VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 14 POSTED ON: 4/20/2010
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.
Pages to are hidden for
"FOREST FUTURES"Please download to view full document