Forest Day 4 was held in Cancun, Mexico with over 1500 participants. The theme was "Time to Act" with a sense of urgency to agree on REDD+ mechanisms to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. There was impatience that five years after Montreal and four years after the Stern Review, no agreement had been reached. Participants asserted that the science on climate change is clear and that failure to act would lead to dangerous climate change impacts. A majority saw monitoring co-benefits of REDD+ as very important and supported mainstreaming sustainable forest management into agriculture, water and energy sector policies.

1. Forest Day 4
Sunday 5 December, 2010
Cancun, Mexico

2. Forest Day 4 co-hosts

3. Forest Day 4
• Theme: “Time to Act”
• 1533 participants by mid pm
...of which 276 UNFCCC Party
delegates
...and 106 members of the
media
• Keynote by the President of
Mexico, Felipe Calderón
• 70 speakers
• Video streaming and blogs in 6
languages

4. A sense of urgency
The time to act is now
Impatience with lack of
agreement on REDD+ five
years after Montreal and four
years after Stern Review
Many references to extreme
weather events in 2010
Assertion that the science is
strong, and the “no action”
scenarios are scary

5. Success is
within reach
President Calderón: “It’s time for all of us to push and push hard for
incorporation of REDD+ into an agreement”
John Ashton: “REDD+ is an enormous prize within our grasp”
Tony La Viña: “Exceptionally good dynamics of REDD+ negotiations”

6. Synergies and safeguards
Rights: Indigenous and community rights must be protected;
rigorously enforced standards could reduce investment risk
Livelihoods: REDD+ finance must be aligned with poverty reduction
Biodiversity: REDD+ depends on, and can benefit, biodiversity
Adaptation: Significant synergies to be captured with mitigation

7. Sub-plenary voting results:
How important is it to monitor the co-benefits of
REDD+?
1. Not sufficiently important in relation to the anticipated high
transaction costs
5%
2. Somewhat important, but not at the expense of the primary
objective of achieving emission reductions
31%
3. Very important, even at the expense of some emission
reductions effectiveness
65%

8. Options and opportunities
Community management of forests: The Mexican experience
demonstrates the promise of local stewardship of forests
Restoration of degraded land: Targeting the 1.5 billion hectares of
degraded agricultural and forest land could break the poverty/degradation
cycle
Improving forest governance: REDD+ creates a demand for good forest
governance that could help address corruption and improve law
enforcement

9. Sub-plenary voting results:
Should sustainable management and restoration of forest
ecosystems be mainstreamed in the adaptation plans and
policies of other sectors such as agriculture, water and energy?
1. Yes, always
62%
2. Yes, sometimes
19%
3. Don’t know
7%
4. Generally no
7%
5. Never
5%

10. Agriculture/forestry links
• Agricultural expansion remains a
major driver of deforestation
• Agricultural intensification does
not necessarily reduce
deforestation, and can accelerate
it
• Landscape-level approaches to
achieve multiple benefits:
• Incentive payments
• Other investments
• Disincentives (command and
control)

11. Sub-plenary voting results:
How should forests be included in a post-Kyoto
climate agreement?
1. RED (deforestation only)
5%
2. REDD (deforestation and degradation only)
11%
3. REDD+ (encompassing conservation, Sustainable Forest
Management and carbon stock enhancement)
47%
4. REDD++ (including all terrestrial carbon)
37%
Note: Proportion voting for REDD++ decreased since Forest Day 3