Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

FOREST FUTURES

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 14

FOREST FUTURES

More Info
									      FOREST FUTURES
2009 INDUSTRIES CONFERENCE

COPENHAGEN CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS BRIEFING

              23 NOVEMBER 2009
           HYATT HOTEL, CANBERRA


      REDD AND REDD PLUS –
    DOES DISTINCTION MATTER?
                               Dr Bob Smith
THE WORLD OF ACRONYMS IN CLIMATE CHANGE


NAMA          LULUCF        AWG-LCA

AFOLU         AWG-KP        SBSTTA

BAP           UNFCCC        CDM

JI            NAPA          MRV

QELO          PAGAN I       CBDR-RC

NA 1          COP           A1

              RED[D][+]
MEANING OF RED[D][+]

CONCEPT

  A continuum of increasing accountability for forest carbon flows
  Based on reduction in hypothetical emissions or increases in carbon
   stocks that would not take place if action had not been in place

 THE CONTINUUM

 RED -    Reduced emissions from deforestation      ) Reducing emissions
 REDD -   Reduced emissions from deforestation      ) from carbon sources
          and forest degradation            )

 REDD+ - An extension of REDD to include the       ) Reducing emissions
         role of conservation, sustainable     ) from sources plus
         management of forests and enhancement ) increasing carbon
         of forest carbon stocks in developing     ) stocks (sinks).
         countries
RED[D][+]




           Level of
    Accountability
       for flows of
    forest carbon
FORESTS SEEN AS POWERFUL TOOL IN MANAGING
CLIMATE CHANGE PUZZLE

  Forests (depending on definitions)
        About 30% of land surface area
        Store around 40% of carbon in terrestrial biosphere
        Contain 70-90% of biodiversity of land systems
        Supply basket of goods and services to directly and indirectly support livelihoods
  But forests under threat
      Estimate 13 m ha/year deforested and degraded
  Causes of deforestation and forest degradation multiple and complex but
   incorporate
      Support for local livelihoods
      Increasing large scale agriculture supplying commodities (eg beef, palm oil, soy
       and timber)
  Outcome
      20% of annual global GHG emission from forest deforestation and forest
       degradation
RED[D][+] – A TOOL FOR MANAGING CLIMATE
CHANGE AND DELIVERING OTHER CO-BENEFITS


RED[D][+]
      Basic premise is that countries with tropical forests are willing and able to reduce
       emissions from reducing deforestation and forest degradation and will be
       “compensated” ($) for doing so.


RED[D][+] – Methodologies/Frameworks also seen as tools for:
      Reducing rural poverty;
      Concerning global biodiversity; and
      Sustaining ecosystems and supply of environmental services.


History of RED[D][+]
      Montreal (COP11), 2005
      BAP (COP13), 2007
As an Aside


Besides the potential of RED[D][+] to enhance the management of
     forests other tools also been employed:

A.     Process to restrict supply into markets. For example
          Equator Principles
          Lacy Act (USA)
          FLEGT


B.     Publicity campaign to reduce consumer demand for products
       produced from unsustainable forest activities. Focus on
       reputation risks to companies.

E.     Local capacity building by NGOs and governments
KEY DECISION POINTS FOR RED[D][+]


At conceptual level 4 key design issues:

A.  Scope – What part of RED[D][+] is targeted?
B.  Setting Benchmark (Reference levels) – How
    determine the benchmark level of activities (eg
    deforestation, forest degradation, forest management)
    to measure forest carbon changes with agreed
    management actions.
C.  Financing – How are agreed actions paid for.
D.  Distribution of benefits between parties
WORKING THROUGH THESE ISSUES




A.  SCOPE
       Choice of how more down continuum
           RED
           REDD
           REDD +


       Trade off between increasing complexity and levels of
        inclusiveness of accounting for forest carbon flows
WORKING THROUGH THESE ISSUES (Cont)

B.  SETTING BENCHMARKS FOR MEASUREMENT
2 Components:
Setting reference levels
       Historical baseline
       Adjusted historical baseline
       Projected baseline
Scale for measurement
       Project
       National
       Global
Impacts: How establish benchmarks has significance for
         leakage and production of “hot air”
WORKING THROUGH THESE ISSUES (Cont)



C.  Who Funds ! (Financing)

     Source of funds available and potentially available
      from:
         Voluntary programs by NGOs, governments and government
          organisations
         Market approaches – direct and market linked
     Need funding at scale to make a significant
      contribution at global level (as opposed to regional
      outcomes)
WORKING THROUGH THESE ISSUES (Cont)


D.  Beneficiaries
     Determination of allocation of financial resources
      between participants
     Determination of distribution mechanism
     Successful delivery of distribution mechanism

Complex issues and goes to heart of governance at
   international and national levels.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FOREST COVER, RATES OF
DEFORESTATION AND RED[D][+] APPROACHES



                        Low Forest Cover        High Forest Cover

       High           (A)                     (C)
   Deforestation      Guatemala, Thailand,    PNG, Brazil, Congo
       Rate           Madagascar
       Low            (B)                     (D)
   Deforestation      Angola, Vietnam,        Suriname, Belize,
       Rate           Dominican Republic      Gabon



Source: da Fonseca, et al. “No Forest Left Behind”, P Los Biology,
  Vol. 5, NO. 8, pp 1645, 2008.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS


1)  Does distinction between REDD and REDD+ matter?
     Yes, at climate change level. Core decision on
       levels of forest carbon incorporated into tool.
     But, design and operation level have to address
       common set of building block issues.
2)  In addition decision required on the role RED[D][+] will
    play post 2012 in climate change management.
3)  No agreed structure for RED[D][+]. Widely differing
    views on RED[D][+] utility and method of application.
4)  Role of RED[D][+] in land-use matrix at landscape
    level.

								
To top