Five years on from Copenhagen, we have come full circle. This week’s SBSTA negotiations on REDD+ collapsed with no outcome, ending in deadlock – or “REDDlock.” Although most Party and Observer submissions recommended further guidance on the provision of information (i.e. reporting) on how safeguards are being “addressed and respected” to ensure its “transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness”, Parties failed to come to agreement. In what was largely a developed vs developing country split, the G77 and China lined up to oppose any decision on safeguards. The Co-Chairs made a brave attempt to reach consensus on developing “indicative elements” for the summaries of information (safeguards reports) at SBSTA 44 in 2016, but were unable to bridge the divide.
The failure here in Lima is deeply disappointing. It is now unclear whether REDD+ will be able to safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, or protect biodiversity and natural forests. REDD+ early movers are already developing their safeguards summaries, but without any guidance on what to include, shifting the burden to civil society to fill the void.
