From de chaos of REDD to the adequacy of climate policy

From de chaos of REDD to the adequacy of climate policy1 Yvette Aguilar June 2016 1 • Greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions from forestry and other land uses, contributed 17% in 1970 and 11% in 2010 of total global GHG emissions, reflecting a clear global trend towards reducing emissions in this sector • The mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and its variants (REDD-plus), derailed the climate regime, when articulating the strengthening of biogenic carbon sinks´ activities with compensation schemes of fossil fuel emissions • To counteract criticism of REDD-plus initiatives for its dubious contribution to effective mitigation, and its local negative impacts, it has resorted to 'relabelling" to hide its shortcomings and gain public acceptance • The Salvadoran government accounted in the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the Paris Agreement, targets by 2030 of tree coverconservation of 27% and forest carbon stocks increase of 25% of the national territory; which should not be used to offset fossil emissions under the Bonn Challenge, via REDD-plus, to avoid double counting of carbon o English translation of the original document titled “From the chaos of REDD to the adequacy of climate policy” (Perspectiva N 4/2016) sponsored by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES) of El Salvador, which was published in June 2016. The original document can be consulted in: https://www.academia.edu/26046965/Del_caos_de_REDD_a_la_idoneidad_en_la_pol%C3%ADtica_clim%C3%A1tica 1. The political approach to carbon sinks under the multilateral climate regime The root cause of climate change are high levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of emissions from industrial processes and the burning of fossil carbon mainly for electricity production and transportation, which contributed 55% in 1970 and 65% in 2010 of total global GHG emissions. Since the second half of the eighteenth century, in the context of the industrial revolution, economies have sustained their production, circulation and consumption based on the increasing use of fossil fuels, becoming dependent on them. As well, the rapid and large-scale deforestation has contributed, although to a much lesser extent, to the increase in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, FAO estimated that deforestation contributed 25% of anthropogenic global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and a year later stated that this estimate was low and that 25% to 30% of annual global CO2 emissions were caused by deforestation. However, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)´s 5th Assessment Report (2013), emissions of biogenic CO2 from forestry and other land uses contributed 17% in 1970 and 11% in 2010 of the world's total GHG emissions; showing a clear global trend towards reducing emissions in this sector. Art. 3.3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Convention) in force since 1994, it establishes that "policies and measures should include all sources, sinks and reservoirs of GHG and cover all economic sectors". Further states that "efforts to address climate change can be carried out in cooperation between the parties concerned". Furthermore, Art. 4.1 (d) states that "all Parties must promote sustainable management, and promote and support with cooperation and the strengthening of sinks and reservoirs of all GHGs as appropriate; including biomass, forests, oceans, terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems". Both provisions opened the door for the inclusion in the multilateral climate agenda of two issues that have been under negotiation: (i) eligibility of mitigation measures related to sinks, and (ii) joint mitigation actions between the Parties. These issues have remained over more than twenty years of negotiations, and have evolved under a utilitarian approach in terms of safeguarding the interests of groups and sectors determined to procrastinate and flexibilize mitigation, or to implement it as long as it generates business opportunities, without concern for environmental effectiveness. Both issues were driven hard by its promoters, becoming a significant driver of gradual flexibility of the pre-2015 multilateral climate regime. The "eligibility of mitigation measures related to sinks" has been a complex subject of difficult negotiation, due to: (i) its dubious effectiveness in global mitigation as it does not reduce fossil fuel emissions, only offsets emissions temporarily through sinks; (Ii) the technical and methodological problems relating to permanence, additionality, measurability, verifiability and leaks, inherent to the nature of these measures, and (iii) adverse effects and environmental, socio-cultural, economic and political negative impacts that such measures have caused and could continue to cause locally. The issue "joint actions between the parties" was taken up in the Kyoto Protocol, in force since 2005, as a means to facilitate compliance with the goal of reducing GHG emissions adopted by 38 developed countries. Three mechanisms of carbon emission offsetting were created, based on the "pay to pollute" scheme through buying and selling carbon credits according to trade rules. The flexibility mechanisms were: emission trading and joint implementation, both among developed countries, and the clean development mechanism (CDM) between developed and developing countries. The role of carbon sinks was included in the Kyoto Protocol with serious reservations, for within the eligible mitigation categories under the CDM sinks strengthening was restricted to "afforestation" and "reforestation". The category "avoided deforestation" was not eligible because it was deemed ineffective for mitigation, however, their -visible and hidden- promoters continued to press to introduce it in 2005 on the agenda of negotiations, within the framework of the joint proposal by Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea, under the label "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation" (RED). 2. The role of REDD and its variants in climate change mitigation 2.1. The incursion of REDD in the multilateral climate change process The REDD mechanism was introduced under the Bali Action Plan adopted by the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP-13) of the Convention in 2007, as an approach to stimulate action on mitigation, including the need for provide positive incentives to implement REDD activities. Initially, REDD activities included only two categories: “reducing deforestation” and “reducing forest degradation”. Then, under the "REDD-plus" label three additional categories were included, namely: "conservation of forest carbon stocks", "sustainable forest management" and "enhancement of forest carbon stocks". Recently, REDD promoters are pushing for achieving eligibility of "enhancement of marine carbon stocks" category under the "REDD-plus-plus" label or "blue carbon". In the Cancun Agreements adopted in 2010 by COP-16, policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to the five categories of eligible activities under the REDD-plus mechanism, and the seven safeguards for its implementation were adopted. However, the evidence that such adoption was premature and therefore under strong political pressure from the promoters of the various variants of REDD, was that COP-16 issued six mandates for various technical and political processes to be established, in order to overcome the methodological weaknesses of REDD-plus, due to its lack of permanence, additionality, measurability, verifiability and leakage. It is to be noted that with the establishment of the REDD-plus mechanism, the two big issues that changed the course of the multilateral climate change process, were articulated in its laxer and utilitarian versions: the eligibility of mitigation measures through biogenic carbon sinks and the joint mitigation actions between the Parties. The promoters of the REDD-plus mechanism have sought to evade compliance with the commitments to reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuels burning, by offsetting through a mechanism that enables the buying and selling of plentiful and cheap biogenic carbon credits, as they are those generated by activities of "avoided deforestation" which are the backbone of the REDD-plus mechanism. Symbiosis, laxity and mercantilist approach in addressing the two referred issues, opened the door for sectoral or group interests of political actors, and governmental and private operators in developed and developing countries, were introduced, and addressed as legitimate above of the principles, spirit and ultimate objective of the Convention. As well as facilitating operators of the United Nations system whose contribution to the derailment of the multilateral climate change process has not been less significant. 2.2. The orchestration of REDD-plus: proliferation of programs and labels Parallel to the development of the multilateral process, since the dawn of REDD, developed countries governments, United Nations system´ multilateral agencies, regional banks, among others, have promoted and consistently supported the establishment of facilitative and financial mechanisms to attracting support for the "pro REDD-plus" cause on the part of governments and other stakeholders from developing countries. In that effort, several communities of actors were "sensitized" via access offers to resources for financing their respective work agendas, persuading them of the importance of strengthening GHG sinks and reservoirs, such as biomass, forests, soil, terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Over the past decade, many academic communities, experts and practitioners working in the protection and management of biodiversity, protected areas, forestry, agroforestry, degraded land, soil, agriculture, desertification and drought, oceans, coastal areas, wetlands and biosphere reserves, among others; as well as an important part of the leadership of indigenous peoples and communities, and farmers, have been led and supported to act as pressure groups, advocacy or lobbying for REDD-plus, both internationally and nationally. This advocacy was focused on ensuring that: (i) REDD-plus was officially recognized as a cost-effective carbon emissions offset mechanism in the context of the new architecture under the post-2015 multilateral climate regime, and (ii) a multilateral regulatory framework would be stablished which would generate carbon credits demand by reinforcing carbon sinks, for financing REDD-plus. Initially it was raised the sale of carbon credits generated by REDD-plus, and then, diffuse international cooperation schemes arose, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), whose operationalization of the REDD-plus subject, is far from being clear, transparent and consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The plurilateral orchestration to promote REDD-plus included the proliferation of programs aimed at: (i) building national capacities through on-the-ground experiences with REDD-plus programs and projects in developing countries, (ii) generating information on biogenic carbon including the use of remote sensing technology, (iii) disclosure of REDD-plus mechanism with forestry, rural and indigenous communities to remove barriers that limit their involvement in this mechanism, including institutional strengthening, and (iv) advocacy towards REDDplus within multilateral negotiations through the beneficiary countries. Some of the stablished facilitative and financial mechanisms were: the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the World Bank (WB) (2007); the United Nations Programme on REDD (UN-REDD), coordinated by UNEP, FAO and UNDP (2008); the Oslo Alliance for Forests (2010); the Bonn Challenge (2011), underpinned by the New York Declaration on Forests launched by the United Nations´ Secretary General (2014). It has also created several REDD-plus´ regional and national programmes and projects for entry into the field. In Central America two flagship regional programmes were established: the Regional REDD-CCAD Program (GIZ) in 2010, which aims to improve framework conditions of the countries to effectively implement offset mechanisms of CO2 emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; and the Regional Program for Central America (USAID) from 2013 to 2018, which seeks the implementation of REDD-plus through the establishment and implementation of incentive measures, including the promotion of mangrove carbon for incorporation into national and regional agendas. To counteract image erosion of the REDD-plus mechanism, as a result of criticism of the lack of scientific, technical and empirical basis for their real and effective global mitigation contribution, and the increasing negative impacts of REDD-plus projects in different regions of the world; the promoters of REDD-plus have resorted to 'relabelling" in order to recycle it to the public, masking it to disguise or hide the failures, malfunctions, effects and negative impacts that would detract support, credibility, legitimacy and acceptance. As well as its challenged contribution to biodiversity, quality of life of rural and indigenous communities, environmental quality, rights to land access and use, and other human rights. Some of the labels adopted in the systematic recycling of REDD-plus have been: "ecosystem and landscape restoration based approach for REDDplus", "climate smart agriculture", "sustainable intensive agriculture", "carbon neutrality of land", "neutrality of land degradation", "neutral land degradation of the planet", "greener cities" and "greening of cities". Also, given the difficulty of accelerating the implementation of the REDD-plus mechanism within the multilateral climate change process, at different times of negotiations its promoters have turned to other multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral processes, trying to introduce the REDD-plus agenda with less obstacles, in collusion with United Nations system´ agencies and officials. Such was the case of the final document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development -Rio+20- (2012), in which numeral 193 on climate change, an attempt was made to incorporate significant support to REDD-plus, which was not possible; and in paragraph 207 on desertification, land degradation and drought, they tried to introduce carbon neutrality in land, which was not possible either. Similarly, in the "Development Agenda after 2015" which includes the sustainable development objectives (SDG), adopted at the United Nations headquarters in 2015, the REDD-plus issue could not be introduced or made visible as such in any of the 17 SDGs and 169 targets. However, it is noteworthy that eligible activities under REDD-plus were filtered in SDG-15 on biodiversity and combating desertification; while in SDG-13 on climate change no reference was included to such mechanism, and rather, to avoid proposals that prejudge future climate negotiations, SDG-13 was shielded including a footnote that reads: "recognizing that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change". Target 3 of SDG-15 includes, among others, "by 2030, aiming to achieve a world with neutral soil degradation". At the same time, under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, the Aichi Target 15 states that "by 2020, resilience of ecosystems and contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks through conservation and restoration will be increased, including restoration of at least 15% of degraded lands, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as combating desertification". Under the Convention to Combat Desertification, in those countries experiencing serious drought and desertification, "land" is defined as the terrestrial bio-productive system that comprises soil, vegetation, other biota, and the ecological and hydrological processes they develop within the system. As for the Bonn Challenge, this initiative aims to alleviate the slow incursion and invisibility of REDD-plus in the climate change multilateral agenda and sustainable development subject in general, presenting itself as an umbrella that would promote and facilitate coordination and synergy among the commitments under the multilateral environmental conventions via the SDGs. This initiative, plurilateral in nature, seeks to achieve, under the rules of procedure defined by the promoters of REDD-plus, what they have been unable to obtain under the rules of procedure governing the UN system. The official website of the Bonn Challenge defines it as an initiative created by Germany and the International Union for Conservation of Nature -UICN-. It was launched in Bonn in 2011 in order to restore 150 million hectares of deforested and degraded lands before 2020; this target being subsequently increased to 350 million hectares by 2030. This initiative promotes the "landscape restoration based approach for REDD-plus". The Bonn Challenge describes itself on its website as a practical means to meet various international commitments, highlighting the following: (i) the Convention´ target on REDD-plus, even though neither the Convention nor the Paris Agreement have adopted a target on that subject, (ii) target 3 of SDG-15 adopted at the Rio+20 on neutrality in land degradation, and (iii) Target 15 of Aichi on the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks through conservation and restoration, including restoration of degraded lands. The Bonn Challenge takes as axis and presentation card three virtual international commitments focused on REDD-plus, without reference to SDG-13 on the urgency of action against climate change and its impacts, in which no mention is made of REDD-plus. As for the Bonn Challenge´ ecosystem and landscape restoration based approach, it would be contrary to the spirit and letter of the Paris Agreement (2015) and the Convention; as it gives the REDD-plus mechanism centrality and hierarchy in climate action that is inconsistent with the provisions adopted, prejudging the post-2015 negotiations and jeopardizing the achievement of long-term goals adopted in the Paris Agreement. This initiative would mobilize resources under carbon emissions offset schemes via the purchase and sale of biogenic carbon credits. Contrary to recent IPCC data, promoters of the Bonn Challenge suggest that overall deforestation and forest degradation constitutes 20% of global GHG emissions, thus that it would be impossible to keep the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C if emissions from the forest sector are not reduced in addition to other mitigation actions. As well, they argue that REDD-plus is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions on forest land and investing in low carbon sustainable development trajectories. 3. The approach of carbon sinks in the Paris Agreement beyond 2015 Article 4 of the Paris Agreement concerning mitigation focuses on the obligation of the Parties to prepare, communicate every five years, and improve the successive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC); and formulate and communicate by 2020 national strategies with low GHG emissions by 2030. At the same time, it holds Parties accountable on environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability, consistency and avoidance of double counting in relation to their NDCs. Art. 5 of the Paris Agreement takes up Art. 4.1 (d) of the Convention, which states that all Parties should take measures to preserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of GHG, and cooperation to promote and support them. That provision does not state that conservation and sinks increase activities serve the purpose of GHG emissions offsetting, and much less by buying and selling carbon stocks, which would be inconsistent with interstate spirit of the commitments under the Convention. In none of the three articles of the Paris Agreement on mitigation (Arts. 4, 5 and 6) the REDD-plus mechanism is mentioned, however, in Article 5 Parties are encouraged to implement and support -including results-based payments- decisions taken under the framework of the Convention regarding policy approaches and positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative approaches such as combining mitigation and adaptation, as proposed by Bolivia. It is noteworthy that opposition to the inclusion of REDD-plus mechanism in the Paris Agreement was so strong, that until the last moment of negotiations, Art. 5 was introduced. Although it includes the five eligible activities under the REDD-plus mechanism, does not mention it as such, nor define it as fossil emissions offset mechanism, rather it is addressed in tune with the spirit of Art. 4.1 (d) of the Convention. According to Art. 6 of the Paris Agreement, Parties have the option to voluntarily participate in cooperative approaches to increase the ambition of their mitigation and adaptation measures under their NDCs. A Mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of GHG emissions and support sustainable development (Mechanism) was established, which should promote environmental integrity, transparency, governance and robust accounting without double counting. The Paris Agreement does not explicitly mention the use of nonpermanent activities such as strengthening carbon sinks to offset fossil fuel emissions. Paragraph 38 (b) of the text of the decision adopting the Agreement provides that eligible activities under the Mechanism as per Art 6 should generate real, measurable and long-term climate change mitigation benefits; which would not apply to absorption, sequestration or conservation of carbon sinks, as land and water carbon stocks store carbon in very short time scales, releasing it back into the atmosphere. It is to be noted that Art. 4 of the Paris Agreement states that in the second half of the century a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks should be achieved, referring to the largescale deployment of negative emissions´ technologies by the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and its permanent storage; whose viability must be reviewed by the IPCC, and reconsidered by the Parties under the Facilitative Dialogue in 2018, and at the Global Balances from 2023. 4. From the aegis of REDD in national climate policy to the Bonn Challenge maze The process of adopting the REDD-plus mechanism in national climate change policy in El Salvador began at the end of the government's 2004-2009 five-year term. The subject was further assumed by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) under the subsequent government as the leading axis around which would be organized not only the climate policy framework and action, but the approach to environmental management in the country. Since then, climate change has been approached by the MARN without considering the best knowledge and not applying technical or methodological criteria developed and disseminated under the Convention´ multilateral process; and it has lacked substantive participation and social legitimacy necessary for its viability and effective implementation. It is to be noted that to achieve the adequacy and effectiveness of climate action, planning and definition of climate change policy and its implementing instruments should be governed and be based on the criteria, standards, guidelines and best practices adopted under the Convention´ multilateral process. The country should have developed and implemented strategies, plans, programmes and measures for climate action, supported by the assessments and analysis of the manifestations, effects and impacts of climate change in the country, articulated appropriately to the national development agenda. However, MARN defined as a strategic axis for climate action a national strategy for REDD-plus, to be developed with funds from the FCPF. The concept paper (R-PP) was the subject of several criticisms by national social organizations and experts, which were released and are available on the FCPF website: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/el-salvador. The R-PP had to be modified substantively since it proposed to adopt an approach labelled "mitigation based adaptation" (MbA), while the country lacked studies on manifestations and impacts of climate change and adaptation strategies, plans or programmes to substantiate such an approach. To give credibility to MbA, MARN developed and formalized at the highest political level the National Environmental Policy (PNMA) (2012), the National Climate Change Strategy (2013) and the National Plan for Climate Change (NPCC) ( 2015). The PNMA included among its priority lines of action: (i) adaptation to climate change and (ii) inclusive restoration and conservation of ecosystems; both conceived to address expeditiously the lack of support of MbA and achieve public acceptance of REDD-plus. In that line it was redefined and launched the National Program for Restoration of Ecosystems and Landscapes (PREP) and integrated into the relabelling "PREP-REDD+-MbA" in order to recycle REDD to achieve acceptance by highlighting biodiversity. In that line, the NPCC was conceived to create an enabling and facilitative environment for REDD-plus, reflecting, among others, a utilitarian approach focused on promoting land management schemes under the PREP, using fossil fuel emissions offset mechanisms via conservation and increase of land and water carbon stocks activities under the various labels of REDD-plus. The NPCC was the main basis that supported the approach and scope of the "Intended Nationally Determined Contribution" (INDC) of the country to the Paris Agreement, which was notified by the government to the secretariat of the Convention late 2015. The INDC lacks clarity and transparency in addressing the REDD-plus mechanism, since its section 3.5 referred to “Agriculture, livestock and forestry" (pp. 11-13), includes all eligible REDD-plus activities under the MbA approach, without mentioning the mechanism as such. Quantified targets by 2030 were included, on tree cover conservation of 27% and forest carbon stocks´ increase of 25%, both of the national territory, without any reference at all to the two umbrella initiatives launched by the government to articulate REDD-plus activities, namely: the national strategy for REDD-plus and the Bonn Challenge, under which the President of the Republic announced in 2015 the commitment to reforest 1 million ha of degraded lands (50% of the country). Both initiatives promote REDD-plus mechanism to offset fossil fuel emissions by buying and selling biogenic carbon credits. In this issue, the government is obliged to inform the country how double counting of carbon will be avoided, as fossil fuel emissions offset by REDD-plus activities may not be included in the NDC of the Salvadoran State, but in the one of the State that would be buying the biogenic carbon credits. 5. Guidelines for redirecting national climate action under the Paris Agreement Strategies for restoration and rehabilitation of natural systems in El Salvador, should consider current and future transformations that would be causing climate change in the environmental surroundings that would be implemented; since changes in magnitude, frequency, intensity, amplitude and spatial and temporal patterns of climate behavior and related variability, will continue to generate negative effects and impacts on natural landscapes and ecosystems, and agricultural land, exacerbating current levels of degradation caused by human dynamics related to land use, occupation and transformation. Land planning, and public and private management for landscapes and ecosystems sustainability in the country, should be based on projected manifestations, effects and impacts of climate change, that, among others, would cause: loss of land and crops ability, reduction of agricultural yield, outbreaks of pests, diseases and more frequent and intense wildfires, wilting of vegetation, changes in the composition, structure and functions of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems -many of them vital for moderating local climate, agriculture and food security-, biodiversity erosion and disturbances in water, nutrients and carbon cycles. The worsening of soil, land, natural ecosystems and landscapes´ degradation levels due to climate change and its negative effects on biodiversity, water, agriculture, food security and landslides; require the conceptualization and adoption of adaptation strategies for natural ecosystems to current and future climate change, consistent with the global goal of the Paris Agreement on adaptation, which seeks to increase adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change. The potential of biodiversity and connectivity of natural systems shall govern the spatial prioritization and type of measures and practices to be adopted for the rehabilitation and management of landscapes, ecosystems and land for their sustainability. The previous does not match the spatial potential of carbon capture and storage or the priority objectives of mitigation, which are focused on promoting and financing actions with high potential to strengthen biogenic carbon sinks. In the case of REDD-plus, it seeks to offset fossil carbon emissions through the purchase and sell of carbon credits to be accounted to the buyer. The negative impacts of climate change on natural systems -landscapes and ecosystems- would be turning sinks into sources of biogenic carbon emissions, which would put at high risk the governmental bet of participating in fossil fuel emissions offset schemes under the Bonn Challenge, the FCPF or the like. Hence, measures strengthening carbon sinks via the restoration or rehabilitation of soils, land, ecosystems or landscapes should not be linked to fossil fuel emissions offset schemes through REDD-plus, since they involve contractual obligations, protected by free trade agreements, which, if case of non-compliance, would enforce the guarantees, which for private owners could mean losing their land. For the state, since according to the Constitution (Art. 233) its real estate -of public use or fiscal- are outside of trade, the threat would fall to their movable property (art. 223). Based on the threats on public and private property, if included in fossil emissions offset schemes associated to the Bonn Challenge or other initiatives that promote REDD-plus with labels associated with gender, indigenous peoples, ecosystems, land, agriculture, soil and water; the government shall change the approach to climate change currently focused on REDD-plus, and develop the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), based on adaptation strategies for natural systems, territories, human populations and socioeconomic sectors. The first NDC of the Salvadoran State shall integrate an adaptation component supported by the NAP, and a mitigation component focused on improving environmental quality, including a quantified GHG emissions reduction target by 2030 based on a mitigation strategy articulated to the Five-Year Development Plan to be notified prior to 2020. Author Yvette Aguilar Salvadoran labor economist, graduated from Catholic University of Leuven, specializing in public and private policy planning and related implementation instruments on climate change. She was negotiator under the multilateral process on climate change for a decade and ex-member of the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) established within that process. She is researcher on issues related to vulnerability, impacts and adaptation to climate change, and currently climate change advisor to the Round-table on climate change of El Salvador, sponsored by the FES-El Salvador, and member of the Working Group under the Regional Socio-ecological Transformation Project of the FES.