Mitigating Climate Change via Market-based Forest Conservation
1. Mitigating Climate Change via
Market-based Forest Conservation
Stakeholders, Tactics, Risks and Rewards
Andrew Courtney
The George Washington University School of Business | SMPP298 | Summer 2010
2. About this Presentation
• Summarizes findings from independent research and reading course.
• Course is facilitated through The George Washington University,
School of Business, Department of Strategic Management and Public
Policy.
• Slides are fully annotated and sources are fully cited in the “notes”
pane of each slide.
• Prepared by Andrew Courtney (andrewc@gwmail.gwu.edu) for
academic purposes.
3. Executive Summary
• Deforestation accounts for nearly 20%* of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions annually. Meanwhile, standing forests remove 18%** of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually.
• Thus, deforestation is accelerating climate change by
1. adding more GHG emissions than the entire transportation industry
2. removing vast quantities of forests that were cleaning carbon dioxide
from the air.
• Decreasing tropical deforestation rates must be part of global policy
to mitigate climate change.
• Market-based forest conservation can facilitate these reductions.
• However, the process is complex and the stakeholders are many.
• This presentation will analyze market-based forest conservation in
terms of techniques, stakeholders, risks and rewards.
14. Drivers of Tropical Deforestation
• Major Industries (industrial farming, mining and logging)
• Subsistence farming
• Inadequate governance and uncertain land ownership
16. Ecological Economics
• Goods produced unsustainably benefit from a hidden subsidy, paid
by the environment, community or future generations.
• Thus they are usually cheaper than goods produced sustainably.
17. Payments for Ecosystem Services
• Recognizes value of services
provided by ecosystems
–pollination
–water filtration
–carbon sequestration, etc
• Estimated annual value of
world’s ecosystem services:
$33 trillion
30. Involving and Benefitting Local
Communities and Indigenous Peoples
• 400M+ people depend on tropical forests
• Are often the best conservationists
• Benefit-sharing programs provide alternative
income / employment
• Clarify Land Tenure
and Governance
41. Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to the following individuals for taking their time to meet in
person or via email and help inform the direction of this project:
Hinweis der Redaktion
================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * EarthTrends: Feature - Valuing Ecosystem Services. EarthTrends | Environmental Information. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=15&theme=5>. ** University of Leeds. &quot;One-Fifth Of Fossil-Fuel Emissions Absorbed By Threatened Forests.&quot; ScienceDaily 19 February 2009. 17 August 2010 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm>
Greenhouse Effect Solar energy warms the earth. Some of this energy is reflect back into space, and some is absorbed by Earth’s surface. 1) As the surface of the Earth warms, the atmosphere in turn becomes warmer. Gases that occur naturally in the atmosphere absorb some of this radiation (2) and it is returned back to the Earth’s surface warming it still further. Planet Warms. Leads to increased feedback effects: melting polar ice, acidification of oceans as more CO2 is absorbed, tundra thawing, etc. Range of greenhouse gases: water vapour, ozone, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. CO2 is important b/c human caused releases of CO2 as a result of combustion of fossil fuels (gas, coal, oil, oil-derived products) are large and rising rapidly. Have increased significantly since the start of the western industrial era from the early to mid 1800s onwards, particularly emissions of carbon dioxide. Stern Review: &quot;Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” Global “Weirding”: Global Warming is misleading and in popular culture is presumed that the planet is simply going to be warmer everywhere. The actual impacts are less predictable and more chaotic. Thomas Friedman coined the phrase Global “Weirding” to help characterize the implications of climate change and global warming. This phrase simplifies the complexities and connotes that weather patterns are going to just get weird – extreme heat, cold, drought, floods, etc. In general, Global Weirding implies a departure from the established weather patterns. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Greenhouse Effect Graphic: Forestry Commission - Climate Change - Multimedia. Forestry Commission GB. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-7fzdbd>. “ Global Weirding” phrase: Friedman, Thomas L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution-- and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Climate Change References: 350.org. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.350.org/>. Flannery, Tim F. Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2009. Print. Flannery, Tim F. The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth. New York: Grove, 2006. Print. Gore, Albert. An Inconvenient Truth: the Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It. New York: Rodale, 2006. Print. Hansen, Jim. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? 7 April, 2008. 20p. Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf MacDonald, Christine C. Green, Inc.: an Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad. Guilford, CT: Lyons, 2008. Print. Sachs, Jeffrey. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York: Penguin Group USA, 2009. Chapter 4. Steffen, Alex. Worldchanging: a User's Guide for the 21st Century. New York: Abrams, 2006. Print.
350 ppm*,** 350 parts per million CO2 is generally regarded as the upper limit if we wished to have a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Dr. James Hansen, of NASA, the United States' space agency We’re currently at 390 ppm Rising by about 2ppm/yr Hansen focused on CO2 as the key greenhouse gas because it is the most prevalent in our atmosphere has the longest life-cycle, meaning we'll be dealing with the consequences of our actions today for over 100 years it is most integrated into industrial economies. Summer 2007* the spike in methane emissions, likely from thawing permafrost; the melt of high-altitude glacier systems and perennial snowpack in Asia, Europe, South America and North America; the rapid and unexpected acidification of seawater. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * 350.org. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.350.org/>. Flannery, Tim F. Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2009. Print. Flannery, Tim F. The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth. New York: Grove, 2006. Print. Gore, Albert. An Inconvenient Truth: the Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do about It. New York: Rodale, 2006. Print. ** Hansen, Jim. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? 7 April, 2008. 20p. Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf Sachs, Jeffrey. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York: Penguin Group USA, 2009. Chapter 4.
Climate Sensitivity: Describes the relationship between carbon concentrations and the average global temperature change. If we double the Earth’s greenhouse gases, how much will the temperature change? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html The response of the average temperature to an increase in GHG concentrations. Describes relationship between human-caused emissions that add to greenhouse effect and temperature changes that will result from these emissions. 3 ℃ (range of uncertainty from 2 to 4.5 ℃) A rise in global temperature by 1 to 3°C will lead to catastrophic consequences From Sachs, Jeffrey: Common Wealth, Chapter 4, pg 91.: CO2 is predicted to double from 280 ppm in preindustrial era (about 200 years ago) to 560 ppm (by 2050) The doubling of CO2 is often judged to be the outer limit of risk to society, beyond 560 ppm the damages of climate change may prove to be uncontrollably high (feedback, crop destruction, polar melt, rising oceans, etc). On a trajectory to doubling of preindustrial concentrations in just a few decades, possibly sooner if feedback mechanisms kick in (tundra thaws, etc methane hydrate deposits in the Arctic) 280 is the lower limit, 560 is one theorized upper limit (they get lower, 450 is another) Even if greenhouse gas concentrations stabilized today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6°C over the next century because of greenhouses gases already in the atmosphere. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: &quot;Explained: Climate Sensitivity.&quot; MIT. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/explained-climate-sensitivity.html>. NASA Earth Observatory, Global Warming: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php Hansen, Jim. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? 7 April, 2008. 20p. Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf Sachs, Jeffrey. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York: Penguin Group USA, 2009.
Why GHG Emissions are a concern: Scientists agree that in order to avoid dangerous interference in the climate system warming must not exceed 2°C. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 HOWEVER CO2 concentration are already so high that global emissions must peak and start to decline by about 2020 to keep this possibility open.1, 2, 3 To achieve this reduction, emissions from all major sources must start to decline within the next decade. 1 Reducing emissions from either developed countries or fossil fuels alone would require too steep a decline to be practically feasible to keep warming under 2°C. 1 Efficiency of Conventional Logging: For every tree harvested using conventional logging techniques in Amazonia, 35.8 additional trees were damaged. 4 As much as 20 percent of usable timber volume that was extracted from a typical hectare was never removed and instead left to rot in the forest. Furthermore, less than 35 percent of the timber that made it to the sawmill was actually converted into usable boards. 4 ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Environmental Defense Fund. “Getting REDD Right”. Washington, DC. January 2008. 7 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/7446_GettingREDDRight.pdf Greenpeace. “REDD and the effort to limit global warming to 2 ̊C: Implications for including REDD credits in the international carbon market”. March 30, 2009. 33 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/1/redd-and-the-effort-to-limit-g.pdf Hansen, Jim. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? 7 April, 2008. 20p. Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. pg 13. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Sachs, Jeffrey. Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. New York: Penguin Group USA, 2009. Chapter 4. Pie Chart Source: Expanding Agriculture and Protecting Ecosystems: Can Payments to Farmers Accomplish Both? | EarthTrends. EarthTrends | Environmental Information. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/296>.
Forests and Climate Change: Give and Take: Deforestation accounts for nearly 1/5 global CO2 emissions annually (as per data from WRI, IPCC, UNFCC, FAO and widely cited).* Tropical forests also have been shown to absorb almost 1/5 of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels.** As deforestation rates continue to climb, there will be fewer and fewer trees to absorb carbon dioxide and thus the percentage of carbon dioxide absorbed by trees will decrease while atmospheric concentrations increase. Forest : An area of land is a forest if it: is more than 0.5 hectares and contains trees higher than five metres with a canopy cover of more than 10% (FAO, 2004). NOTE : This definition technically includes plantations and mono-cultures of exotics species as forests. A 40-year study of African, Asian, and South American tropical forests by the University of Leeds, shows tropical forests absorb about 18% of all carbon dioxide added by fossil fuels, thus buffering some effects of global warming. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * Expanding Agriculture and Protecting Ecosystems: Can Payments to Farmers Accomplish Both? | EarthTrends. EarthTrends | Environmental Information. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/296>. ** University of Leeds. &quot;One-Fifth Of Fossil-Fuel Emissions Absorbed By Threatened Forests.&quot; ScienceDaily 19 February 2009. 17 August 2010 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm> “ Role of Forests in Carbon Cycle” Diagram: Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. pg13. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned
Deforestation : when a forest is cleared and permanently converted to another use. (FAO, 2004). If current deforestation trends continue, the world’s forests could be completely gone before he end of the century. * Indonesia and Brazil account for nearly two-thirds of tropical rainforest loss between 2000 and 2005. * ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * MacDonald, Christine C. Green, Inc.: an Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad. Guilford, CT: Lyons, 2008. Print.
Forest Degradation: Forest is negatively affected by external factors such as fire, pests or pruning for firewood which reduce forests vitality gradually over time. Forest degradation is hard to demonstrate from satellite imagery so is typically not captured in forest area statistics. Forest degradation leads to subsequent deforestation Alleviating drivers of degradation can help prevent eventual deforestation. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Environmental Defense Fund. “Q & A on Deforestation: Forest Carbon and Climate Protection”. Washington, DC. January 2006: 9 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/10537_Q_and_A_Deforestation_%20Forest_Carbon_and_Climate_Protection.pdf Diagram source: Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. pg 15. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned
================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Map source: &quot;Locations reported by various studies as undergoing high rates of land cover change in the past few decades.&quot; UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. 2005. UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 11 Aug 2010 < http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/locations-reported-by-various-studies-as-undergoing-high-rates-of-land-cover-change-in-the-past-few->.
Deforestation is most prevalent in nations where forests are abundant (Brazil, Congo Basin, Indonesia) ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: “ Disappearing Forests of the World” Google Earth KML layer by David Tryse. http://david.tryse.net/googleearth/ About the Data Visualization in Google Maps: The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005 (FRA 2005) is the most comprehensive assessment of forests and forestry to date - not only in terms of the number of countries and people involved, but also in terms of scope. It examines the current status and recent trends for about 40 variables covering the extent, condition, uses and values of forests and other wooded land, with the aim of assessing all benefits from forest resources. Information has been collated from 229 countries and territories for three points in time: 1990, 2000 and 2005.
Deforestation *, ** old-growth forests are being replaced by plantations and degraded, logged-over forests; and forest clearing is increasingly driven by industry rather than subsistence activities. It is not always easy to attribute deforestation to a particular driver. Moreover, many drivers of deforestation are indirect. For example, the expansion of cattle ranching in rainforest areas can be driven by the expansion of commercial agriculture in non-rainforest areas. Direct Drivers ** Smallholder agricultural expansion (crop and livestock). Major industries -- large-scale farming, mining, and logging infrastructure, such as roads or human settlements, fuel (both firewood and charcoal) occasionally civil unrest. Indirect Drivers ** increased economic activity and market failures poor governance, law enforcement, stakeholder participation and forest management; uncertain or contested land rights; Poverty; a lack of institutional capabilities among local communities to ensure sustainable forest management (UNEP, 2008; Wardojo, 2008). ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * Summarized from: &quot;Drivers of Deforestation.&quot; Rainforests. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation_drivers.html>. ** Direct and Indirect Drivers of Deforestation adapted from: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ch21, Forest and Woodland Systems. Pg 595. Chart source: &quot;Drivers of Deforestation.&quot; The Prince's Rainforests Project. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.rainforestsos.org/about-rainforests/whats-happening-to-them/drivers-of-deforestation/>.
Early Approaches to Forest Conservation: Forestry only : Forest policies were at fault and had to be fixed using financial and technical tools. Failed to address influence of external factors. Smallholders and poverty are driving deforestation. Address these in order to reduce deforestation. Given that there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of smallholders and poor this shotgun approach required tremendous mobilization of resources. While this approach has slowed deforestation and degradation on a small scale in some locations, globally deforestation has accelerated Public spending : Provide the right financial incentives and deforestation will decrease. Unfortunately, despite dumping US$5Bn over two decades deforestation has accelerated rather than slowed. These programs focused on providing economic incentives without looking at external threats such as underlying governance issues (land ownership, transparency, etc). ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Early Approaches summarized from: Angelsen A., Brockhaus M., Kanninen M., Sills E., Sunderlin W.D., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. (eds.). “Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options.” Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 361 pp, pg 46. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf
Slide Bullet Points Econ 101: Efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing purposes (what about impacts on env, society? = negative externalities) * Ecological Economics: Natural capital. Links economic, environmental and community well being. Sustainability, economic efficiency, distributional equity. * sustainable scale (rather than continual growth), fair distribution and efficient allocation Recognizes costs from negative externalities such as climate change and positive externalities such as pollination by honeybees. Ecosystems provide valuable services; Ecosystems can be destroyed, so we should create incentives to protect them. Ecological economics:** Seeks to correct market failures in traditional economics (the assumption that environmental and community costs and benefits are mutually canceling &quot;externalities, e.g. Manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society Resources are finite, so we should use them wisely. Ecosystem services can be destroyed, so we should create incentives to protect them. Ecological Economics seeks to accomplish this by blending business sense with environmental and physical reality. Why don’t we calculate the wealth lost when our $25 trillion economy pollutes, degraded, and impairs the functions of the natural economy that sustains us. Paul Hawken ( environmentalist, entrepreneur, journalist, and author) : http://www.paulhawken.com/: Goods produced unsustainably benefit from a hidden subsidy, paid by the non-monetized human environment, community or future generations. This is the only reason they are usually cheaper than goods produced sustainably. Analogy adapted from (Steffen, 2006: 488)** Just like borrowing too much on credit and getting deeper and deeper into debt hurts our financial future, using up too much NATURAL CAPITAL reduces long-term wealth. Budgeting inherently imposes constraints but doesn’t prevent savvy businesses from innovating. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * Jenkins, Matt. &quot;Mother Nature's Sum.&quot; Miller-McCune Online. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/mother-nature-s-sum-4226/>. ** Steffen, Alex. Worldchanging: a User's Guide for the 21st Century. New York: Abrams, 2006. pg 488. Image: http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/mother-nature-s-sum-4226/
Why Pay for Ecosystem Services? Price of keeping ecosystem healthy should be viewed as one more cost of doing business * We already pay hidden costs for environment degradation dwindling fresh water supplies, desertification, declining productivity of agricultural lands, amplified CO2 concentrations, human ailments tied to pollutants in the air, water, and food chain.* 1997 Nature Magazine article estimated the annual value of global ecological benefits at $33 trillion, a number number nearly twice the then global gross product.* Example : NY – Catskills. Building a filtration plant: $6Bn; work with upstream communities to improve polluted catskills watershed ($1Bn)* ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Appleton A. “How New York City Used an Ecosystem Services Strategy Carried out Through an Urban-Rural Partnership to Preserve the Pristine Quality of Its Drinking Water and Save Billions of Dollars. A Paper for Forest Trends”. November 2002. 11 pp. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/dynamic/resources.library.page.php?page_id=22&section=library&eod=1 * Carroll N and Jenkins M. “Payments for Ecosystem Services: Market Profiles”. Ecosystem Marketplace. 17 June 2008. 36 pp. http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/PES_Matrix_Profiles_PROFOR.pdf * EarthTrends: Feature - Valuing Ecosystem Services. EarthTrends | Environmental Information. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?fid=15&theme=5>. Jenkins, Matt. &quot;Mother Nature's Sum.&quot; Miller-McCune Online. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/mother-nature-s-sum-4226/>. MacDonald, Christine C. Green, Inc.: an Environmental Insider Reveals How a Good Cause Has Gone Bad. Guilford, CT: Lyons, 2008. Print. Steffen, Alex. Worldchanging: a User's Guide for the 21st Century. New York: Abrams, 2006. pg 488-89. Image : http://www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/mother-nature-s-sum-4226/
Services from Trees/Forest: *, **,*** Cool planet: Transpiration, creates “rain”; Breath in CO2, emit Oxygen and store and the rest as Carbon Environ Stability: prevent erosion, filter water, protect watersheds, streams. Utility: Timber, Foods, non-wood products like bamboo or rattan, foods, pharmaceuticals, shade, recreation, cultural and spiritual. Biodiversity: wildlife habitat (2/3 terrestial). Subsistence: around 60 million Indigenous people are ‘almost wholly dependent on forests’ worldbank 2008, redd pocket guide, pg 6) ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Flannery, Tim F. Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2009. pp 65-67. Friedman, Thomas L. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution-- and How It Can Renew America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008. Print. Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned * Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Chapter 21: Forest and Woodland Systems. Island Press. ** Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Chapter 28: Synthesis: Condition and Trends in Systems and Services, Trade-offs for Human Well-being, and Implications for the Future. Island Press. *** Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ch9: Timber, Fuel, Fiber. Island Press. Steffen, Alex. Worldchanging: a User's Guide for the 21st Century. New York: Abrams, 2006. pp 486 – 487. Diagram adapted from: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Ch21, Forest and Woodland Systems. Pg 601 “ Natural Capital” image: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_market_force_of_nature/
Why Market Based Forest Conservation? Tradtional Forest Conservation has had mixed results, unsustainable, ignores bigger picture Drivers and dynamics of deforestation differ from region to region and even within regions, In general forests have more economic value after they have been cut down than when they are standing. Unless a mechanism is put into place that makes forests worth more alive than dead, deforestation will continue until the world’s tropical forests are completely destroyed. Globalization and increasing demand for agricultural commodities (e.g. soy and beef) are increasing the profitability of deforestation and pressure to clear forests. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Environmental Defense Fund. “Getting REDD Right”. Washington, DC. January 2008. 7 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/7446_GettingREDDRight.pdf Angelsen A., Brockhaus M., Kanninen M., Sills E., Sunderlin W.D., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. (eds.). “Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options.” Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 361 pp, pg 46. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf
REDD Creates financial incentives for countries to protect forests by attaching value to their forest conservation efforts thereby making forests more valuable left standing than any alternative use. Opportunity Costs** Currently forests are worth more when cleared than standing. REDD projects need to be more lucrative desirable than the alternative. Refer to the costs of lost profit opportunities from not deforesting or from adopting more sustainable forms of forest use. Technically defined as the net income per hectare per year or the net present value (NPV) that is sacrificed as a result of not logging (or logging more sustainably) or not converting land to agriculture. Opportunity costs vary according to the drivers of deforestation in a specific region or country Avoided Deforestation REDD is fundamentally accomplished by the concept of Avoided Deforestation. = deforestation that would have occurred (but did not) in the absence of the REDD project. By establishing a baseline deforestation rate, over time the difference between the baseline and the current deforestation rate becomes the amount of deforestation that was avoided. Given that standing forests absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, carbon credits can be calculated based on the avoided deforestation rate. These credits can the be traded to generate income for the countries conserving forests and purchased by industrialized nations as part of their emissions reduction targets. More than just the environment REDD is a complex, international issue with far reaching implications for nations, the environment, and business. REDD is more than just an environmental issue. It is also a social, economic, and political issue. “ REDD could simultaneously address climate change and rural poverty, while conserving biodiversity and sustaining vital ecosystem services.” * ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: * Parker, Charlie et al. 2008. The Little REDD Book: A guide to governmental and non-governmental proposals for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. Global Canopy. Pg 12. Environmental Defense Fund. “Getting REDD Right”. Washington, DC. January 2008. 7 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/7446_GettingREDDRight.pdf Environmental Defense Fund. “Creating Economic Incentives to Conserve Forests through REDD”. Washington, DC. August 2009. 2 pp.http://www.edf.org/documents/10331_EDF_REDD_intro.pdf ** UNEP and ONF International. &quot;Bringing Forest Carbon Projects to the Market: a new guidebook for forest project developers and investors”. May 2010. 165 pp. http://www.unep.fr/energy/activities/forest_carbon/pdf/Guidebook%20English%20Final%2019-5-2010%20high%20res.pdf The Forum on Readiness for REDD. &quot;REDD in the Real World – A Film Introducing REDD&quot;. Woods Hole Research Center. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://terra.whrc.org/Policy/REDD/redd_film.htm>.
Kyoto Protocol (1997 - 2012):* First global commitment to protect climate system, Set binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community (“Annex I” countries) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% below 1990 emissions levels during first 5-year commitment period (2008 to 2012). “ Non- Annex I” countries (all other countries, mainly developing nations), not currently bound to emission reduction targets. US did not ratify Kyoto Protocol thus is not bound by these targets for first commitment period (2008 – 2012) US government has engaged in talks about post-2012 agreement after first commitment period ends. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)* Created via Kyoto Protocol to help Annex I countries meet emissions targets and encourage developing countries to contribute to emissions reduction efforts. Under CDM, emissions removal projects in developing countries earn certified emissions reduction (CER) credits – fungible units which industrialized countries can use to meet part of their emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. CDM and Forests : only allows for emissions reductions through Afforestation/Reforestation (AR). Due to concern about credibility of carbon credits produced by REDD and Improved Forest Management ( IFM ) these activities are are currently excluded from CDM . CDM is the only Kyoto mechanism that involves developing countries which allows “Annex I” developed countries to offset their own emissions by doing emissions reduction projects in developing countries. CDM was not designed to bring down overall global emissions, it only moves a part of business as usual emissions from the developing world to developed countries. At best, global reductions are no greater than those stipulated by developed countries’ caps. This also assumes that all CDM projects would not have happened without project investments. Market-based REDD calls for national level reductions in deforestation below an historical baseline and calls on industrialized countries to make steeper reductions than would otherwise be feasible in exchange for tropical countries’ deforestation reductions. REDD :* 2005: Coalition of Rainforest Nations (led Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica) proposed including REDD under the UNFCCC. Positive response from international community. Bali Roadmap Introduced REDD+: Adds Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and the Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in developing countries to REDD. Outlined agreement to negotiate a new post-2012 climate change protocol by the December 2009 UNFCC meeting in Copenhagen (COP15). REDD+ well received by international community. Emissions reductions needed to keep warming below 2°C are so great; must involve all available sources. “ REDD Plus,” address the full range of activities that cause or prevent emissions of terrestrial carbon (Avoided Deforestation and Forest Degradation, as well as Enhancement of Carbon Stocks, Sustainable Management of Forests and Conservation of Forests). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Created following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro as a forum for governments to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. Formal entity that oversees REDD in addition to other climate policies (Kyoto, CDM, etc) COP15, December 2009 Failed to create a legally binding post-2012 climate treaty Made progress on REDD+; Created Copenhagen Accord: Politically binding agreement by 97 countries. Recognizes REDD+ as vital Agrees on need to mobilize financial resources from developed countries via REDD Plus mechanism. $3.5 billion pledged by 6 nations to support immediate REDD Plus activity between 2010 and 2012 (United States, united Kingdom, Norway, France, Japan, and Australia). ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: The above summarized from the following: Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned UNFCCC website August 13, 2010: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php
Market-based Funding = Direct carbon market funding (offsets) Industrialized countries purchase REDD credits for use as emissions allowances in their national cap-and- trade systems, potentially thereby purchasing the right to emit more domestically than their caps allow, by offsetting their emissions abroad. (little redd book, pg 93) The competitive market-place created by a market-based funding mechanism will help minimize financial risks (leakage, permanence) because investors will expect real, measurable, and verifiable reductions.* Offers a long-term reliable source of funding that can help ensure permanence and absolute reductions* Voluntary Fund National or international level. Financed primarily by government assistance or by corporations in industrialized nations. Establishes a “carbon bank” whereby GHG-emitting nations and corporations contribute in accordance to their carbon emissions. “ Carbon Debt” of industrialized nations – obligation to help pay for impacts of climate change resulting from industrialization. Unconnected to cap-and-trade markets such as official development assistance (ODA) or Norway's $2.6 billion commitment announced at Bali. A REDD fund would not likely provide a reliable, long-term source of funding.* Hybrid or market-linked != offsets • Generates funding by using auction revenues or allocated allowances for REDD, or by establishing systems in which REDD credits are not fungible with industrial country allowances. • Funding increases as cap-and-trade markets and the price of carbon increase, but, crucially, the REDD credits are not offsets. SUMMARY: • Ultimately a key component of that financing will come from market-linked mechanisms which leverage carbon markets through emissions allowances, auctioning of permits, fees, and taxes. • Though the funding mechanisms are not finalized, a provision to finance REDD via fees, fines and taxes on corporations is expected ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Barnsley, I. “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD): A Guide for Indigenous People.” 2008. United Nations University. 100 pp. http://www.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/REDDPocketGuide_web.pdf Dutschke, Michael et al. 2008. Financing REDD: Linking country needs and financing sources. CIFOR infobriefs. November (17): 1,3. Environmental Defense Fund. &quot;REDD Financing: Different Approaches for Different National Circumstances&quot; Washington, DC. 2008. 2 pp. Gregersen H., El Lakany H., Karsenty A. and White A. “Does the Opportunity Cost Approach Indicate the Real Cost of REDD+? Rights and Realities of Paying for REDD+”. Rights and Resources Initiative. June 2010. 29 pp. http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/index.php?pubID=1555 Parker C., Mitchell A, Trivedi M., and Mardas N. THE LITTLE REDD+ BOOK. Global Canopy Programme, London. 2008. http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/lrb_en.pdf Icons : The Little REDD+ Book MarketWatch image: Ecosystem Marketplace
Complementary Financing: Combines the three financing options and leverages strengths of each option Connects financing method to timeframe that will be most useful for achieving overall REDD goals. All three are needed, complementary. Voluntary Fund Short run. Flexible. Quickest way to build capacity. Essential during Readiness stages. Sourced by International Aid from industrialized nations and transactions from (unregulated) voluntary carbon market Market-Linked Eases transition from readiness to implementation More funding is necessary during this stage. Risks of leakage, non-additionality and monitoring errors limit feasibility of relying exclusively on carbon market, thus fund is necessary to help transition. Market-Linked helps to avoid the risks from leakage and non-additionality. Direct Carbon Market (regulated) Established capacity, expanded scale and scope, Direct carbon market will provide largest, continual, sustainable funding. In general: • Funds are considered to be more appropriate for capacity building and pilot activities. • Funds are also proposed for the conservation of standing forests. • Markets are often recognized as providing more consistent and greater funding potential in the long term. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Dutschke, Michael et al. 2008. Financing REDD: Linking country needs and financing sources. CIFOR infobriefs. November (17): 3. Environmental Defense Fund. &quot;REDD Financing: Different Approaches for Different National Circumstances&quot; Washington, DC. 2008. 2 pp. Olsen, Nathalie and Joshua Bishop. The Financial Costs of REDD: Evidence from Brazil and Indonesia. IUCN. Pg vii. Parker C., Mitchell A, Trivedi M., and Mardas N. THE LITTLE REDD+ BOOK. Global Canopy Programme, London. 2008. http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/lrb_en.pdf Environmental Defense Fund. &quot;REDD Financing: Different Approaches for Different National Circumstances&quot; Washington, DC. 2008. 2 pp. Complementary Financing Chart: Parker C., Mitchell A, Trivedi M., and Mardas N. THE LITTLE REDD+ BOOK. Global Canopy Programme, London. 2008. http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/lrb_en.pdf Environmental Defense Fund. &quot;REDD Financing: Different Approaches for Different National Circumstances&quot; Washington, DC. 2008. 2 pp.
REDD is a complex issue with environmental, political, economic and social implications. Many organizations and individuals are working to address some of the greatest challenges facing REDD. The eight bulding blocks listed address the overarching concepts of REDD program design. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Parker C., Mitchell A, Trivedi M., and Mardas N. THE LITTLE REDD+ BOOK. Global Canopy Programme, London. 2008. http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/default/files/lrb_en.pdf Meridian Institute. 2009. “REDD+ Institutional Options Assessment. Developing an Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Institutional Framework for REDD+ under the UNFCCC.” Prepared by Charlotte Streck, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, Pablo Gutman, Cyril Loisel, and Jacob Werksman. Available at: http://www.redd-oar.org/links/REDD+IOA_en.pdf
Baseline Same thing as the “business-as-usual” scenario The level of carbon dioxide emissions and carbon sequestration that would have occurred if the REDD project was not implemented. Essentially an estimate of future forest coverage based either on historical deforestation rates or projected rates. Generally considered best practice to periodically and adjust based on verified data. Can have separate baselines for different project components (e.g., IFM, AR, REDD) Historical Spatial modeling using the average emissions from a previous time period (e.g. the most recent 10 years) Risk of ‘rewarding high deforestation’ by using historical baselines; Stay steady over time Projected In addition to historical emissions data also consider expected changes in population growth or infrastructure development Because of additional inputs, baesline might increase to account for future expected land use change from frontier deforestation. Key Term: Carbon benefits Amount of additional emissions prevented by REDD activities (or sequestered by AR or IFM activities) Determined by comparing with-project forest carbon stocks with business-as-usual stocks (after deducting leakage / impermanence buffers) ADDITIONALITY REDD projects must provide additional emissions prevention above and beyond the business-as-usual/baseline scenario. Essentially an assessment of what would have (but did not) happen in the BAU scenario. Inexact. Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS),have been developed tests to determine whether project activities are likely additional to what would have occurred under business-as-usual practices (Main Chart) ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Meridian Institute. 2009. “REDD+ Institutional Options Assessment. Developing an Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Institutional Framework for REDD+ under the UNFCCC.” Prepared by Charlotte Streck, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, Pablo Gutman, Cyril Loisel, and Jacob Werksman. Available at: http://www.redd-oar.org/links/REDD+IOA_en.pdf The Forum on Readiness for REDD. &quot;REDD in the Real World – A Film Introducing REDD&quot;. Woods Hole Research Center. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://terra.whrc.org/Policy/REDD/redd_film.htm>. Images: The Forum on Readiness for REDD. &quot;REDD in the Real World – A Film Introducing REDD&quot;. Woods Hole Research Center. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://terra.whrc.org/Policy/REDD/redd_film.htm>.
Measuring and monitoring Process that calculates and tracks forest carbon stocks as part of broader carbon accounting. Carbon Accounting Accounting for carbon benefits over time as a result of forest carbon activities. Carbon Stocks: Forest carbon is stored in leaves, branches, trunk, roots, soil, leaf-litter and deadwood. Different forest types have different carbon density Satellite technology for differentiating forest types and field measurements to verify satellite-based delineations. Sampling methods are required; Collect data on carbon stocks in representative section of forest and apply to entire project area based on sampling scheme Deforestation Rate Obtained from analysing satellite images from several points in time over same forest area. Can precisely measure deforestation rates by comparing change in satellite photos taken over time on a pixel by pixel Some advances in satellite analusis and technology can also detect degradation from logging and fire…generally degradation is difficult to assess. Baseline Baseline emissions without project and baseline estimate with project. The difference between the two equals the carbon benefits from the project. This carbon stock can then be allocated to a carbon bank. Leakage and Impermanence Use buffers and discounts in carbon accounting (roughly 10-20% of total carbon benefits each). Buffers provide insurance against any unexpected loss of carbon and are a vital requirement for standards and regulation. MRV Monitoring : cross-check anticipated carbon benefits over time; track deforestation rate, baseline, leakage and impermanence as well as carbon stocks on the ground. Verification and reporting: ensure quality and transparency, and avoid double-counting of carbon credits and demonstrate that generated carbon benefits are real. Validation : Independent third-party review of project, calculations, and documentation to validate that the requirements of a standard have been met. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned
Leakage : Changes in greenhouse gas emissions that occur outside of project boundaries as a result of the project’s emissions reduction activities. On a national scale, leakage can also occur between countries, for example, if deforestation is shifted from one country to another. Less likely in areas where alternative employment is available, land use activities are subsistence and land tenure is clear and enforced Activity-shifting leakage F orest carbon activities directly cause carbon- emitting activities to be shifted to another location outside of the project boundaries (or outside the country) Market leakage C hanges the supply-and-demand equilibrium: if a project constrains the supply of a commodity, such as agricultural products or timber, market prices may rise and producers elsewhere may increase their activities in response. Carbon Accounting leakage effects are estimated during project design and used to apply leakage deductions in carbon accounting. Most voluntary carbon standards now recommend a leakage deduction of 10-20 percent. Varies with project risk factors. Prevention and Monitoring Focuses on drivers of leakage such as agricultural intensification, lack of alternative employment opportunities. Monitored via tracking activities of key project participants and support for clear land titling. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned
Projects must demonstrate that they will be around long enough to fulfill the mission of capturing and storing carbon. How long is permanent? 10, 30, 50 yrs? Inherent risk on Empermanence Inherent with REDD is risk of partial /total reversal of carbon benefits due to natural and human causes (forest fires, pests, changes in government and policy, market failures) Magnitude of risk varies depending on location, drivers of deforestation, political situation, ecological conditions, socio-economic circumstances, economy, etc., How to mitigate inherent risk of impermanence? Impermanence buffers == Insurance Policy, like FDIC A reserve of 10-20% total carbon benefits, Set aside and not commercialized, to assure real credits can still be delivered in the chance of a partial reversal. Size of reserve is determined by risk analysis (can be up to 40%) ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Meridian Institute. 2009. “REDD+ Institutional Options Assessment. Developing an Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Institutional Framework for REDD+ under the UNFCCC.” Prepared by Charlotte Streck, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, Pablo Gutman, Cyril Loisel, and Jacob Werksman. Available at: http://www.redd-oar.org/links/REDD+IOA_en.pdf
Voluntary Carbon Market is currently not regulated (unlike EU ETS under the CDM) Standardized methods are required to establish the “rules of the game,” ensuring quality and consistency across all REDD projects. Leading standard is Voluntary Carbon Standard Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) Address concerns about leakage , permanence , additionality , social and environmental benefits and risks designed to ensure adequate consideration of environmental and social co-benefits in project development. Necessary in order to establish a stable market-based mechanism…builds investor confidence and trust Other related Standards: Climate, Community and Biodiversity standard (CCB) Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), these standards do not specifically address carbon, but can be used together with carbon standards to provide equity, transparency and diverse project benefits. They do provide for environmental and social benefits. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Ecosystem Marketplace and Business for Social Responsibility. “Offsetting Emissions: A Business Brief on the Voluntary Carbon Market, Second edition”. 19 pp. February 2008. http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Voluntary-Carbon-Offsets-2.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Meridian Institute. 2009. “REDD+ Institutional Options Assessment. Developing an Efficient, Effective, and Equitable Institutional Framework for REDD+ under the UNFCCC.” Prepared by Charlotte Streck, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, Pablo Gutman, Cyril Loisel, and Jacob Werksman. Available at: http://www.redd-oar.org/links/REDD+IOA_en.pdf Table adapted from: Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. pg40. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned
If IPs ignored:2 Loss of employment if land is taken out of production Loss of access to forests on which they depend During REDD design: 1, 5, 6 Multi-stakeholder involvement equitable participation and distribution of benefits for indigenous peoples and local communities Community Involvement, Alternative employment, Alternative Income, Land Tenure, Social Standards Providing alternative employment , typically by supporting REDD activities (benefit-sharing) Stats:1 60 million indigenous peoples live in the rainforests of South America, South-East Asia and Central Africa, 350 million people live in, or next to, dense forests and rely on them for subsistence or income. Why Involve Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples in designing REDD projects? 1, 2, 6 Much of world’s remaining forests are on indigenous lands Indigenous peoples are often the best stewards of the lands and waters from which they have historically met their daily needs for food, water and fuel Indigenous areas provide greater protection from deforestation than other types of strictly protected areas Following Standards: 5 Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) standard is specifically designed to ensure social and environmental co-benefits and provides a checklist and guidance for project developers to ensure net positive community impacts, stakeholder participation and monitoring of project impacts, demonstrated through verification by an accredited third party. Benefit-Sharing : Providing alternative income options from shifting land use on degraded agricultural land to cash crops, sustainable forest gardens (permaculture); agroforestry Ensuring all stakeholders participate in benefit sharing. Clarifying Land Tenure and governance. 1, 6 Often government owned. But if local communities are manage the land, need ownership right to carbon, etc. Productive land use clauses: Common throughout Africa and South America. Land rights recognized when occupants show they use an area ‘productively’. Productively = permanent conversion of forests to agriculture and other uses. Excludes activities that do not destroy the forest. Productive land use clauses reward activities that lead to the destruction of the forest, while failing to protect communities’ livelihoods that help its preservation. 1: pg21 ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change. “Realising rights, protecting forests: An Alternative Vision for Reducing Deforestation Case studies from the Accra Caucus”. June 2010. 21pp. http://www.care-international.org/Download-document/528-Accra-Report.html Borges B. “Strengthening Indigenous Rights & Climate Change Mitigation: The REDD+ Opportunity”. Forest Trends. June 2010. 18 pp. http://www.rightsandresources.org/~rightsan/documents/index.php?pubID=1563 Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf Gregersen H., El Lakany H., Karsenty A. and White A. “Does the Opportunity Cost Approach Indicate the Real Cost of REDD+? Rights and Realities of Paying for REDD+”. Rights and Resources Initiative. June 2010. 29 pp. http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/index.php?pubID=1555 Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Rights and Resources Initiative. “Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities”. May 2009. 55 pp. http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_1075.pdf
Standards already exist to help project developers integrate co-benefits during project design: The Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standard (CCB) Forest Stewardship Council Standard (FSC) are two such frameworks. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned Ecosystem Marketplace and Business for Social Responsibility. “Offsetting Emissions: A Business Brief on the Voluntary Carbon Market, Second edition”. 19 pp. February 2008. http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Voluntary-Carbon-Offsets-2.pdf Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf REDD-Net. East Africa Bulletin: Visioning redd+ in east africa: a focus on benefit sharing in uganda and Tanzania. December 2009. http://www.redd-net.org/posts/redd-neteastafricabulletin1visioningreddineastafrica
What’s the appropriate project scale and scope? Deforestation and Degradation contributes to almost20% GHG emissions annually. In order to adequately offset carbon, need a scale that is larger than independent projects. National scale holds most opportunity. Mixed scope to include REDD, IFM, AR activities. SCALE Either National or Sub-national. Advantages and disadvantages for each, but generally regarded that National scale is stronger option over sub-national despite the complexities National scale advantages: Much greater magnitude of impact well above and beyond anything on subnational level. Aggregate of all subnational projects, but administered together. in the range of millions of hectares Individual/subnational projects can credibly reduce emissions, but impact is relatively small. Policy tools (for addressing drivers of deforestation, leakage, impermanence, baselines), and Efficiencies in addressing technical issues including leakage and permanence. Economies of scale (measuring satellite data and verifying on the ground, decreased transaction costs, monitoring, determining baselines, efficient carbon accounting) Minimize leakage At national scale, a larger area is used which ensures baselines are more precise. Can implement a broader set of REDD policies Stronger sense of ownership Challenges of Nationwide Scale: Necessitates working with govts in developing countries which generally raises issues of benefit-sharing to local communities who typically cannot own the land on which they live. Short to medium term, might not be possible in countries with high corruption, lack of transparency, etc. NESTED Hybrid of National and Subnational. Countries begin with subnational activities and transition over time to national approach (both coexist) Projects and government earn carbon credits (similar to the Joint Implementation (JI) mechanism under Kyoto Protocol) Realising REDD+.pdf SCOPE Types of forest carbon activities implemented to achieve economic, environmental and social goals and to address underlying causes of deforestation: Projects spanning large regions with diverse land use require diversified/integrated program design (incorporating REDD and IFM and AR) Reforestation (AR) : Planting trees to provide alternative wood source to local communities for fuel, building products and income. Decreases pressure to clear primary forest for these purposes. Improved Forest Management (IFM) sustainable forest management and harvest techniques to decrease forest degradation where logging continues; or forest areas set aside for protection as high conservation value forests; replanting areas to ensure long-term sustainability of the forest. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Angelsen A., Brockhaus M., Kanninen M., Sills E., Sunderlin W.D., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. (eds.). “Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options.” Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 361 pp. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf Environmental Defense Fund. “Getting REDD Right”. Washington, DC. January 2008. 7 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/7446_GettingREDDRight.pdf Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf Harvey C. A., Zerbock O., Papageorgiou S. and Parra A. 2010 What is needed to make REDD+ work on the ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 121 pp. www.conservation.org/REDDLessonsLearned UNEP and ONF International. &quot;Bringing Forest Carbon Projects to the Market: a new guidebook for forest project developers and investors”. May 2010. 165 pp. http://www.unep.fr/energy/activities/forest_carbon/pdf/Guidebook%20English%20Final%2019-5-2010%20high%20res.pdf
REDD is Cost Effective Costs of REDD range from US$2–10 per ton CO2e, including implementation and transaction costs. 2M+ tons CO2e generated from avoided deforestation projects at an average price of US$4.80 ton/ CO2e in 2007 October 2008 Emission allowances in the EU Emission Trading Scheme ranged between EUR 18–25 (US$ 23–33) per ton CO2e (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2008). Cost of cutting industrial emissions can exceed US$50 per ton CO2e. REDD provides cost-effective opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, particularly when forest land with the lowest opportunity cost is conserved. Stern Review (2007) and Eliasch Review (2008): Forest protection is economically viable, and that it is cheaper and more cost-effective for industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through REDD payments than to transform their unsustainable fossil fuel-dependent economies and production systems. CO2e is a calculation used by climate scientists to account for other greenhouse gases—like methane—that contribute climate change. It converts those gases to &quot;equivalent carbon dioxide” ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Olsen, Nathalie and Joshua Bishop. The Financial Costs of REDD: Evidence from Brazil and Indonesia. IUCN. Pg vii. Eliasch, J. “The Eliasch Review – climate change: financing global forests. Commissioned by The Office of Climate Change, UK”. 2008. http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/eliasch.htm
Some NGOs and civic action groups oppose REDD for various reasons. This slide summarizes some of the common themes that occurred in the current literature and blogosphere. For the most part, opposing groups zero in on one detail of REDD without a full understanding of the bigger picture. When viewed in isolation the opposition arguments have merit. However, a review of literature on REDD best-practices notes numerous examples of projects that are resolving these challenges (e.g. including indigenous people, implementing a sustainable carbon market, providing co-benefits, avoiding leakages, etc). For the most part, the opposition does not offer up alternative solutions. Greenpeace on the other hand, published a paper with their vision of REDD called Tropical Deforestation Emissions Reduction Mechanism. The fundamental difference between TDERM and REDD is that TDERM does not include a carbon market. Greenpeace believes a carbon market will flood the market with cheap carbon credits and thereby weaken other investements in renewable energy., Some of the arguments are addressed below: REDD Ignores the rights of indigenous peoples Some NGOs are concerned that indigenous and local communities would not benefit from or would even suffer active harm from REDD. They fear that companies or authoritarian governments would seize indigenous peoples’ lands in order to gain carbon credits. Excerpted from 1, 4, 5: National REDD programs must provide real benefits to forest peoples and other rural populations if they are to succeed. In order to do so, they must be transparent, consistent with the principles of sustainability and respect for rights of the UNFCCC and other relevant UN accords and consult and involve forest peoples. Expelling local peoples is a recipe for intractable conflict, not for sustainable reductions of deforestation and degradation. Indigenous peoples and indigenous rights advocates have legitimately denounced serious and chronic abuses of indigenous rights in many parts of the world, some caused by top-down, authoritarian conservation schemes. But overwhelmingly, the same factors driving most deforestation – large-scale infrastructure development, industrial agriculture and logging coupled with weak governance capacity or official corruption – also entail abuses of indigenous peoples’ rights. Effective incentives to reduce deforestation will tend to favor forest peoples. Rejecting REDD will not defend indigenous rights. Substituting official aid from developed countries for carbon market funding will not be a better, less risky alternative for reducing deforestation. Indigenous rights abuses, often caused by the same activities that drive deforestation, must be addressed directly. REDD funds must come through national governments (only a national government can set and negotiate a national deforestation baseline, or conduct monitoring and measurement of national deforestation rates.) Thus, if there is really a danger that REDD programs will harm indigenous and local communities or infringe sovereignty, the danger exists in either case, and replacing a market mechanism with official assistance is not a solution. Rejecting REDD will not protect indigenous peoples’ rights or lands. To the contrary, compensation for the ecosystem services may be a powerful means of strengthening forest peoples’ rights to traditional territories and recognizing their central role in forest conservation Transparent, effective and equitable REDD programs must be designed at the national level, actively involve and benefit forest peoples, strengthen government enforcement capacity and provide incentives for legal landowners to reduce deforestation. NGOs and social movements will have an important role in contributing to the design of transparent, equitable and effective national REDD programs and monitoring their implementation. Reducing deforestation itself would directly benefit many indigenous peoples around the world. The major divers of deforestation in the most active tropical frontiers – oil palm, soy, cattle ranching, industrial logging – typically provide few benefits to local and particularly indigenous communities and more often result in loss of land, livelihoods and lifeways. REDD encourages profit maximizing behavior at the expense of biodiversity Largely this is raised over concerns that REDD will promote reforestation activities that use monoculture plantations and exotic trees. Also concerned that REDD follows the FAO definition of forest, which technically INCLUDES plantation. By following the voluntary carbon standard and other standards, a REDD program must provide co-benefits to biodiversity and the community. Through Conference of Parties, clarify/negotiate definition of forest to exclude plantations, exotic species, monocultures. Corporate Greenwashing Concern is that REDD will allow major corporations in industrial nations to continue business as usual by simply purchasing carbon credits to offset their emmissions excess. The example most often cited (and featured in Carbon Hunters on PBS’ Frontline) is the US$18M land purchased in Guaraquecaba, Brazil by American Electric Power, General Motors, and Chevron Oil which was brokered by TNC. Land was set aside for conservationa nd carbon credits with all future carbon credits. Note that the project referenced by Frontline is from 1991 and does not reflect current program design. REDD will flood carbon market with cheap carbon credits and thereby weaken other investments in renewable energy. REDD will ruin carbon market (source: 10: pg48.) Market behavior indicates the opposite has occurred: High demand for forest carbon credits, however these credits are excluded from the main regulated markets and by quality imperatives on the voluntary markets. Supply of standardized forest carbon credits at reasonable cost does not currently meet demand Duplicates existing efforts/Too ambitous REDD is large and complex and touches on environmental, social, political and economic issues. Previous efforts at forest conservation, land tenure and governance, emissions reductions and carbon markets have all had mixed results largely because they focus on one part of the larger problem without looking at the system as a whole. REDD is the first program of sufficient scale and scope that can address the drivers of deforestation at a scale large enough to have impact. It is elevating the rights of indigenous peoples to a national level, something which has previously not occurred. Funds can be raised to stop deforestation without relying on aid or carbon markets. eg taxing oil consumption, taxing air travel, switching energy subsidies Address drivers of deforestation based in industrialized nations (consumption) Imposes Costs on Society By changing land use from agricultural or ranching uses, individuals risk losing employment/income. This overlooks that a core building block of REDD is benefit-sharing which provides alternative employment and income. The objective is to make the opportunity cost of REDD programs favor conservation over any alternative use. Fails to address over-consumption by industrialized nations REDD does not directly target consumption behavior by consumers in industrialized nations. However, as part of the REDD negotiation, industrialized nations must make meaningful emissions reductions. This indirectly involves drivers of over-consumption in industrialized nations. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Accra Caucus on Forests and Climate Change. “Realising rights, protecting forests: An Alternative Vision for Reducing Deforestation Case studies from the Accra Caucus”. June 2010. 21pp. http://www.care-international.org/Download-document/528-Accra-Report.html Borges B. “Strengthening Indigenous Rights & Climate Change Mitigation: The REDD+ Opportunity”. Forest Trends. June 2010. 18 pp. http://www.rightsandresources.org/~rightsan/documents/index.php?pubID=1563 Dooley K., Griffiths T., Leake H., and Ozinga S. “Cutting Corners: World Bank’s forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples”. FERN / Forest Peoples Programme: November 2008. 24 pp. http://www.fern.org/sites/fern.org/files/document%20cutting%20corners.pdf Environmental Defense Fund. “Q & A on Deforestation: Forest Carbon and Climate Protection”. Washington, DC. January 2006: 9 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/10537_Q_and_A_Deforestation_%20Forest_Carbon_and_Climate_Protection.pdf Environmental Defense Fund. “Getting REDD Right”. Washington, DC. January 2008. 7 pp. http://www.edf.org/documents/7446_GettingREDDRight.pdf Friends of the Earth. “REDD myths: a critical review of proposed mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries.” December 2008. 44 pp. www.foei.org/en/campaigns/climate/poznan FRONTLINE: Carbon Watch: The Carbon Hunters: Watch Video & Share Your Reaction. PBS. Web. 17 Aug. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/2010/05/the-carbon-hunters.html>. Global Forest Coalition. “REDD versus people: The impact of REDD and other market mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples and women”. Undated. 13 pp. http://unfccc.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/SB28/downl/080602_SB28_RonnieHall.pdf Greenpeace. “Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism”. Prepared by Hare B. and Macey K. December 2007. 54 pp. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/TDERM.pdf UNEP and ONF International. &quot;Bringing Forest Carbon Projects to the Market: a new guidebook for forest project developers and investors”. May 2010. 165 pp. http://www.unep.fr/energy/activities/forest_carbon/pdf/Guidebook%20English%20Final%2019-5-2010%20high%20res.pdf
Alternatives Generally focus on decoupling deforestation from carbon reduction. In other words, REDD is trying to solve too many problems and there are already other programs that are working on the various components of REDD. By trying to address all the issues, REDD is complicating matters and stalling efforts to meaningfully mitigate climate change. Tim Flannery, eBay system. Distrusts developing-nation governments involved in REDD, recommends circumventing by implementing an international auctioning system modeled on eBay that directly links carbon buyers in industrialized nations to the indigenous people and local communities holding carbon credits in forest reserves. National Geographic Co2 Scrubber. “Big Idea” feature in August 2010 edition that discusses millions of little carbon-scrubbing machines that pull carbon out of the air and sequester it in the ground. Sort of like a tree. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Flannery, Tim F. Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2009. Print. Global Forest Coalition. “REDD versus people: The impact of REDD and other market mechanisms on Indigenous Peoples and women”. Undated. 13 pp. http://unfccc.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/SB28/downl/080602_SB28_RonnieHall.pdf National Geographic. &quot;The Big Idea: Scrubbing the Skies&quot;. 2010. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/13/carbon-capture
Slide Bullet Points: Fully understand and address the various drivers of deforestation National in scale; diverse in scope Fully address land tenture and forest governance Participation of indigenous peoples and local communities Mandate meaningful emissions reductions by industrialized nations Ratify set of standards Continue policy setting Complementary financing Clarify definitions of forest and degradation. History Repeats/Learn from the Past/What’s old is new REDD is operating at a scale larger than anything attempted previously Benefit from lessons learned . Many approaches to REDD+ now being considered are similar to previous efforts to conserve and better manage forests, often with limited success. Taking on board lessons learned from past experience will improve chances of REDD+ success. Broad institutional and policy reforms Requires broad institutional and governance reforms including land tenure, decentralization of ownership, and controlling institutional corruption. Depart from business as usual Involve communities and forest users in making and implementing policies that affect them. Policies must go beyond forestry or the environment Better coordinate across sectors to deal with all drivers of deforestation and degradation. Benefit Sharing Payments have limits Payments incentivize and compensate forest owners and users. BUT payments for environmental services (PES) depend on conditions (secure tenure, accurate carbon data and transparent governance) These condition are often lacking and changing them takes time. Reinforces need for transformational policies. One size does not fit all National circumstances and uncertainty will result in variety of REDD+ programs with different institutional and policy goals. Given uncertainty about the final REDD+ system, a phased approach to REDD+ implementation will maintain flexibility. xibility and a phased approach to REDD+ implementation. Urgent problem, but solutions cannot be rushed Global negotiations have not resolved many issues related to the scope, scale, funding, performance indicators and MRV systems of REDD+ Transforming how forests are managed will require lengthy political negotiation ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: Partially adapted from: Angelsen A., Brockhaus M., Kanninen M., Sills E., Sunderlin W.D., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S. (eds.). “Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options.” Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. 361 pp. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf Chapter 23: National Strategy and Policy Options.
REDD-Readiness: US$3.5 billion Pledged by Norway, the United States, the UK, Germany, France, Japan, and Australia For activities designated in the Copenhagen Accord: capacity-building and incentives to reduce rates of deforestation in participating developing countries. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: http://www.fao.org/climatechange/unredd/en/
Pilot Programs: UN-REDD Created by UNDP, UNEP and FAO REDD-readiness activities: capacity development, governance, engagement of Indigenous Peoples and technical needs. 9 Countires: Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Tanzania, Vietnam, and Zambia US$ 48.3 million allocated to eight of these countries. Ensures overall guidance through its global activities on Measuring, Verifying and Reporting (MRV) systems, engagement of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities, and governance; Aims for multiple benefits from REDD for livelihoods and ecosystems. 13 nations have observer status which grants access to networking, participation in regional workshops and knowledge sharing. Argentina, Ecuador, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, the Philippines, Republic of Congo, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka and Sudan. World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility WB is major financial contributor to REDD activities $300 million fund aimed towards initiating REDD activities in developing countries So far small grants of $200,000 have been disbursed. Other initiatives: Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, Global Environment Facility Tropical Forest Account, Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative Collaborative Partnership on Forests. ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES: UN-REDD website WorldBank website
The Conference of the Parties is the governing body of the Convention, and advances implementation of the Convention through the decisions it takes at its periodic meetings. “ As the host country, Mexico will hold an inclusive conference with the aim of building understanding among Parties to ensure that COP16/CMP6 deliver concrete and effective results to tackle the global challenge of climate change. Mexico will encourage broad participation in the conference as well as extensive dialogue in the collective search for common solutions.” http://cc2010.mx/swb ================================ SLIDE REFERENCES:
