I was there. In Brasilia. At the first technical meeting of the REDD+ Partnership. I was very excited. After all I was participating at the first serious meeting to save the world forests.
Let me explain this point.
I am the Chairman of a grass-root organization based in Italy and Brazil. I am a true believer that the climate change is a serious problem. It is THE problem. However I was really disappointed to discover that the savage of the forests was not included in the Kyoto Protocol. It is true that other instruments will help to reduce the CO2 emissions. But I believe that the forests, the results of the work of nature for hundreds years, were the ones which could really rescue us.
If we could only save the forests that would be a big, a huge step forward. It would not be enough. But without them we are lost.
That is why, when I discovered that the Oslo convention entitled a Partnership to address the problem of the savage of the forests through the REDDs programs I was happy.
You can call me naive. There are other REDD programs around and they were there before the Partnership. But the mandate to address the instituzionalization of REDDs through government intervention was given to the Partnership. The tight schedule was a sign that governments were serious about addressing that problem.
To tell you the truth the schedule was too tight. However, I thought, it is better to do things fast. Because the forests and their destruction cannot wait. In Brasilia there was the first meeting of the Partnership. It was a technical meeting. But it was the first official step. So we were getting closer to our objective I believed. I had to be there.
I was a costly thing to do. Flying to Brasilia from Italy is not cheap. But I was in our base in Brazil already. We, Friends of Kyoto Protocol are a grass-root organization. We are not a huge ngo with lot of funding from various members, governments, etc. We pay our expenses with a tight budget. But for nothing in the world I would have missed the opportunity to be there at the outset of the savage of the world forests.
At least that was what I thought. After being there it turned out a complete different story. And that was the reason why FKP is promoting the set up of the REDD network, a web of world grassroot organizations together with private and public ones, which really want to save the forests.
Because, my dear reader, if that outcome should come from current negotiations in the Partnership forget it. It will never happen. The interests are so many and so conflicting with one another that saving the forests seem the least and the last of the results pursued. And, in fact, if you see how the negotiations proceed you would have an idea of the serious fights going on inside the Partnership. It is nearly everybody against anybody.
But let me clarify this point for you, my reader interested in saving the forests.
First and biggest problem is the role of stakeholders in the Partnership.
The Partnership is made up of many countries, broadly divided between developped and developing countries. The first ones, according to the REDD programs outlines, are supposed to pay the latter ones for them not to destroy their forests. It is sad that such an outcome comes from money rather than from their own willingness. But the problem is far more complicated than that.
The problem comes from trust. Let me make this point. What I am going to explain now is not the truth. It was what it was said in the corridors in the conference and probably it is close to the truth though. But let’s go ahead.
Two thirds of the two-day meeting at the conference was spent to define the role of stakeholders at the Partnership meetings. Why? I asked myself. In the end the stakeholders are, generally speaking, ngos, private and public and even international organizations, like the World Bank, etc.
The only common thing of the stakeholders at Brasilia meeting was their location. There was a set of tables positioned to form a square, where the representatives of the countries belonging to the partnership were sitting. On one side of the square, squeezed in a second line, there was a line of chairs where stakeholders were sitting. The chairs on the side closer to the Chairman of the Partnership was occupied by members of international organizations (world bank, gef and others). The other side, closer to the door (do not ask me why) was occupied by members of ngos. I was sitting rather in the middle of the line and I had a better opportunity to hear and understand better than other collegues of mine in the room. I was the only representant of a grass-root organization and the only ngo from outside Brasilia. The other ngo representant were all from large Brazilian and international ngo based in Brasilia.
Such a division of the room was self-explanatory of the role played by stakeholders vs. member states. We were in but, effectively, we were out. The rule of the discussions was also quite interesting. Member states representatives had the entire day to talk. Most of the times on just one point the interventions of the same country representant were several if not many. At the end of the day the stakeholders were given 10-15 minutes to make questions to the representants of the memeber countries. All together. Our questions were groupped and answered in 5 – 10 minutes by the Chairman. Most of the times the answer was not clear or even there was no answer.
Then we go back to the initial question: Why on earth was such an issue to discuss the role of stakeholders, which was so marginal to be really a residual issue after all? We were singled out, nearly not allowed to talk and nearly ignored in our questions. I remember that, to ask my question, I had to waive the paper with the name of Stakeholder on it for 15 minutes. Also I waived my hands and eventually I stood up because I was completely ignored by the Chairman and vice-chairman from PNG. The representant of USA, a kind woman, asked eventally the Chairwoman to pay attention to my request and that was the reason why I was given the word for about 4 minutes. Of course I received no attention from some of the member countries and no answer at all.
And here it is the crucial point: the division among member countries. Some of the developing countries (with the exception of Brazil) were in favor of closed meetings to stakeholders. Most of the developed countries were in favor of open meetings. But the best statement was made by the member of Papua New Guinea: “We are in favour of closed meetings in open way”. F... exploded nearly loudy one of the stakeholders when he heard that.
But why this division? Are not we all there to save the forests, I asked myself? No we are not. Why? Trust and accountability is the answer.
The Partnership is supposed to help the savage of the forests through funding to the governments for some projects which indeed protect forests. However the crucial thing is that the money goes from developed countries to developing ones. At the moment there is a lot of distrust on both sides.
The developing countries accuse the developed ones to have promised to give the money but the money has not actually been disboursed. The developed countries fear that, once the developing countries receive the money, the projects would not be properly implemented and eventually the forests would continue to be destroyed. Obviously that would not be acceptable for developed countries and here the stakeholders (mainly the ngos) come into the game.
Until a formal framework for REDDs projects has been established most of the private sector is not willing to enter into REDDs projects, just for the same reason: distrust of proper management of REDDs projects from developing countries. Therefore only the public sector will put the money into REDD projects, namely developed member countries.
The issue of distrust is so serious that the only way to get around the problem is to involve other actors into the REDD projects in developing countries: the ngos, better if they are grass-root organizations not involved with the political elite of developing countries.
This way the inevitable interference of the ngos would seriously put obstacles in the management of REDD funds from developing countries. Any sort of “deviance” of the funds from their institutional purposes would immediately be denounced and the flow of funds from developed countries would immediately stop.
For this same reason, at the technical meeting, many stakeholders were justifying the reluctance of the ngos to be accepted by developing countries with this sort of role of control exercised by ngos in the future implemantation of REDDs projects. In other word, like someone said “they (the developing countries) want to have free hands without anybody putting their nose in the REDD government projects”.
The consequent deadlock in the negotiations was so evident and clear that probably will never be overcome unless there is a political will to do that. Which is not the case as the subsequent REDD+ Partnership meetings evidentiate this deadlock even more dramatically.
It is clear that negotiations are going nowhere.
In this process nobody is doing a step forward.
The ngos as well (the large ones present in Brasilia for instance) were not even willing to discuss with the partnership due to the short notice of the meeting and the lack of the mandate from affiliated organizations to do anything. In fact it would have made no difference for the member countries.
However the stiff position of the large ngos made things even more difficult. At the end of the day what really matters is to go ahead with the negotiations to make the REDD process work, I thought. Not quite so in fact. The large ngos, at some stage, did not even recognize the authorities of the partnership. An absurd I thought. Maybe because I belong to a grass-root organizations, where decisions are taken fast, not like bureacrats.
Eventually I wasted time, money and above all hopes. The Brasilia meeting and the subsequent ones were waste of time. After the articles appeared on the Economist everybody was so excited about REDD.
But definetely it is a long way to go. And everybody has to change his attitude. Otherwise forests will continue to be destroyed without any further hope for humanity.
APK
