Resolving the climate crisis involves far more than carbon emissions. International commitments agreed on at the COP will result in profound actions by national governments. These actions will impact citizens at the local level in every nation involved. The UNFCCC REDD+ program has added “safeguard” programs to ensure that national policies under the program protect people and ecosystems from harmful government action. Of course, national government actions to reduce carbon emissions will benefit everyone on earth. An imperative new initiative is adding Non-Carbon Benefits (“NCBs”) to the advantages of emissions reductions. Currently, groups at COP19 are working hard to ensure that “national strategies” created by national governments, under REDD+, benefit local communities and biodiversity.

The REDD+ Safeguards Working Group brings together people from around the world to decrease carbon emissions and protect human rights.
Generally, there are three recognized NCBs being discussed at COP19. One is social benefits, such as those that support sustainable livelihoods or improve the security of land tenure. Another is environmental benefits, such as the preservation of biodiversity and natural resources. Governance is also a benefit, and this incorporates principles of government accountability and transparency, especially regarding funding allocation. In this way, NCB’s are protecting international human rights in addition to reducing emissions.
Decision 1/CP.16, or the “Cancun Agreement” from COP16 in Cancun, established “safeguards” within the REDD+ program (1/CP.16, Annex I para 2 (a-g)). These safeguards essentially preserve a “do no harm” principle for people and the environment. The Cancun decision also established a results-based financing system (para 77). Thereafter, if a nation’s mitigation actions harm people or the environment, such that the Cancun safeguards are not “addressed and respected,” nations lose funding they would otherwise receive through the UNFCCC for decreasing emissions by reducing deforestation and preserving carbon sinks (1/CP.16, para 71 (d)).

COP19 is teeming with friendly delegates. This delegate from Norway took time to explain results-based incentives regarding both carbon and NCBs.
NCB’s, arguably, are a part of these safeguard protections: the Cancun decision lists “enhancing other social and environmental benefits” as a requirement (Annex I, para 2(e)). Effective safeguards can identify problems that lead to benefits in addition to emissions reductions. At COP18 in DOHA results-based financing was applied to NCBs (1/CP.18, para 29(b)). A crucial question being addressed by Working Groups of NGO’s and Party delegates at COP19 is: how can NCBs be incorporated into the results-based financing mechanisms of REDD+?
Eliminating the “drivers” of climate is a main purpose of what REDD+ is designed to accomplish (Cancun agreement, para 68). In developing nations, the “human pressure on forests that results in climate change” often come from livelihoods. Conversion of forests to agricultural land is the largest driver of carbon-emitting deforestation. Yet, 75% of the worlds people living in rural areas rely on the agricultural sector for their livelihood. An example of a benefit to suit this identified problem, utilized in Nepal, is providing native people positions monitoring forest conditions. Therefore, Nepal’s people are benefitting economically and participating in fulfilling their countries’ emissions-reduction commitments. Of course, farming is necessary to feed growing national populations in a changing global climate. REDD+ NCBs should be carefully tailored for every government action, and relevant safeguards must be applied to each nation’s increasingly complex land-use issues. Negotiators are now dealing with how to quantify a nation’s NCBs, and then proportionately reflect these achievements in results-based financing that requires not only emissions reduction but also benefits to local communities and biodiversity.
Interestingly, the Cancun agreement lists “the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities” as a safeguard (1/CP.16, Annex I para 2(d)). This reflects Article 6 language regarding public participation in actions taken at the national level. It is logical, therefore, to infer that the the REDD+ safeguards contain the Article 6 principles of public awareness and education. This education and communication is essential, as many native peoples may not realize they are driving climate change with their ecological practices. National governments should educate native people about climate change, and then protect their human rights as they decide how to respond to their knowledge of threats and potential solutions. Educating native peoples on these issues is important when the sovereignty of indigenous communities, and government actions at the national level, must coexist. One may hope that, given the right information on climate mitigation and adaptation, local communities will decide for themselves to make adaptive ecological changes.