Huberman Hanoi 2404


Published on

Published in: Travel, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Huberman Hanoi 2404

    1. 1. Reducing Emissions and Conserving Biodiversity by Avoiding Deforestation David Huberman IUCN – Economics & Environment APFW Hanoi, April 24th, 2008
    2. 2. Global Emissions (40 Gt CO 2 e yr -1 ) WRI 2005
    3. 3. Forests and Climate Change <ul><li>A massive carbon reservoir - 4,500 Gigatonnes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More than CO2 in remaining oil stocks (2,400 Gt) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More than CO2 in atmosphere (3,000 Gt) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>90% of the annual interchange of CO 2 between atmosphere and land </li></ul><ul><li>Losing 9.4 mill hectares per year </li></ul>
    4. 4. Basic concept behind REDD <ul><ul><ul><li>Payments for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation in forest ecosystems, providing: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A contribution to reduced GHG emissions </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A contribution to the economic development of tropical forest countries (and the rural communities that live there) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. The rationale for REDD <ul><li>Deforestation and land degradation account for up to 25% of GHG emissions </li></ul><ul><li>But REDD is currently ineligible for crediting under the Clean Development Mechanism (total US$ 5.3 Billion in 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) seems to be a cost-effective climate mitigation option </li></ul><ul><li>REDD could offer significant co-benefits (biodiversity, ecosystem services, rural livelihoods) </li></ul>
    6. 6. FAO 2005 A global snapshot: Countries with large net changes in forest area 2000 - 2005
    7. 7. Drivers of deforestation <ul><li>Geist and Lambin, 2002 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Agriculture / plantations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mining / energy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Logging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indirect : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Agricultural subsidies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure investment </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Unclear land tenure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Weak government surveillance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Demand for forest products </li></ul></ul></ul>
    8. 8. What are REDD activities? <ul><li>Adapted from Chomitz et al., 2007: </li></ul><ul><li>paying communities directly for reduced deforestation, based on the model of existing Payments for Ecosystem Services </li></ul><ul><li>strengthening forest fire prevention programs </li></ul><ul><li>improving land tenure security for forest-dwelling peoples </li></ul><ul><li>increased efforts to reduce illegal logging </li></ul><ul><li>higher taxes on large-scale land clearance </li></ul><ul><li>promotion of industry and other off-farm employment </li></ul><ul><li>agricultural intensification in favorable areas to relieve pressure on remaining forest lands </li></ul><ul><li>strategic planning of road improvements to avoid unplanned logging or agricultural expansion </li></ul><ul><li>supporting community forestry </li></ul>
    9. 9. Financing REDD <ul><li>Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Voluntary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conditional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provider – beneficiary relationship </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Integrating PES and REDD: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A bundled demand to meet a bundled supply? </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Multiple benefits
    11. 11. Where does biodiversity ‘fit in’ ? <ul><li>Provisioning </li></ul><ul><li>Regulating </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon </li></ul><ul><li>Biodiversity </li></ul><ul><li>Water </li></ul><ul><li>Landscape Beauty </li></ul><ul><li>Production of goods </li></ul><ul><li>Regeneration processes </li></ul><ul><li>Stabilizing processes </li></ul><ul><li>Life-fulfilling functions </li></ul>MA Heal et al., 2002 Costa Rica PSA <ul><li>Carbon </li></ul><ul><li>Biodiversity </li></ul><ul><li>Water </li></ul>Ecosystem Marketplace
    12. 12. The Biodiversity Beneficiary <ul><li>Direct vs. Indirect </li></ul><ul><li>Local vs. Global </li></ul><ul><li>Public vs. Private </li></ul><ul><li>For profit vs. not-for-profit </li></ul><ul><li>North vs. South </li></ul>Third Party Verifier CI BC RE VERs $ $ $$ ? Peterson, 2007
    13. 13. Forest Carbon <ul><li>Projects approved in: </li></ul><ul><li>China, Panama, and Indonesia </li></ul><ul><li>Projects currently being audited in: </li></ul><ul><li>Tanzania, India, UK, Nicaragua, and Brazil </li></ul>
    14. 14. Voluntary carbon market
    15. 15. The voluntary market Source: World Bank, 2007
    16. 16. Regulated carbon markets <ul><li>Kyoto Protocol : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>United Kingdom Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Non-Kyoto : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. LULUCF <ul><li>Afforestation, reforestation, avoided deforestation </li></ul><ul><li>LULUCF projects growing fast, but: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambiguous products </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambiguous verification/certification procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>no clear sense of direction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Budding standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CDM Gold Standard (no forestry projects certified) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Voluntary Carbon Standard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CCBA Standard </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Main outstanding issues <ul><li>Leakage: risk of simply displacing deforestation pressure to other areas? </li></ul><ul><li>Additionality: how imminent is the threat? Would some forests be conserved anyway? Why reward inaction? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the appropriate baseline for assessing REDD? </li></ul><ul><li>Are REDD credits secure (e.g. from fire, disease)? </li></ul><ul><li>National, programmatic or project-level REDD? </li></ul><ul><li>Tradable credits or publicly-funded REDD? </li></ul><ul><li>Integrate into the existing carbon market or create a new and separate REDD market? </li></ul><ul><li>What potential impacts on the rural poor? </li></ul>
    19. 19. <ul><ul><ul><li>These include: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Excuse for &quot;business as usual“ emissions from fossil fuels </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Driven solely as a technological fix (baselines, monitoring, markets) to what is ostensibly a political problem (governance, rights and tenure, etc) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Which in turn: </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Undermine the rights and livelihoods, or otherwise, disenfranchise poor rural communities </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>And thus: </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compromises the ability of REDD to deliver promised emissions reduction benefits (permanence, leakage) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>REDD risks
    20. 20. Key Messages <ul><li>REDD should be included as post 2012 mitigation option. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Degradation is the precursor to deforestation and needs to be accounted for. </li></ul><ul><li>If REDD is to work it needs to be firmly rooted in sustainable forest management (don’t under-estimate this challenge!) </li></ul><ul><li>The real window of opportunity to deploy REDD is over the next few of years! </li></ul>
    21. 21. Elements for post-2012 negotiations (1) <ul><ul><li>A national (or for very large countries perhaps a provincial) framework is essential </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Degradation has to be included! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources allocated ahead of time for in-country capacity building </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sufficient flexibility to address national circumstances </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support early pilot action that allows full participation on a voluntary basis </li></ul></ul>
    22. 22. Elements for post 2012 negotiations (2) <ul><ul><li>Alignment with ongoing forest governance processes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Build in-country capacity for basic governance & sustainable forest management </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Complement forest sector reform processes such as those to combat illegal logging </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Participation of forest dependent communities and benefit sharing for poverty reduction </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Keep the eye on the prize Sustainable development Deforestation avoided Livelihood opportunites maintained or enhanced No one made worse off
    24. 24. Thank you!