Redd comes with risks but there is no other choice than to try

By rewarding transparency and accuracy, we can make the UN's forest protection scheme work
Erik Solheim
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 October 2009 13.07 BST
This week, the Guardian warned that a UN scheme to reward developing countries for protecting their forests in the name of carbon reductions – known as Redd (Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) – could be "a recipe for corruption and will be hijacked by organised crime without safeguards".
The Norwegian government, the largest financial contributor to Redd, is well aware of the risks of the scheme – but it has no choice about whether to act. The destruction of these forests produces 17% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, or more than the entire EU put together. If managed correctly, Redd could be a catalyst for improved forest governance in general. It could also provide vital support to local communities and indigenous populations, protect biodiversity and water resources, and help countries adapt to climate change.
The question is not whether to implement Redd, but how.
The case of Brazil is encouraging. So far, the country has reduced deforestation by more than half since 2005. The introduction of a publically available satellite system makes the authorities capable of detecting illegal logging activities as they happen. The government's offensive has led to more than 700 arrests – among them many corrupt public servants – and the confiscation of 1.4m cubic metres of illegal timber. Brazil has set up the Amazon Fund – administered in a transparent and inclusive manner by the Brazilian development bank – through which to channel external support. Norway has committed up to $1bn by 2015, given adequate progress.
We're also working with Guyana – a country which faces very different challenges – to design an approach that takes focuses on transparency, verifiable results and improved governance.
Based on this and other experience, Norway has proposed a Redd mechanism under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which we believe could go a long way in reducing the risks we all agree are real.
Firstly, a phased approach. Countries would initially receive some financial support to develop national Redd strategies, to put in place environmental and social safeguards, and to develop credible systems – both for monitoring results and handling finances in a transparent manner. These would include robust anti-corruption measures – and only when this hurdle is passed would the country be eligible for large-scale payments.
Secondly, Redd should be managed at country rather than project level. We believe that many of the issues pointed out in the Guardian are exacerbated by a poorly regulated micromanagement approach. At a national level, we would be better positioned to spot attempts to exploit the system, and to hold governments accountable for both emission reductions and negative side-effects. It would also avoid rewarding conservation in one area while deforesting activities move next door (so-called "leakage"). To avert international leakage, the mechanism must provide sufficient incentives to motivate most tropical forest countries to join.
Thirdly, large-scale Redd payments would be based on real emission reductions, and increase with the accuracy of measurements. This approach would provide an incentive to develop monitoring capabilities, and to address more promptly the forest governance problems that stand in the way of payments. Meanwhile, developed countries would verifiably get what they paid for.
There is still more carbon in forests than in the atmosphere, and we have no alternative but to try to keep it there. I have no illusions this will be easy; however, when it comes to greenhouse gases, there is no such thing as business as usual – either we deal with this together, or the battle against climate change will be lost.
• Erik Solheim is the minister of the environment for Norway.