On 11 March 2010 French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, opened an international conference on deforestation in Paris. The main focus of the International Conference on the Major Forest Basins was funding for REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, plus conservation, sustainable management of forests, and stock enhancement) activities during 2010-2012.

France and Norway are leading this effort to foster new climate partnership in 2010.

“Forests are in danger,” France’s Ecology Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, said at a press conference. France intends to play a major role in saving the world’s forests, Borloo said, thanks to its “expertise in science and forestry.”

“The idea is to establish a partnership of everyone who wants to be included [in safeguarding forests], stated Norway’s Environment Minister, Erik Solheim. According to Solheim, the initiative will be transparent and “it will be open to everyone, even if you don’t contribute one single dollar, even if you don’t have a single tree.”

The conference brought together representatives from 54 countries, representing the main forest basins in the world as well as potential donor countries. The major focus was on the collective pledge for nearly US$3.5 billion in initial funding for REDD+ over the period 2010-2012 by Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK and the US (made in Copenhagen in December 2009).

Not many details on this first conference are available, but there is expectation the throughout a series of conference mechanisms will be established to go through the United Nations, the World Bank, and bilateral channels. Norway has existing bilateral agreements, which may serve as a model in the process. For example, Norway plans to include up to $1 billion for Brazil from 2008-2015, up to $280 million for Guyana from 2010-2015 and about $83 million for Tanzania. But, each of these contributions schemes also come with strings attached, depending on performance.

During the Conference, participants engaged in three sessions on: pledges of initial funding and action for forests; coordination of initial funding and action for forests; and organization of long-term international action concerning REDD+. A second conference will be organized in Oslo, Norway, in May 2010

Many developing countries with forests to protect seem pleased with the arrangement of having France and Norway in a leadership role. Norway has a strong donor performance for forest issues, while France, and President Sarkozy in particular, has been an advocate for partnerships and open dialogue in REDD+ negotiations, before and after Copenhagen (e.g. France-Brazil initiative in November 2009).

Author: Jennifer Helgeson

Deforestation and uncontrolled grazing leads to erosion (Image by: treesftf)

As negotiations continue, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and Enhanced Carbon Stocks (REDD+) is viewed as one of the only mechanisms expected to be agreed upon during the ongoing climate change talks in Copenhagen.  But an excellent point is being made – a successful REDD+ program requires a strong global CO2 target.  Without a global objective, any framework agreed for REDD+ will continue to allow deforestation without a clear finish line in view.  So, before we can even approach the complexity of the REDD+ mechanism itself, we require: a CO2 limitation target, a full understanding of the carbon stocks and governance structures for forests, and a sense of the financial commitments available, among other things.  The debate around REDD+ has been focused on issues of methodology, local communities, and indigenous people, as well as finance mechanisms.

That is a lot to settle in the one remaining week of COP15!

Running up to Copenhagen, REDD+ was often lauded as a sort of silver bullet towards addressing large-scale CO2 output reductions.  Draft REDD+ text coming into Copenhagen included a global objective for halving deforestation by 2020 and totally halting net forest loss by 2030.  The UNFCCC had assumed that forests account for about 20 % of global CO2 output, but Dutch researchers recently reported that the maximum level is likely closer to 12 % (Van der Werf, et al., 2009.

Surprisingly, discussions of REDD+ do not appear to have been damaged too much by this report.   “Even with lower emissions, avoiding deforestation remains the cheapest and quickest way to realize huge reductions,” says Herbert Christ from the Congo Basin Forest partnership (CBFP), a platform of ten Congo Basin countries.

Sure, a global REDD+ objective can help the world stay at or below 2C warming, but this does not come free of charge.  It is vital that developed countries commit to the level of funding consistent with realizing the goals of a REDD+ plan.  All this week, the potential socio-economic outcomes of REDD+ have been discussed at multiple side-events to the official negotiations.  It is stressed that REDD+ can simultaneously reduce emissions and alleviate poverty through rewarding local communities for forest conservation efforts.  But realizing side benefits depends heavily on significant and reliable streams of funding.  And well, once funds are secured, how they are distributed and monitored is a major concern.

All aspects of the Copenhagen negotiation package require funding, e.g. technology transfer, adaptation, mitigation; thus, it is hard to imagine that REDD+ will come off fully-funded with ease.  The “Copenhagen Launch Fund” was announced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the summit of Commonwealth Leaders last week in Trinidad & Tobago.  But the proposed 10 billion USD funding (meant to come from donations by the UK and other developed nations) to help poor countries adapt to the impact of climate change is not enough, says Solomon Islands Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Colin Beck.

Throughout the week , this has been the ardent position of the developing nations.  Thus, when adaptation funding offered is barely ten-percent of what developing nations require (110 billion USD), how can REDD+ expect to be fully financed (by the 11 donor countries) in a totally separate pool of money?

However, there has been impressive movement by some developed nations on setting the framework of REDD+ and the associated Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).  Thursday, France clashed with other EU states in advocating strong baselines under this system for all nations.  French climate ambassador, Brice Lalonde, called accounting methods proposed by EU nations most dependent on forestry “sloppy, and even fraudulent.”  He went on to state that “the EU cannot embrace fraudulent methods and then turn around and ask developed countries to accept something that they are not willing to impose on themselves.” Lalonde.  Coming up to Copenhagen, France worked with REDD+ countries (especially those of South America) to establish viable methods for that program as well (click here to read more).

There were a number of side events concerning REDD+ throughout this first week of COP15.  Many of these events highlighted REDD+ pilot projects in some of the 37 nations covered under the plan.  Naturally, the implementation of a final REDD+ system will be complex due to differences in country and local-level needs in forest conservation.  But the general idea to which many negotiators are distilling REDD+ to over the last days is a system whereby developing countries are rewarded with carbon credits for sustaining their forests.  The same concerns were voiced by nation after nation.  Primarily, concerns fall under two themes: 1) protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; and 2) distribution of funds from federal government to localities.

Throughout the week, Guyana stressed the need to implement standardized Readiness Preparedness Proposal (RPP) procedures for countries covered by REDD+.  There is an evident capacity gap in the understanding the extent of deforestation in many countries, especially when left to self-report.  There is temptation to overlook some illegal logging, and without GIS technology, it is difficult to be accurate; chances of non-additionality and leakage are extended as well.  To this point, Guyana has also discussed a National Inventory Process that would be supported and standardized under REDD+.

Though many countries seem convinced that they will benefit from the REDD+ program, indigenous voices continue to warn that money from national-level carbon credits might not make it to them.  In this view REDD+ is intertwined with human rights laws.  To this point there has been discussion of adopting “pro-poor policies,” that protect the most marginal of indigenous peoples.  Yet, that seems to be a cloaked way of calling for total national reform to protect indigenous people in 37 countries, some of which qualify as the most unstable in the world.  And well, some of those nations still hope to get credits for forest plantations that are not cut but used for generation of products, like palm oil.

So many loose ends seem apparent… So, the real question is—does REDD+ put the cart before the horse?  Are all the discussions tailoring details without a solid and viable holistic vision of REDD+?  Not to mention PINC?

For a more comprehensive overview of all proposals on REDD+ and PINC, see the Little REDD+ Book.

Author: Kelly M. McManus

REDD+ is considered as one of the more actionable items on the COP agenda, and it is predicted that a binding agreement on forests may be one of few substantive outcomes of the Copenhagen summit. However, REDD+ is widely criticized by most stakeholders, from broad calls for the three “E”s-equity, efficiency, and equality, concerns that have carried over from Poznan, to admonition of REDD+ as “carbon colonialism” by indigenous peoples who have seen their lands and livelihoods usurped in the name of the CDM.    Despite these criticisms, an acknowledgement of the critical need to halt deforestation, which garners support not only on the basis of emissions reductions, but also as a strategy for protecting biodiversity and providing essential ecosystem services, drives the REDD+ process along.

But can REDD+ deliver on its essential task of reducing emissions? New research suggests that deforestation probably accounts for around 12% of global carbon emissions, both because deforestation rates have decreased in real terms and other sources of carbon emissions have increased in proportion to deforestation emissions (Van der Werf, et al., 2009).   The significant challenges of implementing REDD+ mean that actual emissions reductions from deforestation will be somewhat less than this. Substantial issues have been raised in determining appropriate baseline levels of deforestation, developing methods to prevent “leakage“-i.e. deforestation displaced from forests under REDD+ governance to those which are not , and ensuring that compensation is only given to projects that are truly additional, that is, forests that would be deforested without the injection of REDD+ monies.   None of these are simple questions, and what is appropriate in one nation or for one driver of forest conversion, may be disastrous in another.

Furthermore, long-term ecological modeling studies in the Amazon suggest that under conditions of drought and higher average temperatures, forest dieback may switch the forest from being a carbon sink to a carbon source (Cox et al., 2004).

The uncertainties on REDD+ extend beyond emissions reductions.  REDD+ represents the largest potential financial investment into mitigating deforestation that has ever been undertaken.  This investment will be delivered to developing nations for avoided deforestation (RED), forest degradation (REDD), maintenance of existing forest stocks (PINC), and/or enhancement of standing forest carbon stocks (REDD+), or some combination of these options, depending upon which proposal is ultimately adopted.  If REDD+ (or RED or REDD) prioritizes carbon storage above all other currently non-market forest services (e.g. biodiversity, hydrological and nutrient cycling), it will create trade-offs between these services that may prove to be ecologically-and economically, if the critical role of water and nutrient cycling are to agriculture and human systems-unsound.    

To counter these very real challenges, we have added ‘D’s and ‘+’s and ‘PINC’s and a plethora of caveats to what started as a relatively simple economic, though potentially dangerous, economic tool. We have created a REDD giant.

Given the high stakes and high uncertainty associated with REDD+, it is necessary that we critically evaluate the potential  that the current market-based proposed REDD+ mechanism may ultimately cost too much, do too little, and have adverse impacts on biological and social systems.

These are not easy questions, and the political momentum behind REDD+, after literally years of negotiations and consensus-building, makes it unlikely that delegates will want to reopen this Pandora’s box.  But if they were to just take a quick peek inside, they might be well advised to consider one aspect of deforestation that is becoming increasingly more clear-the increasing proportion of deforestation that is caused by export-driven commodity markets, namely cattle ranching, soya production, and oil palm plantations.  If the problem with deforestation were narrowed to simply commercial markets for these commodities (albeit admittedly leaving the smaller but important problem of poverty-based deforestation for another, perhaps aid-based, mechanism) deforestation could conceivably be addressed through a trade-based, demand-side solution, akin to the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (EU FLEGT) Program.  Perhaps the market that needs to be regulated is not the one that does not yet exist for forest carbon, but the very well established markets for global “deforestation” commodities.   The thought of changing course so late in the game may seem the type of thing to send a delegation into a frenzy, but fear not, we merely need to add on a consonant. Ladies and gentlemen, meet REDD+T.

December 2009 is the key date when global world leaders aim to agree a ‘Global’ climate change plan at the forthcoming UN Summit at Copenhagen.  UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, outline what they would like to see emerge from the December 2009 Copenhagen summit in replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, which is due to expire in 2012. 

In his recent speech, Gordon Brown revealed a ‘Road to Copenhagen’ document which was presented to Parliament, and sets out why a Copenhagen deal is so important, and for the first time, what deal the UK Government is pushing for; some aspects are outlined below:

Emissions Reduction: Commit to firm reductions in amount of greenhouse gases they emit at Copenhagen.  The European Union has already pledged that it will reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and by 30% if other countries commit to a similar level of action in a global agreement.

Adaptation: The UK wants a deal which gives developing countries the support they need to develop their own national plans to adapt to climate change. Other Adaptation actions could include better water conservation, new farming methods and plans to build new homes and businesses away from flood plains.

Tackling deforestation: The UK wants to see a deal which at least halves the rate at which we are cutting down tropical forests by 2020, with a complete end to global forest loss by 2030 at the latest.

New technologies: Carbon Capture and Storage to prevent emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations entering the atmosphere; Electric vehicles that produce lower emissions; Solar and other renewable power that produces cleaner energy; Energy efficient products for use in homes and business.

The UK plans for action are based on the UK Climate Projections a few weeks ago, that showed that Britain will also suffer if we do nothing to reduce global carbon emissions.  By the 2080’s temperatures could, under a high emissions scenario, be up to 12 degrees C warmer on the hottest summer days and sea levels could rise by 36 cm.  

Together with our EU partners we have already made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, with an offer to reduce emissions by 30% if an ambitious global deal is agreed. 

The talks will discuss the sectors in which the greatest reductions can be achieved.  This will also vary on a country by country basis, as the largest carbon emitting sectors will vary, and the impact on national strategies in preventing future growth which will almost certainly cause debate for some.

As part of a broader marketing campaign within the UK, Ed Milliband is the forefront of ‘Act on Copenhagen’ the official UK government website launched on 26th June, and designed for activities in the lead up to global climate change negotiations in Copenhagen.  In addition, thousands of pamphlets will be issued to schools, citizen’s advice centres and libraries explaining why a global deal is vital and giving 15 top tips on what each of us can do to cut our carbon footprint as part of the global effort.

Not everyone will hold the same view as the UK and therefore anticipate that a convincing argument will need to be pitched at some world leaders, and China is one of them.  In the face of a strong and ever growing, and prosperous economy, what actions will be taken to limit the growth of factories, air travel and industrialization?

Developing nations are emitting up to 50.3 per cent of world emissions, a study provided by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, therefore, Gordon Brown will play a leading role in not only to pledging to reduce emissions from all members, but in leading the securing of a global agreement on climate change – a role which many leaders may wish to take.  With Ed Milibands recent announcement for a UK coal consultation Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration, this may be the driving force for the UK to show that they are leading the Copenhagen debate, and not following it. 

Gordon Brown plans to meet with the President Obama administration at the September meeting of the G20 in Pittsburgh before presenting his plans, with the hope of a successful outcome at Copenhagen in December.

© Alfredo Dominguez

REDD is controversial: some consider it essential to halt deforestation in forest rich developing countries, others, a danger to biodiversity, indigenous communities and carbon markets. A view from Mexico shows that REDD is not a panacea to solve deforestation and yet, at least in the case of Mexico, it may be able to contribute to existing programmes that strengthen sustainable (community) forest management.

An approximated 70 – 80% of Mexican forests are ejidos, i.e. under communal management. The economic reforms under President Salinas strengthened property rights of ejidos, yet, given strict land use regulations, communities have very little possibility to gain incomes from forestry related activities, not to mention conservation. Thus, the opportunity cost to leave forests standing is too high for many of the impoverished forest communities and (illegal) land conversion for agricultural purposes is one of the main causes of deforestation according to one of the latest reports of the National Forest Commission (CONAFOR).

But the problem is much more complex: deforestation is not just driven by economic need, but also economic greed (illegal logging (supposedly responsible for 25% of deforestation) and tourism developments), public infrastructure development (from highways to oil drilling), forest fires, activities of drug cartels, local power conflicts and unsustainable ideas of economic modernization (these complexities are very well described in an article of the World Rainforest Movement on the devastating forest fires of 1998).

Ejidos although legally holding titles to the land, have lost power over how to manage their resources. Either they convert the forest to productive use (e.g. agriculture) or somebody else will come and do it, in the best case, paying them some sort of compensation, in the worst case, murdering those that try to cling to their land or protect the forest.

In this scenario, REDD earnings could support existing programmes to a) decrease the opportunity costs of conserving forests; b) do justice to communities who protect their forests and pay for their conservation of environmental services; and c) support government and communities in fighting against illegal land conversion and deforestation.

But it will probably not be able to do much more than that, as a little back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests. Mongabay, a site that “seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife” calculates that Mexico could earn some USD70 million for a 10% reduction in deforestation (using an optimistic price of USD30 per ton of CO2 reduced). According to their calculations, this would equal a return of USD2,100 (!) per hectare of reduced deforestation.

BUT what does one hectare of reduction in deforestation imply ? (that is what Mongabay does not calculate).
Mexico’s National Forest Commission (CONAFOR) estimated in a presentation on Mexico’s advances in preparing for REDD (June 2008) that one hectare of reduction in deforestation requires 180 hectares under sustainable forest management and 150 hectares under conservation. Consequently, the various government programmes that are expected to cover almost 20 million hectares of forest between 2007 and 2012 will yield an estimated reduction in deforestation of 310,000 hectares. If REDD pays only for actual reduction in deforestation the per hectare value of REDD earnings -considering the entire forest area under sustainable management and conservation- will only yield: USD34 (not including transaction costs for project development, verification, monitoring, etc). That is maybe better than nothing, it might even be more than what some farmers earn from small scale farming activities, yet, it will not be enough to keep private interests at bay.

Thus, REDD alone will not solve deforestation. However, given that Mexico has created a strong legal and regulatory framework and is working on expanding its market incentives for sustainable forest management, REDD could provide financial support to strengthening these efforts.

A recent report from the Economy and Environment Program for South East Asia (EEPSEA) makes grim reading for anyone concerned about the effects of climate change in South East Asia generally and Indonesia in particular. Combining hazard maps for five climate-related risks (tropical cyclones, floods, landslides, droughts, and sea level rise) with population density and adaptive capacity data, major points of alarm include:

• Climatic ‘hotspots’ in western and eastern parts of Java (see figure 1.);
• Java is one of least ecologically protected areas in South East Asia, primarily because it is the most densely populated island in the region;
• Adaptive capacity to climate change higher than Laos and Cambodia but lower than Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam;
• Parts of western Java and western Sumatra are extremely vulnerable to climate change;
• Jakarta is the most vulnerable area in the whole of South East Asia.

These alarming findings confirm an earlier Environmental Ministry report declaring that sea-level rise could put parts of Jakarta permanently under water, including the international airport. Given these disturbing conclusions what can be done?

Tackle Primary Causes: Deforestation

Well it is always good to try and tackle the causes of climate change. One of the key contributors is rapid deforestation, with Indonesia experiencing a ‘boom’ primarily in palm oil cultivation. Perceived incorrectly as a clean bio-fuel, palm oil plantations not only destroy the natural habitat of vulnerable species like the Sumatran tiger and Orangutans, but also adversely affect the local population through land loss. Indeed, altogether deforestation pumps over 2.6 billon tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, making Indonesia the third biggest source of CO2 in the world.

Reality Bites

This is exactly what the REDD scheme is all about, making money available to prevent deforestation. However as reported in my last blog there has been confusion who will control the inflow of money from donors as well as the disbursements to various sectors. Two further factors suggest government inaction is the way forward. Firstly, the price of palm oil has risen by 70% in the last year making it an integral part of the Indonesian economy. There are plans also to create a palm oil exchange market in Indonesia suggesting that palm oil will be become more important, not less, with time.

Secondly, the Indonesian government has delayed releasing rules aimed at governing the billions of dollars of investment expected to flow into the country in return for carbon credits. Expected in December, these rules were meant to decide who benefits from the selling of REDD credits as well as which forests would be suitable for the scheme. An integral part of REDD is to share the benefits with the local populace which is only to be applauded. But given that it has now been put out for review with no new deadline for release, concern is rising that REDD implementation is stalling in Indonesia and even if implemented will benefit central government over local people.

To hear about water crisis in Ethiopia does not surprise, but not many people would expect that Mexico, an industrializing country, is facing serious water challenges. Punctually to the 20th anniversary of Conagua (Mexico’s National Water Commission), Mexico City has to close its water taps: from January until the end of the dry season (April), water supplies will be suspended for three days per month, to alleviate water shortages of Mexico City’s fresh water sources, which due to scarce precipitation, have reached the lowest levels for the past 16 years.

This is certainly not a once-off problem but the first signs of the culmination of two phenomena: immense overexploitation of available water resources not just in Mexico City but across the country and decreasing precipitation due to climatic changes.

With respect to the latter, the Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAT) and the Centre for Atmospheric Sciences of the Universidad Autónoma de México estimate that by 2020 precipitation rates in the Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City could fall by 5% while temperatures may rise by up to 1.2 degrees Celsius, increasing evaporation.

And Mexico City is surely not the only place facing these risks: in fact, the entire centre as well as the North of Mexico exhibits a similar problematic: severe overexploitation of water resources, and impending adverse impacts on water resources due to climate change.

What are the key problems: in Mexico City, it is of course rapid growth of the urban area, significant water losses due to an obsolete water distribution system but especially pollution of water bodies due to untreated release of sewage water. According to Government statistics (INEGI) Mexico’s urban areas generate 243 cubic meters of wastewater per second of which 25% drain off somewhere into the land-/cityscape, and only a third of which is treated. This does not account for leakage of pollutants due to waste and refuse such as Mexico City’s “Bordo Poniente”, the world’s second largest landfill site that receives 12.5 thousand tons of waste on a daily basis. In addition, deforestation and land use change threaten hydrological cycles and the replenishment of aquifers.

What are the solutions?

Mexico City is expecting the start of the construction of what will be the world’s largest water treatment plant, with a capacity of processing 23 cubic meters of water per second. Water treatment, the extension of sewage systems and access to potable water are also the priorities of Conagua. All these measures are of dire importance, yet as long as they are not coupled with activities that tackle not only symptoms but the actual root causes of the problem -pollution and overexploitation, due to bad planning at national and local level- Mexico will be ill-prepared to face water related impacts to climate change.

Brazilian Minister for the Environment Carlos Minc launched the country’s national strategy to address climate change, signed by President Lola on 1st December 2008. Whilst the developing country previously held a defensive position, the launch of this strategy represents a shift to a more leadership position, with which they hope to influence the G77 and developed countries to also lead. Brazil echo the sentiments in Simon’s previous blog, that COP 14 has become a waiting game, as everyone waits for other’s to make the first move.

Key commitments from the National Climate Change Action Plan include:

•       Reduce deforestation in the Amazon by 70% by 2020 – saving 4.8bn tones of carbon over the 12 years. This is more than the target all countries agreed to reduce at Kyoto combined.
•       Increasing concentrations of ethanol in the fuel mix for cars by 11% each year, reducing a further 500m tones of carbon over 10 years. Additionally, this will be achieved without any impact on land used by indigenous people or for food production.
•       Increase in co-generation from 0.5% to 10% – improving efficiencies and representing a saving of around 100m tones of carbon
•       Increase in hydroelectric energy generation – to replace more of exiting energy supplies from fossil fuels
•       Plans to increase reforestation from 5 – 11 hectares, doubling the current rate of reforestation, including in indigenous areas
•       Planting more trees at a faster rate than those being chopped down – till at least 2015
•       Certification of wood and forest management to fight illegal sales of wood from the Amazon
•       Specific resources made available to fund adaptation and fight desertification – a key issues for north-eastern areas of Brazil, home to 50m people.
•       Amazon Fund created to fight deforestation in the Amazon- supported by 1bn Euros, from Norway, Germany and £100m from the UK

These commitments represent Brazil’s commendable decision to take a more leadership position, and the Minister for Environment called for collaborative action and further efforts from other developed and developing countries, to encourage the EU to adopt its higher target of 30% by 2020 – by meeting the condition of support from other nations.

Brazil has created National Climate Fund, which will be funded by 10% of the revenues from the petroleum industry. In addition, their ambitious programme is expected to be funded by their National Bank for Social and Economic Development, and the Minister of Environment felt this needed no further incentives at the moment.

Whilst Brazil’s leadership is in combating climate change is commendable, following the lead of Mexico’s ambitious intention for 50% reduction by 2050 earlier this week, it is interesting to note that the country has authorized the construction of their third nuclear power plant, using German technology. A further three are expected, but details are to be finalized. Brazil has strongly opposed CCS in CDM throughout the COP process, yet it is interesting to see their commitment and deployment of a similarly controversial technology.