Accra — The Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change says the deal reached on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) at the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Copenhagen is likely to fail.

"Despite positive statements, the REDD text contains no overall target for halting deforestation, and no guarantee of funding beyond the some short-term funding arrangements," the group said in a statement issued on the eve of the summit's closure.

The Caucus was clear that in the absence of a global deal on emissions reductions, a REDD deal would be meaningless, as temperature increases will cause forests to die anyway. "A good REDD deal is absolutely needed but on its own is not sufficient for success in Copenhagen" said Lars Lovold from Rainforest Foundation Norway.

The Caucus is a broad coalition of civil society organisations from the global South that has been tracking the climate negotiations since 2008. More than 100 CSOs from all continents and most forested nations are part of this coalition.

Key unresolved issues for a successful REDD agreement were in the hands of ministers at the time the statement was issued. The group stressed that any agreement on reducing deforestation must be part of a global deal on emissions reductions and pointed out that if rich countries did not agree to limit their industrial emissions, the world's forests will be lost.

Raja Jarrah from CARE International queried: "How can we expect countries with tropical forests to reduce their emissions, while countries with factories keep on polluting" A successful outcome from Copenhagen must include efforts from both forested countries and industrialized countries."

The statement also quoted Samuel Nnah of the Centre for Environment and Development in Cameroon as saying "It is most important that they agree to the strongest clauses for guaranteeing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and protecting natural forests".

Many tropical countries are already making significant efforts with their own resources. "But this needs financial support. The rich countries must fulfill their obligations and pay their ecological debt. This is an ethical issue " we are not asking for a charity," says Lourdes Barrag'n from the Centre for Planning and Social Studies in Ecuador.

On the table was a fundamental choice as to what REDD will be.? Will developed countries provide financing to developing countries to stop deforestation at a national level by taking a national approach? Or will REDD be a loophole that allows big corporations to continue to pollute so long as they set up a small park in a developing country?

Achieving environmental justice became even more difficult as NGOs and CSOs were excluded from the final days of the Copenhagen talks. This increased the bias towards large delegations because many smaller delegations from developing countries relied on the input of civil society to support them in following the complex and technical discussions.

The Caucus felt this was a continuation of the closed door negotiations and bilateral arrangements, which characterised the COP, excluding many of the developing countries who will have to implement a decision on forests. "The exclusion of civil society, and the closed door negotiations, demonstrates a lack of transparency in this process, which undermines the credibility of any decisions reached in Copenhagen." said Alejandro Aleman from Centro Humboldt in Nicaragua.

The critical issue for the Accra Caucus is that the final REDD agreement is part of a just and comprehensive package of climate commitments in Copenhagen. "We need a better deal than what is on offer right now, and this means that forests must be part of the overall package to halt climate change, not a stand-alone deal" says Kenn Mondiai from Eco Forestry Forum Papua New Guinea.

In a related development, CARE International said on Friday that the agreement on REDD might be used to disguise a weak overall climate deal. "Having an agreement on REDD in Copenhagen outside a comprehensive climate deal is like polishing the hubcaps on a car with no engine. It looks nice but wont take you very far", says Raja Jarrah, CARE's expert on REDD.

Even though the draft text on REDD had found the greatest consensus by negotiators, several important issues had been left in brackets for ministers to decide. The most important of them was the requirement to ensure that the rights of forest dependent communities were protected. Three hundred million people depend on the forest for their livelihoods, and forests cannot be effectively protected without their full involvement. They must share in the benefits of REDD.

However, even if those gaps were sorted out in the final text, a good-looking REDD agreement was worth little if there was no global agreement on the limiting of emissions. "It is vitally important to stop the destruction of the rainforest. But this must go hand in hand with drastically reducing emissions from fossil fuels", Jarrah continued.

If emissions continue on their current levels and global temperatures rise above 2C, climate change will have a disastrous impact both on forests and on the livelihoods of poor communities.

He pointed out that developed nations have to commit to massive reductions in industrial emissions.

But while world leaders met in Copenhagen to sign a final deal, CARE International feared that their commitment and political will lagged behind the moral obligation and historical responsibility to assist poor and vulnerable people to cope with a changing climate.

"The language at the beginning of the Copenhagen negotiations spoke of a fair, ambitious and binding agreement. Now everyone talks about a reasonable, balanced and achievable result", CARE's Raja Jarrah says. "This slippage of expectations tells the whole story; we are missing the political will for a real solution".