Discussion
4 May - 16 May 2021

Live workshop discussion space

Jessica Ball
Jessica Ball • 20 April 2021

Hello and welcome to the UN-REDD Global Knowledge Exchange! This space is for participants of the live exchange to continue sharing experiences and knowledge. Please share your responses to the breakout room topics:

1. Rights and benefits sharing arrangements

2. Stakeholder engagement - private sector & forest depending people's and indigenous peoples

3. GCF requirements

4. Landscape of REDD+ results based finance

Please also share any other topics that you think are important to explore and discuss during the exchange. 

 

Comments (1)

Francesca Felicani
Francesca Felicani Moderator

1. As a lawyer, I have mainly been involved in looking at  Carbon Rights and Benefit-sharing aspects of the RBP GCF proposals (Chile, Argentina, Colombia, PNG-in progress). As such it was paramount to understand the implications related with legal requirements established under the section F of the GCF proposals, which is report below: 

 The section F “legal title to REDD+ results” of the pilot programme for REDD+ RBPs requires developing countries to: (i ) provide an analysis with respect to legal title to REDD-plus results in the country. This should include an analysis of entitlement to claim for the results to be paid for by the GCF and (ii) covenant that no other party has a competing claim to the results proposed to the GCF in accordance with national policy, legal or regulatory frameworks.

A national legal definition of emissions reduction titling is not considered to be a precondition to accessing results-based payments under the GCF, nor it is necessary to transfer the ownership of the Emissions Reductions (ERs) to the GCF itself, but rather it is necessary to guarantee that no competing claims to ownership of these reductions will overlap with the results that would be compensated by the GCF.

Having that clear in mind was paramount to provide appropriate legal support to countries in interpreting their current legislation, and identify the competent entity  entitled to manage or administer the volume of ER paid by the GCF. 

It is innovative, and also challenging for countries, as most of them are still in the process of adopting a legislation clarifying emissions reductions rights (eg. Ivory Coast, Mexico etc.)

2. The most challenging aspect was to gain the trust of the GCF lawyers,  and understand exactly what was requested to countries in filling section F, and how to adequately fulfill such requirement (Chile experience).

 

3. I would add a slot focusing on carbon rights and benefit sharing aspects. Please find below a series of guiding questions that might be considered for that purpose:

     In your country:

  1. Which government entity is authorized to manage/administer emissions reductions (ERs)?
  2. Who owns the carbon or holds ERs titles, for different types of lands (public, private, communal)?

 

Specific aspects of the questions to be analyzed:

  1. Who has the right to claim ownership when carbon is stored in forests?
  2. Who is the owner of the carbon rights (CRs) (or ERs)?

             - Under what conditions?

             - Who is going to sell the carbon rights?

  1. Who is responsible for any associated risk of reversal, leakage or displacement of ERs?    
  2. Who owns carbon in community managed forests?
  3. What are the roles of national forest institutions in administrating REDD+ RBP?
  4. Which government institution would have the mandate to sign agreements with the carbon scheme or with the accredited entity? (carbon market or RBP schemes)?
  5. If no CRs legislation exists, how is legislation related to forests services or products interpreted, in order to identify ownership, or use/access rights related to forest carbon?
  6. What are the tenure risks or opportunities, if carbon rights are allocated to landowners in the country?
  7. Is there clarity on the beneficiaries’ rights and types of benefits they will receive?

 

 

 

    

 


Please log in or sign up to comment.