Reducing Emissions and Conserving Biodiversity by Avoiding Deforestation

1. Reducing Emissions and Conserving Biodiversity by Avoiding Deforestation David Huberman IUCN – Economics & Environment APFW Hanoi, April 24th, 2008

2. Global Emissions (40 Gt CO2 eyr-1) WRI 2005

3. A massive carbon reservoir - 4,500 Gigatonnes More than CO2 in remaining oil stocks (2,400 Gt) More than CO2 in atmosphere (3,000 Gt) 90% of the annual interchange of CO2 between atmosphere and land Losing 9.4 mill hectares per year Forests and Climate Change

4. Payments for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation in forest ecosystems, providing: A contribution to reduced GHG emissions Positive incentives for the protection of forests generally and to further support forest governance reform processes (such as those to combat illegal logging) specifically A contribution to the economic development of tropical forest countries (and the rural communities that live there) Basic concept behind REDD

5. Deforestation and land degradation account for up to 25% of GHG emissions But REDD is currently ineligible for crediting under the Clean Development Mechanism (total US$ 5.3 Billion in 2006) Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) seems to be a cost-effective climate mitigation option REDD could offer significant co-benefits (biodiversity, ecosystem services, rural livelihoods) The rationale for REDD

6. A global snapshot: Countries with large net changes in forest area 2000 - 2005 FAO 2005

7. Geist and Lambin, 2002 Direct: Agriculture / plantations Mining / energy Logging Infrastructure Indirect: Agricultural subsidies Infrastructure investment Unclear land tenure Weak government surveillance Demand for forest products Drivers of deforestation

8. Adapted from Chomitz et al., 2007: paying communities directly for reduced deforestation, based on the model of existing Payments for Ecosystem Services strengthening forest fire prevention programs improving land tenure security for forest-dwelling peoples increased efforts to reduce illegal logging higher taxes on large-scale land clearance promotion of industry and other off-farm employment agricultural intensification in favorable areas to relieve pressure on remaining forest lands strategic planning of road improvements to avoid unplanned logging or agricultural expansion supporting community forestry What are REDD activities?

9. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Voluntary Conditional Provider – beneficiary relationship Integrating PES and REDD: A bundled demand to meet a bundled supply? Financing REDD

10. Multiple benefits

11. Where does biodiversity ‘fit in’ ? MA Costa Rica PSA • Provisioning • Regulating • Supporting • Cultural • Carbon • Biodiversity • Water • Landscape Beauty Heal et al., 2002 Ecosystem Marketplace • Production of goods • Regeneration processes • Stabilizing processes • Life-fulfilling functions • Carbon • Biodiversity • Water

12. Direct vs. Indirect Local vs. Global Public vs. Private For profit vs. not-for-profit North vs. South ? BC $ $$ $ CI VERs RE Peterson, 2007 Third Party Verifier The Biodiversity Beneficiary

13. Forest Carbon • Projects approved in: • China, Panama, and Indonesia • Projects currently being audited in: • Tanzania, India, UK, Nicaragua, and Brazil

14. Voluntary carbon market

15. The voluntary market Source: World Bank, 2007

16. Kyoto Protocol: European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) United Kingdom Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Non-Kyoto: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) Regulated carbon markets

17. Afforestation, reforestation, avoided deforestation LULUCF projects growing fast, but: Ambiguous products Ambiguous verification/certification procedures no clear sense of direction Budding standards CDM Gold Standard (no forestry projects certified) Voluntary Carbon Standard CCBA Standard LULUCF

18. Leakage: risk of simply displacing deforestation pressure to other areas? Additionality: how imminent is the threat? Would some forests be conserved anyway? Why reward inaction? What is the appropriate baseline for assessing REDD? Are REDD credits secure (e.g. from fire, disease)? National, programmatic or project-level REDD? Tradable credits or publicly-funded REDD? Integrate into the existing carbon market or create a new and separate REDD market? What potential impacts on the rural poor? Main outstanding issues

19. REDD risks • These include: • Excuse for "business as usual“ emissions from fossil fuels • Driven solely as a technological fix (baselines, monitoring, markets) to what is ostensibly a political problem (governance, rights and tenure, etc) Which in turn: • Undermine the rights and livelihoods, or otherwise, disenfranchise poor rural communities And thus: • Compromises the ability of REDD to deliver promised emissions reduction benefits (permanence, leakage)

20. REDD should be included as post 2012 mitigation option. REDD has to be more than a simple offset option – rather it needs to be integrated as a companion mechanism to deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions. Degradation is the precursor to deforestation and needs to be accounted for. If REDD is to work it needs to be firmly rooted in sustainable forest management (don’t under-estimate this challenge!) The real window of opportunity to deploy REDD is over the next few of years! Key Messages

21. A national (or for very large countries perhaps a provincial) framework is essential Degradation has to be included! Resources allocated ahead of time for in-country capacity building Sufficient flexibility to address national circumstances Support early pilot action that allows full participation on a voluntary basis Elements for post-2012 negotiations (1)

22. Alignment with ongoing forest governance processes. Build in-country capacity for basic governance & sustainable forest management Complement forest sector reform processes such as those to combat illegal logging Participation of forest dependent communities and benefit sharing for poverty reduction Elements for post 2012 negotiations (2)

23. Deforestation avoided No one made worse off Livelihood opportunites maintained or enhanced Keep the eye on the prize Sustainable development

24. Thank you!