Huberman Hanoi 2404
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Huberman Hanoi 2404






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1 1



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.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
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)
    • 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!