A Little Redd Model Rgd 20090525Presentation Transcript
A Little REDD Model Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation Richard G. Dudley [email_address]
Forests and Climate
Forests are usually thought of as CO 2 sinks
Forests will soak up excess CO 2
growing trees create a net absorption of CO 2
Forests contain large stocks of carbon
BUT Forests are also major sources of CO 2 emissions… especially via
Deforestation and forest degradation
Permanent removal or damage to forests causes the contained carbon to be released as CO 2
17% of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions are from Forests
Mostly from deforestation and forest degradation
Mostly as CO 2
Thus… preventing deforestation can also substantially reduce human caused greenhouse gas emissions. Sources of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions waste and wastewater 3% energy supply 26% transport 13% buildings 8% industry 19% agriculture 14% forestry 17%
What is REDD ? Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation
A proposed program to be included as a part of new international climate agreements.
Emphasizes protection of carbon in existing forests.
Payments would be made to protect these forests in order to keep carbon from being emitted as CO 2 .
How Will REDD Work?
Payments for carbon contained in “Avoided Deforestation”
In other words…
Payment will be made for carbon that would have been emitted as CO 2
if new policies had not been implemented
Payment for REDD Carbon Credits
Will be based on additional carbon actually retained in newly protected forests compared to a baseline
Will be based on the forest carbon difference between a
baseline “business as usual” scenario and a
policy “forest saving” scenario
Source of funds will be sale of carbon credits in the ‘carbon market’
A Few (of Many) Problems
What is the Baseline?
What would have happened if we had no policy to reduce deforestation emissions?
How accurately is carbon measured?
Millions of dollars of transactions
(Incentives for cheating?)
What type of “policies” will be allowed?
Most discussion is about full forest protection, but is that realistic?
Who will actually get the money?
My Interest – This Model A very specific, simple, sub-set of these issues
A model allowing quick comparisons of possible baseline vs policy scenarios
An instructive model which also allows:
tracking of carbon in forest products
tracking of carbon price if desired
A model that has potential for further expansion but remains understandable… for example …
add carbon in soils?
examine landscapes with mixed ‘policies’??
Model Basics Amount of CO2 Stored in Forest Lands amount of CO2 being sequestered by the forest release of carbon stored in forest Forest Area deforestation forestation EXPECTED DEFORESTATION RATE mean amount CO2 stored per ha SATURATION AMOUNT TIME NEEDED TO REACH SATURATION
Baseline Scenario Policy Scenario - = Two Copies of the Model: a Policy Scenario and a Baseline Scenario
Value of Avoided Carbon Emissions Best option for determining value of carbon credits baseline net change in forest C policy net change in forest C Accumulated Policy Caused Forest C net C change due to policy differences value per ton of avoided emissions of carbon Accumulated Value of Policy Caused Forest C increasing extra carbon value decreasing extra carbon value mean value of extra forest stored carbon accumulating value of carbon due to policy differences
Carbon in Forest Products? Carbon in Forest Products product decomposition product length of life fraction of C releases captured in durable products C being stored in products release of C stored in forest
A Basic Example:
Baseline: 3% deforestation
Policy: Full forest protection
This was the typical, prototype, REDD policy scenario
Tons of carbon per hectare Baseline vs Policy Scenario: Carbon in Forest Lands 250 200 150 100 50 0 Difference = avoided emissions Baseline: 3% deforestation Policy: Protect Forest Average 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Year
Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario This is a good indicator of the level of payments that might be expected under REDD Probably a discounted value of this flow 2,000 $ 80 $/Year 1,500 $ 60 $/Year 1,000 $ 40 $/Year 500 $ 20 $/Year 0 $ 0 $/Year 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Year value of policy caused carbon in forest $/hectare accumulating value of forest carbon $/year per hectare
Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario For example: Perhaps a 25 year contract with an ultimate total amount paid of perhaps $1,100 per hectare With a declining payment schedule Payment schedule 2,000 $ 80 $/Year 1,500 $ 60 $/Year 1,000 $ 40 $/Year 500 $ 20 $/Year 0 $ 0 $/Year 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Year value of policy caused carbon in forest $/hectare accumulating carbon value $/year per hectare
What About Other Policies?
Sustainable Forest Management?
Unsuccessful forest protection?
= slower deforestation…
Can these approaches also help prevent CO 2 emissions from deforestation?
That policy was: Full Forest Protection That was the original REDD concept
Policy Scenario: Sustainable Forest Management
Baseline: 3% deforestation
Policy: 3% Harvest with replanting or natural ‘regeneration’
Can also include carbon in long-lived forest products (houses, furniture)
Fraction of tree carbon ending up as product is about 25%
Half life of products is about 40 years
Baseline vs Policy Scenario: Carbon in Forest Lands 200 New Policy Difference = avoided emissions Baseline: 3% deforestation Policy: Sustainable Forest Management Original Policy: Protect Forest 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Year 250 200 150 100 50 0 tons
Policy: Sustainable Forest Management accumulating carbon value $/year per hectare value of policy caused carbon in forest $/hectare
Policy: Sustainable Forest Management Probable 25 Year payment schedule Compare to payments under full forest protection accumulating carbon value $/year per hectare value of policy caused carbon in forest $/hectare
Policy: Sustainable Forest management Change in Stored Carbon: Forest + Products Additional avoided emissions due to policy caused differences in carbon stored in forest products Avoided emissions due to sustainable forest management compared to baseline of 3% deforestation 1. This difference is also dependent on what wood from deforested lands was used for Carbon in products is important, BUT 2. Who would receive payments for carbon credits derived from wood products? 250 200 150 100 50 0 tons
Value of Avoided Emissions for Three Possible Policies compared to 3% deforestation Year $/ Year Protect forest Forest management Plantation management 80 40 0 -40 -80 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A simple model allows quick comparison of policy options
Policies involving tree harvest create younger forests which hold less carbon
Nevertheless, policies with modest harvest might allow carbon credits to supplement harvest income
Carbon in long-lived wood products could possibly add additional carbon credit income
Rapid turnover plantations are probably not a viable option for REDD credits