Photo credit: Matthew Steil, WRITo combat global warming, forests must be part of the solution. How can we make good forest stewardship a reality?
2010 is a crucial year for forests. In March, major donor countries and forest-rich countries will meet in Paris, Nairobi and Manila, each grappling with the same question: how can efforts to reduce deforestation also help tackle climate change? Their decisions, and those following in the next six to twelve months, could channel substantial amounts of money to protect forests. Manish Bapna, Managing Director of the World Resources Institute, answers questions about the current window of opportunity to address both forest loss and climate change, and what is at stake in getting these mechanisms right.
Why are forests important in efforts to tackle climate change?
Forests are one of the greatest environmental challenges—and opportunities—facing the world in the 21st century. Forests are well known for their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, but when they are destroyed they release CO2 into the air. This helps explain why Indonesia, a developing country with high rates of deforestation, now has one of the highest emissions rates in the world.
Forest loss contributes as much as 12-15% to annual greenhouse gas emissions, about the same as the entire global transportation sector. It will be practically impossible to avoid dangerous climate change without addressing this problem. That is why forests must be part of the solution.
What is REDD?
REDD stands for “reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.” A REDD mechanism would seek to provide incentives for developing countries to make those reductions. Right now, forest areas are often worth more harvested than left standing. At its core, REDD aims to change incentive structures in favor of protecting forests.
A REDD mechanism could provide compensation to governments, communities, companies or individuals if they have taken actions to reduce emissions from forest loss below an established reference level. The sustainable management of forests then becomes a smart economic decision, as well as a smart decision for the environment.
Although funding towards REDD will likely take many different forms, one option that is often discussed is to link REDD to carbon markets in developed countries. Companies could then meet their emission reduction commitments by channeling funding to REDD in forest-rich countries. Carbon markets would generate significant funding for REDD – at a scale rarely seen before. There is a risk, though. If REDD does not work as intended, its failure could reduce or even eliminate reduction efforts in developed countries.
What makes REDD so challenging?
In Copenhagen, countries agreed to the “immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus” to tackle emissions from deforestation. What this means in practice, though, has not been entirely clear. The idea of supporting countries to protect their forests sounds simple. But governments have only limited control over many of the drivers of deforestation. There are a number of difficult questions that have yet to be fully answered.
How do you ensure that REDD leads to emissions reductions that are “real and additional,” meaning they would not have happened without a REDD program?
How do you know that reducing deforestation in one place will not cause increased deforestation in another? This is what is called “leakage.”
How do you know that REDD will not just be a temporary fix, but rather will protect forests permanently?
How do you ensure that REDD will not adversely impact the rights and livelihoods of the millions of people who live in or around forests, especially in poorly governed states?
How do you measure, report and verify emission reductions from forests? This is especially challenging for measuring reductions in forest degradation.
These are just a few of the questions that arise, and they do not have easy answers. This helps explain why the possible mechanisms for achieving REDD have aroused such debate.
Why is good governance of forests important?
Money on its own cannot solve the deforestation challenge. History has proven this point time and time again.
Deforestation is as much an issue of poor forest governance – the processes, policies, and laws by which decisions that impact forests are made – as it is an issue of misaligned economic incentives. When you look at the main drivers of deforestation, such as agricultural expansion, logging, and infrastructure development, they are often symptoms of a larger failure of governance. Many forest-rich countries do not have strong enough institutions and processes needed to value and protect forests and people who depend on them. They will not be able to manage their forests until these factors improve.
REDD cannot be removed from this context. Without effective governance, money distributed through REDD could lead to some of the perverse outcomes I mentioned before. This issue could be further complicated by carbon markets because of the significant additional funding such markets could unleash. It could lead to a kind of “resource curse,” in which large inflows of funding can actually fuel corruption and bad governance. That’s why any approach to reducing deforestation, including a REDD mechanism, has to promote and support improvements in forest governance if it is to be successful.
How do we improve forest governance?
We must start with an understanding of what makes for good governance of forests. This is a question that WRI has grappled with over the past two years. We have developed a methodology, called the Governance of Forests Initiative (GFI) indicator framework that can help governments, civil society and other stakeholders assess the strengths and weaknesses of forest governance in their countries. This type of diagnostic can serve as a starting point for reform, uniquely tailored to each country.
Going forward, international efforts must focus on supporting developing countries to strengthen forest-related institutions, build participatory processes, and ensure proper social and environmental safeguards are in place.
Why is 2010 proving to be such an important year for forests?
The stakes are high this year. We are going to see how US climate legislation moves forward and how it incorporates REDD. The European Union will decide whether to include REDD in the next phase of its emissions trading scheme. Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will decide how to ultimately operationalize REDD in a global climate deal. These decisions are going to shape global efforts to protect forests. 2010 is the year in which the momentum to address the interlinked challenges of forest loss and global warming can either lead to real change or fade away.
Manish Bapna, Executive Vice President and Managing Directormbapna@wri.org+1 (202) 729-7688Manish Bapna joined WRI as its executive vice president and managing director in 2007. He served as WRI’s acting president from 2011-2012.
7 Comments
REDD Project in Vietnam I
REDD Project in Vietnam
I recently finished a volunteer mission as a remote sensing specialist on a project to display forest gains and losses in two target communities in Vietnam. It was my mission to develop a model to use multi-temporal, medium resolution satellite imagery to calculate carbon sinks in degraded and deforested areas. The overall goal of the project is to support the Vietnamese government within this REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) development process. The project will be monitoring and displaying deforestation rates for two pilot communes in the Central Highlands. Satellite or aerial maps provide exact area measurements, but forest ecosystems are very diverse and calculation of Carbon stocks varies among different forest types. Thus, the project will carry out forest inventories and based on these findings the Carbon stocks will be calculated through developing appropriate models (forest type + soil type + area gaining/reduction = Carbon Emission Certificates). Area changes can be recorded easily by using aerial or satellite images and the Carbon stocks updated.
The project, which is supported by Google.org through one of the Google GeoChallenge Grants, is embedded in the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) component of the GTZ programme.
One of the reasons for the continuation of unsustainable practices is the underestimation of the multi-functionality of forests. Most non-timber forest goods and services are not generating their potential financial value when managed sustainably because of lack of markets or other compensation mechanisms. One of the main challenges faced by many countries in stopping forest degradation and deforestation — and in enhancing the contribution of forests to development — is the need to increase the competitive-ness of SFM and generate more investment in and revenues from forests.
Forests play an important role in providing alternative sources of energy and mitigating climate change. The concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is yet another recognition of the forests’ role in climate-change mitigation. REDD, irrespective of timber quality or accessibility, increases the economic value of natural forested land and thus, could lead both public and private sectors to invest in areas previously considered not commercially viable. REDD makes an important contribution to SFM through evaluating the carbon stocks of a sustainably managed forest, thus increasing their financial value and decreasing the conversion into into agricultural lands.
Under the Climate Change Convention and Kyoto Protocol various financing instruments have been developed for climate change adaptation and mitigation measures that include projects on forest management, afforestation and deforestation. The evolving policy discussions within UNFCCC to establish a financing mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) have created high expectations for its role as a financing tool for SFM and forest conservation.
This technology is helping to measure, report and verify emission reductions from forests (especially in degraded areas). Read more at http://www.planet-action.org/web/85-project-detail.php?proje....
I don't think that REDD will
I don't think that REDD will improve forests governance. I'm convinced that REED will accelerate deforestration and encourage new corruption actors outside Public Systems in developping countries. Also, I think that REDD will contribute to the carbon market failure, this failure will prepare hopefully
the ground for the New Economy; So, save your money and be aware of the financial risks and try to prevent the future crisis....................
Poor governance is certainly
Poor governance is certainly an issue in forest management, and well researched, tailored advice to countries with large remaining forest reserves cannot but be a good idea.
However unless this is presented within a commercial framework it will fall on deaf ears. The purpose of cap-and-trade is to harness market forces to protect and increase forests and other biodiversity rich regions, incentivised by substantial income generation.
Tailored forest management programs need to be seen as part of a larger agenda of showing governments how to best exploit the carbon sequestration market. Legislation reform will often form part of that advice; however those who imagine law, policing and punishment alone can protect forests and biodiversity have not been paying attention to its absolute failure since time immemorial. The lesson we have learned is that forests (and tigers, rhinos et al) will be safe only when they are worth more standing than felled, alive than dead.
The carbon trading market can do this, but it needs organisations like the WRI to create models to show them, not just how to manage, but also how to create a robust and lasting national framework that is profitable, sustainable and resistant to corruption.
This new carbon market creates a golden opportunity for countries to set new parameters in forest govenance. They should be required (and helped) to meet stringent conditions to participate. I believe the honeypot lure of substantial sequestration (and perhaps NGO-raised conservation) revenues for the indefinite future will help to ensure wide if not unanimous participation.
However it cannot be amophous: it urgently needs a specialised central world body to set and monitor standards. We owe that to those who will be paying, and they will rightly expect and demand it.
i agree totally with your
i agree totally with your idea if my country cameroon can take this seriousely we shall change this challenge locally then globally but corupt stakeholder will go against government policies for egoistic reason
The US and Canada log 33% of
The US and Canada log 33% of the globe's wood products. It is not more sustainably done than what occurs in the southerm hemisphere, in spite of their claims. REDD needs to address this.
The restoration,
The restoration, reforestation, renewal and enlargement of the forest areas are the only real solutions to climate change.
While there is so much talk about the role of the forest in containing CO2, the real contribution of the forest relates to the much ignored acceleration of the hydrologic cycle as the main driver in climate change. Without the forests, the rate and volume of water evaporation increases. Since water has specific heat twice that of CO2, and water vapor is greater in amount in the atmosphere than CO2, increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will cause or bring about an increase in heat retention in the atmosphere and consequently increasing the temperature levels of the oceans as heat is radiated back instead of escaping to outer space. The forest slows the hydrologic cycle and allows water time to seep into aquifers instead of running straight to the oceans to evaporate back to the atmosphere.
Nations that bought timber and lumber from tropical countries like Japan, USA, Australia and Europe must pay for the costs of climate change coming out of deforestation, costs which were not factored into the pricing of forest products when these were sold to them.
Instead of "cap and trade", funds as compensation from the buyer countries should be put direct to forest restoration projects in specified locations and area sizes, including documentation for the actual restoration of the forest in terms of species of trees regenerated and the returning fauna. The forests so generated must be made into permanent forests that will never again be used by humans for logging or extraction of forest products.
Good thoughts, lots of
Good thoughts, lots of ambition but no substance.
No headway will be made until you start talking the language of governments. That is suggested legislation written in legislative language. Until you are capable of doing that, you are whistling in the wind to be kind.
Your message has been conveyed to government officials many, many times by countless individuals over the past few years. As far as I know, there are no eco groups using the correct legislation to protect anything anywhere.
Plenty of governments have seen the light and are beginning tree planting programs. But those are merely programs of convenience and not serious restoration efforts for the most part despite the work involved.
If you want to make a real difference, start reading the legislation in your area and learn its strengths and weaknesses inside and out. Teach others to do that and eventually there will be many more people who understand that environmental legislation is only properly effective when used in conjunction with national criminal codes. That is assuming the criminal legislation is well written. If it isn't there is almost no point in bothering.
If it is, then criminal legislation is a powerful tool if public health and safety are impacted by government undertakings. Generally the Rule of Law prevails and criminal legislation can be used in all sorts of ways to force governments to safeguard natural heritage sites and protect existing human populations from government exploitation.
Until that concept is well understood, it must be realized that all environmental legislation around the world is written to facilitate development, not protect it. Until that changes there is no real protection without resorting to criminal legislation such as Fraud. In most countries, it's illegal to complete land transactions and not tell the truth about the various aspects of the land, including for instance, potential harm to downwind communities. There are lots of angles.
I leave it to your imagination.
John Newell