IPAM - Amazon Environmental Research Institute

My name is Paula Moreira, from IPAM, the Amazon Environmental Research Institute. I am one of the Brazilian NGOs here, based in Brasilia, that could attend to this meeting due to obviously easier logistics. In the context that we are here as observers of the process, taking notes only, and not truly participating in this expert technical meeting, considering that an effective participation cannot be possible if only arranged in a late notice, as mentioned yesterday, we would like to draw a few observations:

The minimum we expect from the Partnership is to have the same level of participation than the REDD+ multilateral initiatives already established. For example, according to the UNREDD´s rules, civil society and IPs acquired membership on the policy board by a self selection process in which they voted by their representatives according to geographic balance. My organization, IPAM, was elected as the Latin America and Caribbean civil society representative. A 3 months process. Also, the Amazon Fund´s Guiding Committee also used the self  process. We have elected ISA, Instituto Socioambiental, which in turn is not an UNFCCC registered member, but is based in Brasilia and unfortunately is not allowed here. In addition, civil society has also seats and an important role on, the Policy Body´s advisory group. We receive the agenda for input well in advance and have the right of voice and vote through our full member spokesperson. IP also have a full member in the policy board. Through this official participation ways, we inform our constitutiengies that we represent, and work with them to engage in the process, together with the countries, helping to build capacity, listening to their needs and recommendations for REDD+ policies and institutions. FIP and FCPF also have their official ways of giving civil society and IP official mandates to participate.

This is the only way in which the partnership can accomplish its goals. The further we stay out of the process and if excluded, we will lack understanding and the further the Partnership will be from achieving its goals.

We must recognize that civil society and indigenous peoples, together with our governments, really work to reduce deforestation and foster conservation efficiently. Many civil society organizations also also work with the private sector creating incentives for compensating farmers that choose not to deforest further, creating for instance, international farm certification systems.

REDD+ will only work with collaboration among government at many levels, civil society, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, private sector including investors, project developers and commodities producers that actually have influence over land use decisions.

We want to reduce deforestation, foster conservation, protect and assure forest dependent peoples´ rights. We also want that REDD triggers benefits to biodiversity and will not incentive commercial plantations and monocultures.

This is REDD+. It involves biodiversity issues and, above all, human rights and indigenous peoples issues. For example, there is no way to only admit in the process the UNFCCC registered NGOs as stated in the notification to skakeholders. The UNFCCC is the forum with the least participation among the UN foruns. Registration takes more than 1 year and by then the Partnership will be over. What about the CBd stakeholders? What about the IP? You cannot lead to a distrust of the process, violating the credibility of Oslo meeting and going back to COP 13.

We are observing you. We need to report what is happening here to the international civil society. This forum is where we need to strengthen the trust on the political will to move ahead on the combat of climate change, making REDD a reality, scaling up the funds and figure the institutions right.

We are not UN agencies or the world bank. We do not provide any secretariat services. Partnership must have different rules for the inclusion according to the each stakeholder category.

We cannot afford a distrust of this process. If you lack transparency, you can lead to the distrust of the connected REDD+ multilateral initiatives that this Partnership is ought to coordinate in which we are truly committed to make work.

Dear Partners and co-chairs, you are risking of losing credibility of civil society and IP and with ungiven reason. We urge you to continue the transparency and inclusiveness that was showed in Oslo and in the signed Partnership text. You need to continue to allow engagement the interested stakeholders in the process in a open, organized and coordinated way, establishing a mode of participation in the work plan not worse than you have already managed to achieve in the other REDD+ multilateral initiatives, but the on the contrary, the best and most transparency possible. No need to reinvent the wheel. REDD+ existing multilateral initiatives already have the rules of stakeholder participation. Maybe the opposing partners to these ways of partnership may explain why and propose another method, taking into consideration that UNFCCC is not acceptable.

We believe that this is possible and we trust that you Partners will make it.

Finally, we call for the Partners to forgo making any substantive decisions until adequate participation is possible, otherwise you will be violating the principle of inclusiveness committed to in the REDD+ Interim Partnership Agreement signed in Oslo in May.

Thank you Partners and Co-Chairs.