The negotiations on one of the most advanced issues within the Copenhagen process – the REDD mechanism to combat tropical deforestation – are frankly laborious, but are occasionally prompting instructive exchanges. This was the case on Wednesday, when a number of developing countries quite fiercely opposed the first articles of the text put on the table. These articles, initially proposed by Europe, set out quantified targets that should be aimed at in terms of combating deforestation: halting deforestation by 2030, by first halving gross deforestation (excluding land where forest cover is progressing) by 2020. This may not bring to mind any apocalyptic visions. Yet it is a considerable challenge given the force of this phenomenon and the complexity of the factors that result in the destruction of millions of hectares of tropical forest every year. Here, we are dealing with an engine for development via export crops, with the creation of fields for food security reasons, and with hurdles to the diffusion and adoption of agricultural technologies aimed at increasing yields, etc.

So should such targets really be announced for 2020 or 2030? The developing countries tend to say that this is not justified, since REDD and the fight against deforestation are purely voluntary mechanisms. This is in fact what has enabled the talks to progress on this subject until now, and confusion is likely to arise if quantified targets are put forward. Furthermore, there is no solid scientific basis – once again according to many of the countries directly concerned – for a 50% cut in deforestation by 2020. Why not 30%, or 70%?

In response to these arguments, Europe says that its intention has been wrongly interpreted: these targets should be understood as part of a collective effort, since the developed countries would then also be responsible for providing the financial support needed to meet these targets. Moreover, Europe maintains that there is a scientific basis as it has been proved that the emissions from tropical forests are so high (between 12 and 20% of global GHG emissions) that the final objective of limiting global warming to 2 degrees cannot be achieved without serious action at this level.

It is not unthinkable that there may be a connection between the rejection of quantified REDD targets, even indicative ones, and the leak earlier this week of a draft Copenhagen Agreement prepared on the initiative of the Danish Presidency. The increasing mistrust among developing countries could thus partly explain why they are particularly sensitive to anything that might resemble a quantified constraint on their emissions. A potential way out has been proposed indirectly by Brazil, which does its utmost to reiterate whenever the opportunity arises (in other words fairly often!) that the most important thing is not to define strict perimeters for emissions linked to the future of tropical forests (conversion, degradation, increasing stocks, etc.), but rather to develop the means to act on the causes of these emissions, and especially on agriculture, which is not a component of the “forestry sector” per se. Thus, focusing more on effective action against these causes through “extra-sectoral actions” should take precedence over controversial attempts to set targets for the forests themselves within REDD, which until proof to the contrary, remains a purely voluntary mechanism.