indonesia or
indicate that the DRC could receive Bio-Carbon Fund; German, US, Brazil. Norway has now pledged
USD 78 million from public and French and Japanese bilateral aid USD 200 million for implementation
private sources through the Fund, and Norwegian support through of the DRC’s REDD+ Investment
and up to USD 97 million in expected multiple initiatives. However, much plan from 2016 to 2020 through its
emissions reduction payments. of the pledged funding has been largest and most recent initiative, the
delayed, resulting in slow policy Central African Forests Initiative
REDD+ is seen an opportunity to development and growing frustrations (CAFI), with a Letter of Intent signed
achieve important and substantial among all national REDD+ stake- in April 2016. This support has raised
progress in crucial reforms for holders in the DRC. expectations of reviving fundamental
land-use planning, land-tenure and national reforms on land tenure and
forestry in the DRC. The national The government of Norway has land-use planning, on hold since
authorities have been successful in shown considerable support for 2013. However, due to the recent
building international support for its advancing the REDD+ programme in allocation of logging concessions by
REDD+ effort, with grants not only the DRC since 2009. This has been the DRC Ministry of the Environment
from the FCPF and UN-REDD, but done through several multilateral despite the current moratorium, CAFI
also from a wide range of sources, initiatives instead of one separate funding has been put on hold.
including the Forest Investment bilateral REDD+ deal, as has been

Sharing the benefits
How to share the benefits is at the
The and mitigating conflicts over land, is
crucial for enabling REDD+ to reach
heart of the debate around REDD+,
and has been a topic of research,
Democratic its objectives of achieving both
deforestation reduction and com-
discussion and consultation in the Republic of munity development.
DRC for several years. Although the
UN climate regime does not specify the Congo Clarifying the drivers of
which elements should be included in deforestation
a benefit-sharing plan, international can be A 2012 study of the drivers of
consensus has emerged that REDD+
should cover the objectives and considered deforestation and degradation of
forests181 has been widely criticized
scope of the benefits, who receives
benefits, under what conditions, for
Ground and challenged. It identified slash-
and-burn agriculture as the main
how long, in what amounts and
through what mechanisms.179 DRC
Zero for driver, while ignoring the role of
industrial forest logging. Congolese
legislation vests rights to land and current civil society organizations have
forest with the state, whereas carbon repeatedly stressed the need for
rights are not clarified. The DRC debates on more precise studies at the local
currently does not allow local level, as the 2012 study focused
communities and indigenous peoples international mainly on the supply basins of the
to develop REDD+ projects on their
own lands, which leads them to go REDD+ main cities. Further independent
studies conducted by international
through the private sector to develop
projects. In a context where the tenure
finance NGOs have concluded that while
agriculture is indeed a main driver
and carbon rights of communities in these supply basins, there is little
and indigenous peoples are neglected evidence that it contributes signifi-
by the government, their share of pushing to get it approved, while civil cantly to deforestation beyond
REDD+ benefits remain uncertain. society and key funders like Norway those areas.182
have been opposed, due partly to the
The draft benefit-sharing plan under lack of clarity over land, forest and Such concerns have not yet been
the FCPF programme does not carbon rights. This opposition has led considered within the various REDD+
address the practicalities of how to delayed approval of the Benefit- policies and measures. Civil society
financial benefits will be delivered, Sharing Plan, and highlights the has expressed concerns regarding the
particularly in areas without banking need for national policy reforms in lack of recognition of the centuries-
infrastructure. Nor does the proposed the DRC to enable REDD+ success. long positive role played by local
plan provide for a clear mechanism communities and indigenous peoples
to ensure that the benefits reach Securing land rights in managing and preserving forest
community stakeholders – an Despite the international conventions ecosystems. They also criticize the
omission that gives rise to fears that and agreements ratified by the DRC, REDD+ Investment Plan for not
funds may be lost through corruption. its land tenure law is one of the least mentioning industrial developments
Putting in place a robust and protective for local communities in as major drivers, for ignoring both
transparent plan for benefit sharing is Africa.180 Land-rights recognition their current impact on forests and
all the more important, given the lack processes are complex and costly, their likely expansion alongside the
of any functioning previous examples accessible almost only to private country’s economic development,
of such a system in the DRC. In light sector and big international organi- with a destructive capacity far beyond
of current conflicts related to natural zations. Communities often see their community-scale activities.183 A new
resources extraction and the lack of lands seized by concession-holders, or study of drivers at both the national
fair sharing of revenues, the proposed that protected areas are established and provincial levels is needed.
benefit sharing appears likely to create without any consultation or their prior
conflicts between REDD+ concession consent. The Local Communities ‘Bottom–up’ strategies hold the
holders and local communities, Forest Concessions, enabled by a greatest potential
as already witnessed in the decree in 2014, offers a concrete The many REDD+ initiatives and
Mai-Ndombe area. solution for communities to secure unresolved governance issues show
their land rights. However, it has not how the DRC and its various donors
Receiving FCPF funds requires yet been fully implemented, due to are eager to set up structures for
approval of the Benefit-Sharing Plan lack of political will from provincial payments to the DRC, but have been
outlining how REDD+ payments for administrations and lack of financial keen on implementing necessary
emissions reductions are to be shared and technical support from donors. policy reforms. In the current political
among the various stakeholders. An effective and fair reform of land situation, characterized by postponed
FCPF representatives, the DRC tenure, ensuring the recognition of elections, widespread corruption and
government and the World Bank are communities’ customary land rights escalating disorder, there are reasons

to question whether necessary reforms and such governance mechanisms schemes and the reliance on
can be implemented at the national need to be supported by strong conventional models such as
level. The urgency expressed by both national political will. While industrial logging concessions for
the DRC and donors could come at FONAREDD centralizes the funds and forest management, are probably
the expense of important safeguards CAFI provides donor coordination, a unwise and ineffective in spurring
and proper benefit-sharing. Congolese governance body should transformational change.
ensure harmonized implementation
There is a profound need for at the national level, beyond imple- In such cases, supporting REDD+
governance support to the DRC, a mentation agencies, to ensure proper through ‘bottom–up’ grants to civil
need that has been underestimated in ownership of the process by the society may be a better alternative
the readiness phase. Donor choices government. In view of the weaknesses than large-scale transfers to states
of channelling support through multiple of the REDD+ National Coordination characterized by weak governance,
multilateral initiatives have increased (CN-REDD), and the fact that its widespread corruption and no track
the burden of coordination on the funding ended in 2017, it is reasonable record of successful implementation
DRC government, as well as on the to question the implementation and of safeguards. Direct support to civil
donors. This in turn has increased financial follow-up of all initiatives at society and indigenous peoples is
the risks of duplication, misalignment the local level. not a substitute for government
and problems in sequencing. support, but it can serve as a stepping
Funding through multilateral initiatives Effective and inclusive governance is stone for building the enabling
also reduces the direct control that required for REDD+ to be feasible. conditions needed for REDD+ and
funders have over programming and The DRC case gives rise to the climate finance to be effective.
funding decisions, leaving large question of what minimal conditions
multilateral bureaucracies in charge should be met to be ‘ready for REDD+’. The efforts made by Norway and
of deciding whether to suspend There is extensive evidence that, UN-REDD to strengthen the DRC
funding in case of malfeasance or despite the significant progress in the civil society platform have been
human rights abuse – matters they DRC over the past years, the legal, commendable. They have brought
often fail to react to, or are slow to policy and regulatory framework and some tangible improvements in
consider. Each multilateral initiative government capacity remain too weak REDD+ programme design, and are
has its own governance body, safe- to enable proper implementation of probably at least partly responsible
guards and rules of engagement for social and environmental safeguards. for the positive policy changes
civil society, which increases the Basic conditions remained unfulfilled, achieved thus far. This ‘strengthening
amount of work that external stake- such as clear tenure rights for land and of forest governance and account-
holders must do to in order under- forest, functioning local government ability from below’, or focus on the
stand the systems and to engage. institutions and rule of law in the ‘demand side’ of good governance, is
During the first years of REDD+ in countryside; and the current develop- a successful strategy that can and
the DRC, multilateral REDD+ ment model is tilted away from should be replicated within the
initiatives failed to provide a joint environmental reform towards current and coming REDD+
strategic and holistic REDD+ business-as-usual scenarios. While initiatives.
approach. this does not necessarily disqualify
the DRC from receiving any support,
To counter this challenge, CAFI has it does indicate that top–down
been conceived as a coordination approaches, like pay-for-performance
platform led by a multi-partner trust
fund (MPTF), with all REDD+ funds
in DRC channelled through the
National REDD+ Fund (FONAREDD).
Such coordination is essential to
Focus on
reduce aid fragmentation and the ‘demand
effectively implement financing
strategies in line with national side’ of good
investment frameworks. CAFI has
encouraged funds alignment with governance, is
other initiatives; it has added some
common guidelines, and has a successful
strengthened some programmes and
implementing agencies which are to
strategy
follow the strictest set of financial
management rules.
that can and
should be
Still, there are no common standards
for financial follow-up or reporting – replicated

INDON
CASE STUDY DR CONGO
Mai-Ndombe
MARINE GAUTHIER, INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
Through the Mai-Ndombe Emissions However, there are several reasons has been a substantial loss of intact
Reduction Programme, the DRC to be concerned about the quality of forest landscapes since 2001.
could be the first country to qualify the programme. For one thing, it risks
for performance-based payments violating the rights of indigenous The Mai-Ndombe programme seeks
from the World Bank’s Carbon Fund. peoples and communities. Moreover, support that can help to make
The programme will be implement- it involves the subsidizing of logging, industrial logging concessions more
ed in the province of Mai Ndombe, and thereby potentially increases sustainable. The programme ‘offers
an area as large as 1/3 of Norway. deforestation and forest degradation the opportunity for forest companies
Some 28% of the province is covered to be compensated for their effort in
by logging concessions. Being first in Subsidizing logging reduced impact logging or extending
the pipeline makes this programme There is a little industrial-scale conservation area’ and will provide
especially important, as it might set logging in the DR Congo today. support ‘to companies that choose to
a precedent for other projects within The country has distributed many engage in the programme and com-
the Carbon Fund. The Carbon Fund’s licenses, but most of these have mit to greater legal compliance.’
rules and practices also set a prece- since been withdrawn. Still, there are
dent for how to implement deforest- currently 20 industrial logging con- However, it remains to be proven that
ation measures in many developing cessions in the Mai-Ndombe area. reduced-impact logging is substan-
countries. Within these concession areas, there tially better than ordinary logging

NESIA
The owners are allowed to get carbon

rights, before the land rights of those
programme living in the area have been clarified.
constitute a In the absence of clarified and

secured land rights, and with the
high human growing attractiveness of REDD+
benefits, projects are likely to arise
rights risk, as between project holders and com-
well as a munities, or between the state and

the communities. This has already
reputational been the case with a conservation
concession held by a California-
risk, that could based international company, Wildlife
Works Carbon. The concession was
undermine never subject to customary tenure
clarification, nor were there any
REDD+ in participatory mapping exercises.
While impacting on community liveli-
general hoods by preventing their access
to the forests and their agricultural
practices, it provides no benefit to
techniques. Timber harvest on the them.184 This has led to violent con-
scale implied in the programme will flicts, with the current project holder
increase greenhouse gas emissions, using police enforcement to reach

lead to negative environmental im- their goals of emission reductions.
pacts in intact rainforest and increase
the risk of deforestation. This has Conclusions
led civil society actors, among them The Carbon Fund’s approval of the
Rainforest Foundation Norway, to Mai-Ndombe programme, with all
call for activities that in practice entail its errors and shortcomings, serves
subsidizing industrial logging in valu- as a dangerous precedent for other
able and intact forests to be excluded REDD+ programmes within the
from support from the Carbon Fund – World Bank. As a REDD+ Emission
and from other climate initiatives. Reduction pilot, the Mai-Ndombe
Unresolved land rights leading to programme can set a poor standard
conflict for forest preservation in DR Congo,
for Carbon Fund programmes and
A major shortcoming here concerns possibly for forest carbon markets as
the unresolved land-rights situation such. The many initiatives involved,
in the Mai-Ndombe programme area. including CAFI, FCPF, FIP and
According to the Carbon Fund’s own possibly the Scheme for International
methodological framework, tenure Aviation (CORSIA) under the UN
rights for the 1.8 million people living International Civil Aviation Organization
in this area, including indigenous (ICAO) with whom the Carbon Fund
peoples, must be assessed and is discussing links,185 should serve
clarified. This has not been done. as an incentive to shift the focus to
There have been no studies or innovative and effective governance,
mapping of these rights, except for a implemented with due diligence
survey of 400 households conducted and strong safeguards. As matters
under the BioCarbon Fund in 2014. now stand, the weaknesses of the
As a result, land rights, especially programme constitute a high human
for women and indigenous peoples, rights risk, as well as a reputational
are yet to be secured. By contrast, risk, that could undermine REDD+
external companies and project in general.

End notes
1) Stern, N. et al.(2006). Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change: HM Treasury, London.
2) Angelsen, A. (2016). REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of Norway, Review of Development Economics, 21(2), 237–264.
3) Climate Focus. (2017). Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests: Finance for Forests – Goals 8 and 9 Assessment Report.
4) Grassi, G. et al.(2017). The key role of forests in meeting climate targets require science for credible mitigation. Nature Climate Change 7: 220–226.
5) Climate Focus. (2017). Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests: Finance for Forests…
6) Pearson, T. R., Brown, S., Murray, L., & Sidman, G. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: an underestimated source.
Carbon balance and management, 12(1), 3.
7) Baccini, A. et al. (2017) Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358(6360), 230–234
8) RRI (2014). What Future for Reform? Progress and slowdown in forest tenure reform since 2002. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
9) Reytar, A. and Veit, P. (2017, 20 December. 5 Maps Show How Important Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Are to the Environment.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/12/5-maps-show-how-important-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities-are-environment
10) Kartha, S. and Dooley, K. (2016). The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action. SEI Working Paper
2016–08. Somerville, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute; Roe, S. et al.(2017). How Improved Land Use Can Contribute to the 1.5°C Goal of the Paris
Agreement. Working Paper prepared by Climate Focus and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis; Griscom, B. et al.(2017). Natural
climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650.
11) See Decision 2/CP.13 Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action
12) See the Warsaw Framework for REDD-plus for an overview of decisions on REDD+.
13) Parker, C. (forthcoming) Rethinking REDD+ finance: A review of options to scale up finance for forests and climate change mitigation in developing countries
14) Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Cifor.
15) Adapted from Falconer, A., Parker, C., Keenlyside, P., Dontenville, A., & Wilkinson, J. (2015). Three tools to unlock finance for land-use mitigation and
adaptation. Amsterdam and Venice: Climate Focus and Climate Policy Initiative.
16) We use the term REDD-relevant throughout this report to refer to activities and finance that may have either a positive or negative impact on REDD+ outcomes.
17) McFarland, W., Whitley, S., and Kissinger, G. (2015). Subsidies to key commodities driving forest loss. Overseas Development Institute, London
https://www.odi.org/publications/9286-subsidies-key-commodities-driving-forest-loss
18) See e.g. IEA, 2010, on the scope of fossil-fuel subsidies in 2009 and a roadmap for phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies http://www.worldenergyoutlook.
org/media/weowebsite/energysubsidies/second_joint_report.pdf
19) McFarland, W. et al. Subsidies to key commodities driving forest loss…
20) The terms REDD-aligned and REDD-misaligned are explained further in the accompanying discussion paper. ‘REDD-aligned’ activities deliver
REDD-outcomes, and ‘REDD-misaligned’ activities contribute to forest loss, or only deliver REDD-outcomes under certain conditions.
21) UNEP (2016). Fiscal incentives for Indonesian palm oil production: Pathways for alignment with green growth. United Nations Environment Programme
http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&view=document&alias=15505-fiscal-incentives-for-indonesian-palm-oil-production&category_slug=-
supporting-documents&Itemid=134
22) Kusumowardhani, N. (2017). Smallholder finance in the palm oil sector: Analyzing the gaps between existing credit schemes and smallholder realities.
CIFOR Info-brief 185. https://www.cifor.org/library/6582/smallholder-finance-in-the-palm-oil-sector-analyzing-the-gaps-between-existing-credit-schemes-
and-smallholder-realities/
23) See http://www.rspo.org
24) Kaimowitz, D., & Angelsen, A. (1999). The World Bank and non-forest sector policies that affect forests: background paper for the World Bank’s Forest
Policy and Strategy. Bogor, Center for International Forest Research.
25) Based on author’s analysis using OECD DAC CRS 2015 disbursement data
26) This does not include the USD 38 million in aid disbursed bilaterally to unspecified countries
27) Analysis using OECD DAC CRS data for 2015 assuming agriculture, mining, and infrastructure projects are REDD-misaligned, unless specifically
labelled as climate-relevant using Rio Markers. REDD-aligned finance includes, forestry, environment, and other specific REDD projects
28) Puzio, L. (2015). Analysis Of World Bank Finance & Forests: The Impact of Development Projects on Tropical Forests and Forest Peoples, Washington,
DC: World Bank Information Center http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Analysis_of_WB_finance_and_forests.pdf
29) Joldersma, D. (2015). Analysis of IFC Finance & Forests: The Impact of Development Projects on Tropical Forests and Forest Peoples. Washington,
DC: World Bank Information Center http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Analysis_of_IFC_Finance_and_Forests.pdf
30) Falconer, A. et al.(2017). Landscape of REDD+ Aligned Finance in Côte d’Ivoire. San Francisco, Climate Policy Initiative
31) Goedde, L., Horii, M., & Sanghvi, S. (2015). Pursuing the global opportunity in food and agribusiness. McKinsey & Company https://www.mckinsey.
com/industries/chemicals/our-insights/pursuing-the-global-opportunity-in-food-and-agribusiness
32) ‘Soft’ commodities refer to agricultural commodities such as palm oil, beef, and timber; ‘hard’ commodities may include mining for minerals and fossil fuels.
33) Rautner, M., Leggett, M., & Davis, F. (2013). The little book of big deforestation drivers. Global Canopy Programme: Oxford.
34) Potts, J. et al.(2014). The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014: Standards and the green economy. Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for
Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf
35) WWF (2012). Profitability and sustainability in palm oil production. http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/profitability_and_sustainability_in_
palm_oil_production_update_.pdf
36) Potts, J. et al. The state of sustainability initiatives review 2014…
37) See the congtribution by Chris Malins in this report, on increased demand for palm oil for biofuels
38) Streck, C., & Lee, D. (2016). Partnering for Results: public–private collaboration on deforestation-free supply chains. Prepared with support from
cooperative agreement# S-LMAQM-13-CA-1128 with US Department of State.
39) Dutch Alliance Sustainable Palm Oil (2015, December 2). http://www.taskforceduurzamepalmolie.nl/uploads/media/Dutch_Alliance_Sustainable_Palm_
Oil_-_commitment_english.pdf
40) The Amsterdam Declaration in Support of a Fully Sustainable Palm Oil Supply Chain by 2020 (18 January 2017), https://www.euandgvc.nl/documents/
publications/2015/december/7/declarations-palm-oil

41) Chain Reaction Research (13 February 2017). Indonesia’s Palm Oil Landbank Expansion Limited By Proposed Moratorium and NDPE Policies.
https://chainreactionresearch.com/2017/02/13/report-indonesias-palm-oil-landbank-expansion-limited-by-proposed-moratorium-and-ndpe-policies/
42) Rautner, M. et al. The little book of big deforestation drivers…
43) Assunção, J., Gandour, C., & Rocha, R. (2013). DETERring deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: environmental monitoring and law enforcement.
Climate Policy Initiative Report, PUC-Rio.
44) SNV (2016). Climate Smart Agriculture Solution: Deforestation Free Supply Chains. http://www.snv.org/public/cms/sites/default/files/explore/download/
snv_deforestationfreesupplychains.pdf
45) SAP (2015). Smallholder Farms in Developing Regions Join the Global Supply Chain. https://consumergoods.com/smallholder-farms-developing-re-
gions-join-global-supply-chain
46) SHARP (2017). New technology to help smallholders avoid loss of HCV forest. http://www.sharp-partnership.org/updates/new-technology-to-help-
smallholders-avoid-loss-of-hcv-forest
47) http://www.globalforestwatch.org
48) https://earthengine.google.com
49) https://trase.earth
50) World Economic Forum (2017). The Role of the Financial Sector in Deforestation-Free Supply Chains. Published by the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020,
based on research by Vivid Economics within the framework of the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 secretariat. https://www.tfa2020.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2017/01/TFA2020_Framing_Paper_130117.pdf
51) Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, 2014 Review. http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GSIA_Review_download.pdf
52) HSBC (17 February 2017). HSBC Statement on Revised Agriculture Commodities Policy: Palm Oil.
http://www.hsbc.com/news-and-insight/media-resources/media-releases/2017/hsbc-statement-on-revised-agricultural-commodities-policy
53) Hagen, E., Ranum, N.H., Olsen, V., Elvevold, O.S., Lahn, B. (2012). Beauty and the beast: Norway’s investments in rainforest protection and rainforest
destruction. Rainforest Foundation Norway and Friends of the Earth Norway https://d5i6is0eze552.cloudfront.net/documents/Publikasjoner/Andre-rapport-
er/Rapport_oljefondet_05-2012.pdf?mtime=20150630110734
54) Government Pension Fund Global (2016). Report on Responsible Investment. https://www.nbim.no/contentassets/2c3377d07c5a4c4fbd-
442b345e7cfd67/government-pension-fund-global---responsible-investment-2016.pdf
55) Kusumaningtyas, R. and van Gelder, J.W. (2017). Toward responsible and inclusive financing of the palm oil sector (CIFOR Infobrief no. 184). Center
for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
56) Rainforest Foundation Norway (2017). Nordic investments in banks financing Indonesian palm oil
57) WWF (2012). Palm Oil Investor Review: Investor Guidance on Palm Oil. The role of investors in supporting the development of a sustainable palm oil industry
58) Alexander, K. (2014). Stability and Sustainability in Banking Reform: are environmental risks missing in Basel III. Cambridge: CISL/Geneva: UNEPFI.
59) https://www.cdp.net/en/forests
60) https://www.forest500.org
61) https://www.deforestationfreefunds.org
62) http://thetenurefacility.org
63) http://forestsandfinance.org
64) Cort, T., Krosinsky, C. (2015). Green Finance Environmental Impact Hard to Measure. Financial Times, 4 November 2015.
65) See e.g. https://standardandpoors.co1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_enfLtNTzSKDzNS5
66) https://www.unglobalcompact.org/
67) https://www.unpri.org
68) https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/business-action/sustainable-finance/banking-environment-initiative/programme/soft-commodities
69) Chain Reaction Research (July 2017). Sustainable Banking Initiatives: Regulators’ Role in Halting Deforestation. https://chainreactionresearch.files.
wordpress.com/2017/07/sustainable-banking-initiatives-regulators-role-in-halting-deforestation-170714.pdf
70) UNPRI (2016). Global guide to responsible investment regulation. https://www.unpri.org/page/responsible-investment-regulation
71) Alexander, K. Stability and Sustainability in Banking Reform…
72) Angelsen, A. and D. McNeill (2012). The evolution of REDD+. In A. Angelsen et al. (eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. Bogor: CIFOR.
73) Okereke, C. and K. Dooley (2010). Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: Towards a post-Kyoto climate
agreement. Global Environmental Change 20 (1): 82–95
74) Boucher, D. (2015). The REDD/carbon market offsets debate: Big argument, small potatoes. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 34: 547–558.
75) Millar, R. et al. (2017). The cumulative carbon budget and its implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 32 (2): 323–342.
76) IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
77) Le Quéré, C. et al. (2016). Global Carbon Budget 2016. Earth System Science Data 8 (2): 605. http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ar-
chive/2016/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf
78) Grassi, G. et al. (2017). The key role of forests in meeting climate targets require science for credible mitigation. Nature Climate Change 7: 220–226.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3227
79) Kartha, S. and K. Dooley (2016). The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action. SEI Working Paper 2016-08.
Somerville, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute, US Center. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-08-Nega-
tive-emissions.pdf
80) Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016…
81) Anderson, K. and G. Peters (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354(6309): 182–183.
82) Kriegler, E. et al. (2014). What does the 2˚C temperature target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020? The LIMITS study on Durban Platform
scenarios. Climate Change Economics.
83) Kartha and Dooley, The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’…
84) Voigt, C. and F. Ferreira (2016). ‘Dynamic differentiation’: the principles of CBDR-RC, progression and highest possible ambition in the Paris
Agreement. Transnational Environmental Law 5 (2): 285–303.
85) Angelsen and McNeill, The evolution of REDD+.
86) Grassi et al., The key role of forests…
87) Ibid.
88) Rogelj, J. et al. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2˚C. Nature 534: 631–639.
89) Voigt and Ferreira, ‘Dynamic differentiation’.
90) Angelsen and McNeill, The evolution of REDD+.
91) Van Asselt, H. and J. Gupta (2009). Stretching too far? Developing countries and the role of flexibility mechanisms beyond Kyoto. Stanford Environmental
Law Journal 28: 311–379. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1782753
92) Karsenty, A. and S. Ongolo (2012). Can ‘fragile states’ decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with
respect to the REDD mechanism. Forest Policy and Economics 18: 38–45.
93) LTS (2014). Real-time evaluation of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative. Oslo: Norad; IEG (2012). The Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility. Global Program Review 6 (3).
94) Achat, D. L., Fortin, M., Landmann, G., Ringeval, B., & Augusto, L. (2015). Forest soil carbon is threatened by intensive biomass harvesting. Scientific
reports 5, article no. 15991.
95) Felton, A., Nilsson, U., Sonesson, J., Felton, A. M., Roberge, J. M., Ranius, T., & Drössler, L. (2016). Replacing monocultures with mixed-species
stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio, 45(2), 124–139.

96) Stevens, C., Winterbottom, R., Springer, J., & Reytar, K. (2014). Securing rights, combating climate change: How strengthening community forest rights
mitigates climate change. Washington DC: World Resources Institute
97) Arriagada, R. A., Ferraro, P. J., Sills, E. O., Pattanayak, S. K., & Cordero-Sancho, S. (2012). Do payments for environmental services affect forest
cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics, 88(2), 382–399.
98) Mitchard, E. T., Saatchi, S. S., Gerard, F. F., Lewis, S. L., & Meir, P. (2009). Measuring woody encroachment along a forest–savanna boundary in
Central Africa. Earth Interactions, 13(8), 1-29.
99) Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Parrotta, J. A. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science, 310(5754), 1628-1632.
100) Edwards, D. P., Larsen, T. H., Docherty, T. D., Ansell, F. A., Hsu, W. W., Derhé, M. A. & Wilcove, D. S. (2011). Degraded lands worth protecting: the
biological importance of Southeast Asia’s repeatedly logged forests. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278(1702), 82–90.
101) Gibbs, H. K., & Salmon, J. M. (2015). Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Applied geography, 57, 12–21.
102) Campos-Filho, E. M., Da Costa, J. N., De Sousa, O. L., & Junqueira, R. G. (2013). Mechanized direct-seeding of native forests in Xingu, Central
Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 32(7), 702–727.
103) Harari (2017, July 10). Rede de Sementes do Xingu completa dez anos de historia. https://www.socioambiental.org/pt-br/noticias-socioambientais/
rede-de-sementes-do-xingu-completa-dez-anos-de-historia and http://sementesdoxingu.org.br/site/
104) Durigan, G., Guerin, N., & da Costa, J. N. M. N. (2013). Ecological restoration of Xingu Basin headwaters: motivations, engagement, challenges and
perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 368(1619), 20120165.
105) Bastin, J. F., Berrahmouni, N., Grainger, A., Maniatis, D., Mollicone, D., Moore, R., & Aloui, K. (2017). The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science,
356(6338), 635-638.
106) Buckingham, K. (2015). The Restoration Diagnostic - Case Example: Maradi and Zinder Regions, Niger. https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/WRI_
Restoration_Diagnostic_Case_Example_Niger.pdf
107) Pye-Smith, C. (2013). The quiet revolution: how Niger’s farmers are re-greening the croplands of the Sahel. World Agroforestry Centre.
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/BL17569.pdf
108) Reij, C., Tappan, G., & Smale, M. (2009). Agroenvironmental transformation in the Sahel: Another kind of” Green Revolution”(Vol. 914). Intl Food
Policy Res Inst.
109) Houghton, R. A. (2012). Historic changes in terrestrial carbon storage. In Recarbonization of the Biosphere (pp. 59–82). Springer, Dordrecht.
110) Houghton, R. A., Byers, B., & Nassikas, A. A. (2015). A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1022.
111) Kartha, S. and K. Dooley (2016). The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action. SEI Working Paper 2016-
08. Somerville, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute, US Center. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-08-
Negative-emissions.pdf
112) Martin, P. A., Newton, A. C., Pfeifer, M., Khoo, M., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Impacts of tropical selective logging on carbon storage and tree species
richness: A meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management, 356, 224–233.
Carbon balance and management, 12(1), 3.
114) Lee, D. and Sanz, M. J. (2017) UNFCCC Accounting for Forests: What’s in and what’s out of NDCs and REDD+. Climate and Land Use Alliance.
http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Policy_brief-NDCs-and-REDD.pdf
115) Asner, G.P. et al. 2006. Condition and fate of logged forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academic Society of the USA, 103,
12947–12950. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12947
116) Art. 70 Decision 1/CP.16 The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the
Convention
117) World Bank (2007) in ITTO, 2013. ITTO Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Natural Tropical Forests.
118) Bare, M., Kauffman, C., & Miller, D. C. (2015). Assessing the impact of international conservation aid on deforestation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Environmental Research Letters, 10(12), 125010. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125010
119) Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003L0030
120) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?-
qid=1515516627620&uri=CELEX:32009L0028
121) Frank, S., Böttcher, H., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., … Elbersen, B. (2013). How effective are the sustainability criteria accompa-
nying the European Union 2020 biofuel targets? GCB Bioenergy, 5, 306–314. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01188.x
122) Malins, C., Searle, S. Y., & Baral, A. (2014). A Guide for the Perplexed to the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production. International Council on Clean
Transportation. http://www.theicct.org/guide-perplexed-indirect-effects-biofuels-production
123) Malins, C. (2018). Driving deforestation: the impact of expanding palm oil demand through biofuel policy. London: Cerulogy and Rainforest Foundation
Norway. http://www.cerulogy.com/palm-oil/driving-deforestation/
124) Malins, C. Driving deforestation…
125) Malins, C. (2017). For peat’s sake – Understanding the climate implications of palm oil biodiesel. London: Cerulogy and Rainforest Foundation Norway.
http://www.cerulogy.com/uncategorized/for-peats-sake/
126) Malins. For peat’s sake…
127) Wijedasa, L. S., Jauhiainen, J., Könönen, M., Lampela, M., Vasander, H., Leblanc, M.-C. M.-C., … Andersen, R. (2017). Denial of long-term issues
with agriculture on tropical peatlands will have devastating consequences. Global Change Biology, 23(3). http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13516
128) See e.g. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/EU-asking-for-trade-war-with-palm-oil-curbs-Indonesian-minister
129) Malins, C. (2010). Palm Oil Cultivation in Malaysia Case study. St Leonards on Sea
130) European Commission (2016). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources. Brussels: European Commission. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0767R%2801%29
131) https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/04/palm-oil-biofuels-meps-eu-transport-deforestation-zsl-greenpeace-golden-agri-re-
sources-oxfam
132) Average deforestation 2015–2017 compared to the average deforestation 1996–2005 (which was used as the baseline for the Amazon Fund)
133) Government of Norway and Government of Brazil (2008). Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in issues related to combating global
warming, protection of biodiversity and strengthening of sustainable development. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/2ecbe3693ac04a85bf4d8ddb-
5d78d858/mou_norway_brazil.16.09.08.pdf
134) Compared to the average deforestation 1996–2005, used as the first baseline in the Amazon Fund.
135) https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br
136) Law No. 12.651 on the protection of Native Forests, 2012/2017
137) Hall, A. (2012). Forests and climate change: the social dimensions of REDD in Latin America. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
138) RAISG (2017) Amazonia 2016. https://www.amazoniasocioambiental.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/AMAZONIA2016_portugues_2jun.pdf
139) Witness, G. (2017). Defenders of the earth: global killings of land and environmental defenders in 2016. London.
140) Moutinho, P., Guerra, R., & Azevedo-Ramos, C. (2016). Achieving zero deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: What is missing?, Elementa: Science of
the Anthropocene, 4.
141) Brazilian Forest Service (2017) National Registry of Public Forests 2017. http://www.florestal.gov.br/documentos/informacoes-florestais/cadastro-na-
cional-de-florestas-publicas/cnfp-2017/3591-mapa-cnfp-2017-ingles-1/file
142) Datu (2014) Deforestation and the Brazilian Beef Value Chain. http://www.daturesearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Beef-Final_Optimized.pdf
143) Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., ... & Walker, N. F. (2015). Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science, 347(6220),
377–378.

144) Ortolani (2018, May 18). Brazil has the tools to end Amazon deforestation now: report. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/05/brazil-has-the-tools-to-
end-amazon-deforestation-now-report/
145) Datu (2014) Deforestation and the Brazilian Beef Value Chain...
146) Assunção, J. and Gandour, C. (2016). Does Credit Affect Deforestation? Evidence from a Rural Credit Policy in the Brazilian Amazon. Climate Policy
Initiative.
147) Such as the Tax on Rural Properties (ITR), that is charged to underproductive land. The ITR intends to incentivize production intensification and dis-
courage deforestation, but these measures have not been implemented.
148) Weisse, M. and Goldman, E. D. (2017, 23 October). Global Tree Cover Loss Rose 51 Percent in 2016. http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/global-tree-
cover-loss-rose-51-percent-2016
149) Infoamazonia (2017) A Politica do desmatamento. http://desmatamento.infoamazonia.org/analise/results/
150) de Souza, O. B. (2017, July 7). Ibama sofre atentado no Pará após veto a Medidas Provisórias. https://www.socioambiental.org/pt-br/noticias-socio-
ambientais/ibama-sofre-atentado-no-para-apos-veto-as-mps-756-e-758;
151) Moutinho, P. et al. Achieving zero deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon…
152) Carrington, D. (2017, June 22). Norway issues $1bn threat to Brazil over rising Amazon destruction. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/
jun/22/norway-issues-1bn-threat-brazil-rising-amazon-destruction
153) RFN calculations
154) EIA (2016, August 18). U.S. Government Report Confirms Imports of Illegal Timber from Peru.
155) EIA (2016, January 15). EIA Denounces Termination of Peruvian Forest Oversight Body President. https://eia-global.org/press-releases/eia-denounc-
es-termination-of-peruvian-forest-oversight-body-president
156) Butler, R. (2012, July 27). Rainforest logging. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0807.htm
Carbon Balance and Management, 12(1), 3.
158) Bosques y Cambio Climatico (2016) Estrategia Nacional Sobre Bosques y Cambio Climático. http://www.bosques.gob.pe/archivo/ff3f54_ESTRATEGI-
ACAMBIOCLIMATICO2016_ok.pdf
159) Urrunaga, J., Johnson, A., Orbegozo, I. D., & Mulligan, F. (2012). The Laundering Machine. How fraud and corruption in Peru’s concession system are
destroying the future of its forests. EIA Global.
160) Declaration of Intent Peru, Norway, Germany (2014), chapter III article c). https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/b324ccc0cf88419fab88f2f-
4c7101f20/declarationofintentperu.pdf
161) Servindi (2017. May 22). La historia del debilitamiento del Ministerio del Ambiente (2008–2017). https://www.servindi.org/actualidad-noti-
cias/20/05/2017/la-historia-del-debilitamiento-del-ministerio-del-ambiente-2008-2017
162) http://geobosques.minam.gob.pe/geobosque/view/index.php
163) https://content.eia-global.org/assets/2015/04/Deforestation_By_Definition.pdf
164) http://www.wri.org/our-work/project/forests-and-landscapes-indonesia/climate-change-indonesia
165) Wijaya, A., Juliane, R., Firmansyah, R., & Payne, d. O. (2017, 24 May). 6 Tahun Sejak Moratorium, Data Satelit Menunjukkan Hutan Tropis Indonesia
Tetap Terancam. http://www.wri-indonesia.org/id/blog/6-tahun-sejak-moratorium-data-satelit-menunjukkan-hutan-tropis-indonesia-tetap-terancam
166) Jong, H. N. (2018, 19 April. Unified land-use map for Indonesia nears launch, but concerns over access remain. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/04/
unified-land-use-map-for-indonesia-nears-launch-but-concerns-over-access-remain/
167) Seymour, F. (2014, 8 July). Indigenous Peoples Rights and REDD+. http://cgdev.org.488elwb02.blackmesh.com/blog/indigenous-peo-
ples-rights-and-redd?callout=1-1
168) Austin, K. et al.(2014) Indonesia’s forest moratorium: impacts and next steps.
Austin, K. et al.(2014) Indonesia’s forest moratorium: impacts and next steps. https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/indonesia-forest-moratori-
um-next-steps.pdf
169) Wijaya, A. et al. 6 Tahun Sejak Moratorium…
170) Setiawan, E. N., Maryudi, A., Purwanto, R. H., & Lele, G. (2016). Opposing interests in the legalization of non-procedural forest conversion to oil palm
in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 58, 472–481.
171) Seymour, F., La Vina, T., & Hite, K. (2014). Evidence linking community-level tenure and forest condition: An annotated bibliography. Climate and Land
Use Alliance.
172) Paoli, G., Aurora, L., Palmer, B., Prasodjo, R., & Schweithelm, J. (2015). Indonesia’s evolving governance framework for palm oil: implications for a no
deforestation, no peat palm oil sector. Daemeter Consul.
173) Malins, C. (2018). Driving deforestation: the impact of expanding palm oil demand through biofuel policy. London: Cerulogy, and Rainforest Foundation
Norway. http://www.cerulogy.com/palm-oil/driving-deforestation/
174) Assuming that biofuel targets for Indonesia are met and that targets in China and for aviation will be met through significant contributions from palm oil,
along with modest increases in demand from the EU and US markets.
175) Malins, C. (2018). Driving deforestation…
176) https://thegeckoproject.org/ghosts-in-the-machine-4acb5c5236cc
177) Wijaya, A. et al. 6 Tahun Sejak Moratorium…
178) Ramsay, D. (2016, September 26). Delving into drivers of deforestation. https://forestsnews.cifor.org/43881/delving-into-drivers-of-deforestation?fnl=en
179) See for example the UN-REDD Programme, ‘Principles of REDD+ Benefit Distribution System’, UNREDD & FCPF, ‘REDD+ Benefit-Sharing: A com-
parative assessment of three national Policy Approaches’ and FCPF, ‘Benefit-Sharing’ available at: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/benefit-sharing
180) Mpoyi, A. M., Nyamwoga, F. B., Kabamba, F. M., & Assembe-Mvondo, S. (2013). Le contexte de la REDD+ en République Démocratique du Congo:
Causes, agents et institutions, Occasional Paper 84,. CIFOR.
181) Gouvernement de la République Démocratique du Congo, Ministère de l’Environnement, Conservation de la Nature et Tourisme (2012). Qualitative
study on the drivers of deforestation and degradation of forest in the Democratic Republic of Congo
182) Kipalu, P. et al.(2016). Securing Forest Peoples’ Rights and Tackling Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo – Deforestation drivers, local
impacts and rights-based solutions, Forest Peoples Programme, http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/05/fppdrcreportinternet-2.pdf
183) GTCR-R (2015). Position paper and recommendations from DRC’s civil society about the REDD+ Investment Plan
184) Moabi (2015). Pilot Mission for DRC’s REDD+ national standards
185) Carbon Fund (2017, 19–22 June) Sixteenth meeting of the Carbon Fund, Paris. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/CF16

Rainforest Foundation Norway, Mariboes gate 8, 0183 Oslo Norway
rainforest.no

Saving The Rainforest 2 - 0 - 2018 - Web ID 53224

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saving The Rainforest 2 - 0 - 2018 - Web ID 53224

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saving the

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 1

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

2 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 3

4 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 5

6 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Securing greater control over forest

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 7

social and existing agreements. We at RFN hope

8 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

10 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 11

Finance is therefore needed to reduce

12 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Sectors that contribute to deforestation

Illustration: Riccardo Pravettoni

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 13

a force for good: through the use of

14 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 15

economy and loss. Where there have been large-

objectives by all major economies.

16 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 17

18 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 19

Going negative: Forests and the

20 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Developing countries face new

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 21

22 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 23

FRED PEARCE, SCIENCE JOURNALIST

24 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 25

The track record of forest

26 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

reforestation Farmers are often seen as the

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 27

GLENN HUROWITZ, CEO OF MIGHTY

28 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

30 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 31

oil produced by driving orangutans to

32 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 33

34 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

36 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

long-term fate of the forest following

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 37

DR CHRIS MALINS, CERULOGY

38 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Total forest loss

2030 in 'high' Country area of

40 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

Demand for palm-oil biodiesel is a

SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0 41

42 SAVING THE RAINFOREST 2.0

RAINFOREST FUNDING FROM NORWAY (2008-2017)

262 92 202 105 84 195 16 31 154