The Human Rights Dimension of REDD

• Published date: 01 July 2012
• Date: 01 July 2012
• Author: Annalisa Savaresi
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2012.00753.x

The Human Rights Dimension of REDD

Annalisa Savaresi

Since 2007, parties to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change have been negotiating

‘policy approaches and positive incentives on issues

relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and

forest degradation in developing countries; and the

role of conservation, sustainable management of

forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in

developing countries’, commonly referred to as ‘REDD’.

Although the related mechanism remains in fieri at the

time of writing, this article analyzes areas of overlap

between REDD and international instruments dealing

with the protection of human rights. Far from being

merely a theoretical question, this issue has attracted

increasing attention as negotiations on REDD pro-

gressed. The article gives an account of this ongoing

debate, and investigates the scope to create synergies

between REDD and human rights instruments.

INTRODUCTION

Negotiations over long-term cooperative action under

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC)1have drawn unprecedented atten-

tion to the role of forests in mitigating climate change.

Deforestation2and forest degradation3in the tropics

account for a significant share of global carbon emis-

sions.4Although the UNFCCC requires its Parties to

address emissions ‘in all economic sectors’,5to date this

mandate has only been fulfilled partially in connection

with forests. Avoided deforestation was in fact excluded

from the scope of mitigation activities eligible under

the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)6due to

methodological concerns that were initially perceived

as insurmountable obstacles to incentivizing avoided

deforestation, as well as reluctance to divert attention

from efforts to reduce emissions from the combustion

of fossil fuels.7

Negotiations on REDD started with the proposition

to ‘draw developing countries towards emission

reductions’.8Whereas negotiations initially centred

on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and

forest Degradation in developing countries (hence the

acronym REDD), the concept was subsequently

expanded to include also ‘conservation, sustainable

management of forests and enhancement of forest

carbon stock in developing countries’ (commonly

referred to with the acronym REDD+).9

The related debate has proven to be a rare area of

convergence amid chaotic efforts to find agreement on

long-term cooperative action under the UNFCCC. At

least in theory, REDD lends itself to partially bridge the

gap between emission reductions by developed and

developing country Parties, providing a testing field for

large-scale climate change mitigation in the latter, with

projected cost-effective and expeditious results.10

The Copenhagen Accord called for the ‘immediate

establishment’ of a mechanism including REDD.11

However, concrete action in this direction has suffered

from slow progress in climate negotiations. At the time

1United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New

York, 9 May 1992) (‘UNFCCC’).

2For a def‌inition, see Decision 16/CMP.1, Land Use, Land-use

Change and Forestry (FCCC/KP/CMP/8/Add.3, 30 March 2006),

Annex, paragraph 1(d).

3For a def‌inition, see J. Penman et al., Def‌initions and Methodologi-

cal Options to Inventory Emissions from Direct Human-induced

Degradation of Forests and Devegetation of Other Vegetation Types

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2003), at 16.

4According to the IPCC, forestry accounts for around 17% of global

carbon emissions. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report

(IPCC, 2007), at 36. According to subsequent estimates, this number

may be closer to 15%. See G. van der Werf et al., ‘CO2Emissions

from Forest Loss’, 2:11 Nature Geoscience (2009), 737.

5UNFCCC, n. 1 above, Article 3.3.

6Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (Kyoto, 11 December 1997), Article 12.

7For a commentary, see D. Humphreys, ‘The Politics of “Avoided

Deforestation”: Historical Context and Contemporary Issues’, 10:3

International Forestry Review (2008), 433; and P. Graichen, ‘Can

Forestry Gain from Emissions Trading? Rules Governing Sinks

Projects under the UNFCCC and the EU Emissions Trading System’,

14:1 Review of European Community and International Environmen-

tal Law (2005), 11.

8Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries.

Approaches to Stimulate Action: Submission from Parties (FCCC/CP/

2005/Misc.1, 11 November 2005), at 9.

9Decision 1/CP.13, Bali Action Plan (FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, 14

March 2008), paragraph 1(b)(iii). For the sake of expediency, the

present article will use the acronym REDD to encompass also this

enlarged scope.

10 For an overview of arguments, see, e.g., N. Stern, The Economics

of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge University Press,

2007), at 26; and more generally J. Eliasch, Climate Change: Financ-

ing Global Forests – The Eliasch Review (Earthscan, 2008).

11 Decision 2/CP.15, Copenhagen Accord (FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1,

30 March 2010), paragraph 6.

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 21 (2) 2012. ISSN 0962 8797

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

102