Various topics were discussed at the COP26 summit held in Glasgow, UK, with the aim of finding more effective ways to limit the increase in global temperature to 1.5 ° C to prevent global warming that is threatening the existence of the entire humanity. In this context, experts believe that due to lack of clarity about timeliness, accountability and implementation, these issues have created a lot of confusion.
Experts say that there is ambiguity around REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) carbon finance and confusion about their respective roles in different countries. It should be removed immediately.
REDD+ is a United Nations-backed framework that aims to stop climate change by stopping the destruction of forests. REDD stands for “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”; The “+” sign indicates the role of forests in conservation, sustainable management and increasing forest carbon stocks.
Luiza Casson, senior political strategist at Greenpeace International, said in a webinar, “During the last 24 hours at COP26, we have seen a variety of issues and aspects discussed. A new document called Article Six has surfaced this morning. Even today, many big risks lie in front of us and article six can give us a way forward, but there is also a lot of confusion about it.
He said, “Many countries of the world are still not able to clarify the situation regarding reducing emissions here. Nothing can be said for sure. Nothing can be said for sure about the credibility of their claims. Article 6.4 has clarified many things, but Article 6.2 still contains many such things about which there is a lot of confusion.
Luiza said that it has clearly emerged that our progress in limiting the increase in global temperature to 1.5 degree Celsius is stable. To achieve this goal, we need to phase out the use of fossil fuels and cut our carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. We have to ensure that this cycle of destruction does not progress further and the ways to stop it are not weakened.
He said that many of the world’s youth, civil society members and scientists gathered in Glasgow are urging all world leaders to address the gaps in efforts to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degree Celsius. And such loopholes should not be created that question the credibility of the Paris Agreement. Because doing so will make the situation worse.
Jills Dufrasne, Policy Officer at Carbon Market Watch, said Article 6 covers ‘REDD+ credit’, referring to the state of ambiguity and lack of accountability about the REDD+ credit covered in Article 6. This is an important and complex issue. REDD+ credit pertains to neglected defecation. Through this, money will be given to the countries to reduce the deforestation. The problem is that deforestation is difficult to measure and many such credits do not prove that they are benefiting the environment. It would not be a prudent move to spend the REDD+ credits on neglected deforestation projects to compensate for the burning of fossil fuels.
He said that the total reduction of pollution is actually an issue of global emissions. In such a situation, mere compensating for emissions will not be enough. For this to be implemented effectively, we also need to keep the avenue for revoking credit open. That is, if a project is not able to achieve its target then its funding will have to be cancelled. There is no agreement yet in COP26 for Articles 6.2 and 6.4.
Zils said that as far as human rights are concerned, whatever human rights have been said in the COP26 documents, they have been ‘copy-pasted’ from the foreword of the Paris Agreement in 2015. One thing to be underlined is that the market also has to respect human rights. Copy-pasting will not move the conditions. Arrangements should be made so that projects which have a negative impact on the people can be removed from the list of beneficiaries of carbon credits.
Anna Toni, a partner at Public Interest Management, said there is a lot of confusion about what the implications of the issues highlighted in COP26 will be. I think it is a gimmick to create confusion in the atmosphere. This is a new market and no one knows what its role is. I believe that our role should be such that we can identify the shortcomings and try to rectify them. Many such steps have been talked about which are not yet known how they will be implemented on the ground.