Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Forest, Carbon and REDD


Published on

This study was presented during the conference “Production and Carbon Dynamics in Sustainable Agricultural and Forest Systems in Africa” held in September, 2010.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Forest, Carbon and REDD

  1. 1. Forest, Carbon and REDD+ Peter Holmgren, FAO ABSTRACT Expectations are high that REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) will decrease human impact on the climate and at the same time improve livelihoods and biodiversity conservation in the tropics. The UNFCCC negotiations has advanced well on REDD+. While an overall climate change agreement between countries is still missing, there is widespread consensus on REDD+., including mitigation activities and governance safeguards. However, less attention has been given to the operationalisation of REDD+, that is how can REDD+ strategies be implemented alongside other national development objectives. Further, in the local scale, how can the practical implementation of REDD+ , taking into account synergies and trade-offs with other management objectives. From this overview perspective, the presentation will review requirements of forest monitoring for REDD+ implementation, including preliminary experiences with countries. Needs for integrated monitoring across development objectives is emphasized. The different information requirements at strategic and operational levels are illustrated. Issues and gaps in forest monitoring research will be highlighted. *** DISCUSSION after the presentation concerned the difference between IPCC estimates and FAO estimates, and the fact that many climate models have a tendency to overestimate the level of current deforestation.
  2. 2. Outline 1. Perspectives 2. REDD+ basics 3. REDD+ in Africa 4. MRV & Monitoring
  3. 3. Issued 25 September 2010
  4. 4. 100 years in the Nordic countries
  5. 5. Sweden: stem volume since 1920, by species 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Mm3 Pine Spruce Broad-leaved Total Long-term effort
  6. 6. Overlaps, Synergies and Trade-offs National -> International National -> Local Climate UNFCCC “Carbon” Biodiversity CBD “Species” Food Security WSFS “Calories” + Human rights, Health, Trade, Education, ..... LOCAL REALITIES GLOBAL OBJECTIVES
  7. 7. Two Goals of Our Time 1. Achieving Food Security – 1 billion hungry – Overall food production to increase 70% by 2050 – Adaptation to Climate Change critical 2. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change – ”2 degree goal” requires major emission cuts – Agriculture and Land use = 30% of emissions.. – ..and needs to be part of the solution
  8. 8. Climate Change and Food Security Climate Change, Food and Security
  9. 9. Keep it simple – SFM suggestion Standing stock Monetary income from all products and services
  10. 10. 2. REDD+ Basics
  11. 11. Current REDD+ construction Deforestation Forest Degradation Conservation Sustainable management Enhancement Consistent Transparent & Effective Governance Rights of Communities Stakeholder Participation Conservation Reversals Displacement Country-driven National circumstances Consistent with development goals Consistent with adaptation needs Equitable etc. financing Results-based Principles Emission activities Safeguards Overall Development All Forest Management No Harm
  12. 12. Relative importance of REDD+ International National Local Carbon Other Benefits and Impacts Scale
  13. 13. The right REDD focus? No. ‘It’s the agriculture, stu....’
  14. 14. REDD+ arrangements • 4.5 b$ in interim finance (pre-2012) – UN-REDD Programme – Forest Carbon Partnership Facility – Forest Investment Programme – Congo Basin Forest Fund – Bilateral arrangements • Much more expected for transformation phase • Operational potential > 30 b$/yr
  15. 15. 3. REDD+ in Africa
  16. 16. Africa particulars • Low deforestation rate – relatively low potential for the 1st “D” in REDD+ • High levels of forest/land degradation, largely due to small-scale agriculture – relatively high potential for the 2nd “D” • Very high potential for increased C storage (especially outside “forests”) – case for Terrestrial Carbon approach
  17. 17. COMESA views pre-Copenhagen ... Africa should push for the inclusion of AFOLU in the Climate Change negotiations for the following reasons: • Current CDM arrangements are not facilitating greater African participation. • Smallholder land activities in the agricultural sector are largely responsible for deforestation and forest degradation in Africa. • Tenure and ownership is less controversial in small farm/land holdings than forest areas. • Agriculture and other land uses would potentially yield more cobenefits than REDD alone. • Carbon markets are growing and currently estimated at US $118 billion globally and Africa can take advantage of this opportunity.
  18. 18. 4. MRV & Monitoring
  19. 19. A solution?
  20. 20. What is the scope of a “National Monitoring System for REDD+”? Carbon (Emission activities) Benefits & Impacts (Services, Products) Governance (Safeguards) Strategic level (International commitments, National policies) Operational level (In-country implementation) Must have: High Accuracy, known Precision Expensive measurements -> Sampling approaches No need for full cover data Must have: Complete coverage -> Payments/Enforcement Must be low cost per measurement -> Remote sensing No need for high accuracy -> instead: proxies
  21. 21. How to carry out the monitoring Carbon (Emission activities) Benefits & Impacts (Services, Products) Governanc e (Safeguards) Strategic level (International commitments, National policies) Operational level (In-country implementation)
  22. 22. Strategic level example: Zambia national inventory
  23. 23. Zambia: Biomass by tract Zambia Distribution of biomass 0 100 200 300 400 500 1 191 Inventory tracts biomass,t/ha Series1
  24. 24. Zambia: Total C depends on choice of estimation models
  25. 25. Operational level example: DRC 1990 - 2005 10 km
  26. 26. 1991 - 2002 10 km
  27. 27. 100 years