Huberman Hanoi 2404
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Huberman Hanoi 2404

on

  • 1,413 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,413
Views on SlideShare
1,412
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Huberman Hanoi 2404 Huberman Hanoi 2404 Presentation Transcript

  • Reducing Emissions and Conserving Biodiversity by Avoiding Deforestation David Huberman IUCN – Economics & Environment APFW Hanoi, April 24th, 2008
  • Global Emissions (40 Gt CO 2 e yr -1 ) WRI 2005
  • Forests and Climate Change
    • 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 CO 2 between atmosphere and land
    • Losing 9.4 mill hectares per year
  • Basic concept behind REDD
        • Payments for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation in forest ecosystems, providing:
          • A contribution to reduced GHG emissions
          • P ositive 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)
  • The rationale for REDD
    • 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)
  • FAO 2005 A global snapshot: Countries with large net changes in forest area 2000 - 2005
  • Drivers of deforestation
    • 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
  • What are REDD activities?
    • 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
  • Financing REDD
    • Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)
      • Voluntary
      • Conditional
      • Provider – beneficiary relationship
    • Integrating PES and REDD:
      • A bundled demand to meet a bundled supply?
  • Multiple benefits
  • Where does biodiversity ‘fit in’ ?
    • Provisioning
    • Regulating
    • Supporting
    • Cultural
    • Carbon
    • Biodiversity
    • Water
    • Landscape Beauty
    • Production of goods
    • Regeneration processes
    • Stabilizing processes
    • Life-fulfilling functions
    MA Heal et al., 2002 Costa Rica PSA
    • Carbon
    • Biodiversity
    • Water
    Ecosystem Marketplace
  • The Biodiversity Beneficiary
    • Direct vs. Indirect
    • Local vs. Global
    • Public vs. Private
    • For profit vs. not-for-profit
    • North vs. South
    Third Party Verifier CI BC RE VERs $ $ $$ ? Peterson, 2007
  • Forest Carbon
    • Projects approved in:
    • China, Panama, and Indonesia
    • Projects currently being audited in:
    • Tanzania, India, UK, Nicaragua, and Brazil
  • Voluntary carbon market
  • The voluntary market Source: World Bank, 2007
  • Regulated carbon markets
    • 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)
  • LULUCF
    • 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
  • Main outstanding issues
    • 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?
        • 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)
    REDD risks
  • Key Messages
    • 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!
  • Elements for post-2012 negotiations (1)
      • 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 (2)
      • 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
  • Keep the eye on the prize Sustainable development Deforestation avoided Livelihood opportunites maintained or enhanced No one made worse off
  • Thank you!