How Kevin Conrad dismissed NGO requests not to weaken safeguards in the REDD text in Cancun

PHOTO Caption: Ética y Ciudadanía.

In a post just before Christmas, I mentioned that Kevin Conrad “was busy in Cancun on Papua New Guinea’s behalf watering down safeguards in the REDD text.” A comment explained exactly how Conrad weakened the safeguards. What is perhaps even more interesting is the way Conrad dealt with a request from a Papua New Guinea NGO not to weaken the safeguards.

During the UN climate change negotiations in Cancun, Kevin Conrad helped to weaken part of the safeguards in the REDD text in the following way. The original text requested that countries carrying out REDD activities should develop:

“(d) A system for monitoring and informing the Convention on how the safeguards referred to in Annex II to this decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 27, while respecting sovereignty.”

Kevin Conrad’s proposed text did away with “monitoring” and “informing the Convention”:

“(d) A process for sharing information on how the safeguards referred to in Annex II to this decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 27, while respecting sovereignty.”

The final AWG/LCA text states:

“(d) A system for providing information on how the safeguards referred to in annex I to this decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 70, while respecting sovereignty;

It may seem petty to point out the difference between a system for monitoring safeguards and a system for providing information on safeguards. But, as the commentator on REDD-Monitor notes, Conrad’s proposed text helped weaken the safeguard in two important ways:

1. There would be no obligation for ‘monitoring’ of how safeguards were being implemented, therefore it would be easy to get away with not implementing them, and merely ‘sharing information’ about them (whatever that means);

2. By removing the requirement for ‘informing the Convention’, it removes the requirement for reporting to any particular body, and therefore probably effectively removes the requirement for any reporting whatsoever.

Almost every line in the AWG/LCA has been fought over in a similarly unpleasant way for several years. But perhaps more interesting is Conrad’s reaction to Ecoforestry Forum, a PNG NGO that was in Cancun to monitor the negotiations. Ecoforestry Forum sent an email to Conrad requesting that he return to the initial text, which would have required a system for monitoring and reporting on safeguards.

Conrad replied to Ecoforestry Forum explaining that “PNG fully supports strong language on a strong and transparent system to ensure safeguards are maintained.” So far, so good, although there is little evidence to back up this statement. Conrad continued:

“However, this is a consensus based negotiation process. There is an ongoing process to find wording that will be acceptable to all parties. Sadly, it is more complex than simply supporting an option in draft text.”

EFF copied the email to several other NGOs working on REDD and concerned about safeguards in REDD, in an attempt to keep the negotiation process transparent. Conrad reacted angrily:

“Again, I request that you cease your pattern of circulating misinformation based on rumor-mongering. In the future, please check directly with our delegation before issuing such irresponsible emails. This unprofessional behavior is indeed tiresome.”

So much for “stakeholder consultation”.

Below is Conrad’s email in full:

From: Kevin Conrad
To: Kenn Mondiai
Cc:
Date: 10 December 2010 02:11
Subject: Re: Potential safeguards language in text : Think About PNG situation and keep original text

Kenn,

Thank you for your views. PNG fully supports strong language on a strong and transparent system to ensure safeguards are maintained

However, this is a consensus based negotiation process. There is an ongoing process to find wording that will be acceptable to all parties. Sadly, it is more complex than simply supporting an option in draft text.

Again, I request that you cease your pattern of circulating misinformation based on rumor-mongering. In the future, please check directly with our delegation before issuing such irresponsible emails. This unprofessional behavior is indeed tiresome.

Thank you.
Kevin