Raising Ambition By 2020 - REDD+
1. Mitigation: 18-20 pct of global anthropogenic emissions
Activities of reducing emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks
(afforestation and reforestation) account for 18-20 percent. REDD+ is highly costeffective. Can deliver substantial reductions of by 2020 and beyond.
Forests have a vital role to play in the fight against climate change. Forest loss
accounts for up to 20% of global carbon emissions - more than all the cars, trucks,
trains, airplanes and ships worldwide. Reducing forest loss, we can reduce carbon
emissions and combat climate change. It's as simple as that.
In this regard, the UN-REDD Programme states that: “Deforestation and forest
degradation, through agricultural expansion, conversion to pastureland, infrastructure
development, destructive logging, fires etc., account for nearly 20% of global
greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector and
second only to the energy sector. It is now clear that in order to constrain the impacts
of climate change within limits that society will reasonably be able to tolerate, the
global average temperatures must be stabilized within two degrees Celsius. This will
be practically impossible to achieve without reducing emissions from the forest
sector, in addition to other mitigation actions.”1
Host to many of the world's biodiversity, forests hold substantial worth, both as a
supplier of goods (food, medicine, wood materials, construction, etc.) and services
(air purification, watersheds preservation, soil stabilization and erosion control, etc.).
Nowadays, forests are widely recognized as a “global public good that” provides
numerous environmental services to the planet. However, when they are destroyed or
degraded forests are transformed into a “global evil” that becomes a major emitter of
greenhouse gases such as CO2.
Deforestation and forest degradation, especially in tropical regions, contribute to
about 20% of global carbon emissions, and have negative impacts on biodiversity,
local communities and indigenous peoples, sustainable economic growth in the long
term, air quality and other environmental and socio-economic goods and services.
When carbon emissions from deforestation are taken into account, Brazil and
Indonesia jump into the top 10 worst polluters on the planet, and the Democratic
Republic of Congo’s per capita emissions are multiplied four fold.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries
and conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks represent a huge potential to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions
(20% of the global problem represent 20% of the global solution).
1
http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/102614/Default.aspx
2. Adaptation Benefits
Paying to reduce emissions from forests implies paying for adaptation also. Cobenefits that many local communities and indigenous people depend on, are preserved
when forest ecosystem is preserved/maintained. Sources of wood, fuel, food,
medicine, watershed protection (including rainfall, water filtration), flood mitigation,
erosion prevention, temperature regulation, aesthetic and spiritual benefits,
biodiversity and wildlife are all ancillary benefits that will support livelihoods if
forests are sustainably managed; essentially two for the price of one.
Indeed, addressing addressing climate change challenges through a single pathway
(either mitigation or adaptation) can lead to expensive trade-offs and may not bring
about desired outcomes. Focusing on mitigation alone results in a failure to anticipate
the impact of climate change on available forests, which in turn can jeopardise the
permanence of carbon storage. And relying only on adaptation approaches fails to
take into account that mitigation actions are also needed to limit changes in the
climate system2.
Therefore, important potential exists in creating synergies between the mitigation
aspects of REDD+ and adaptation. This requires ensuring that REDD+ forest policy
and practice incorporate the need to protect the livelihoods of forest dependent people
from the adverse effects of climate change. At the same time, adaptation strategies
should include improved forest management to maximize the potential of forests to
provide ecosystem services. Including mitigation approaches can also support
adaptation projects in benefiting from carbon finance and capacity building
instruments such as REDD+ as donors can support projects that integrate the need to
reduce emissions while helping to create more resilient communities and ecosystems.
Like Bruno Locatelli, Vanessa Evans, Andrew Wardell, Angela Andrade and Raffaele
Vignola have stated in their paper titled “Forests and Climate Change in Latin
America: Linking Adaptation and Mitigation”: “The linkages between forests and
adaptation are two-fold. First, adaptation is needed for forests to maintain their
functioning status (adaptation for forests). Forests are vulnerable to climate change
and implementing forest adaptation measures can reduce the negative impacts.
Second, forests play a role in adaptation of communities and the broader society
(forests for people’s adaptation). Forest ecosystems contribute to adaptation by
providing local ecosystem services that reduce societies’ vulnerability to climate
change. It is increasingly recognized that well-managed ecosystems can help societies
to adapt both to current climate hazards and to future climate change by providing a
wide range of ecosystem services. For example, mangroves protect coastal areas
against storms and waves, which may become stronger with climate change and sea
level rise. Forest products provide safety nets for local communities when agricultural
crops fail because of climatic events. Hydrological ecosystem services (e.g., base flow
conservation, storm flow regulation and erosion control) are of utmost importance for
buffering the impacts of climate change on water users. The conservation and
sustainable management of ecosystems and their services can generate multiple socioecological benefits and promote long-term approaches to climate change adaptation3”.
http://www1.cifor.org/gcs/about-gcs/synergies-between-redd-and-climate-change-adaptation.html
3 Forests 2011, 2, 431-450; doi:10.3390/f2010431
2
3. Much of REDD+ architecture already in place
Elements necessary for the functioning of REDD+ mechanism including
methodological guidance agreed to in Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban and Warsaw.
(Use of latest IPCC guidelines, 4 key elements: National Forest Monitoring System,
Information System for Providing Safeguards, Reference Emission Level or
Reference Level, and a National Strategy or Action Plan. Subsequent decisions
provided methodological guidelines and modalities and procedures on MRV, how to
report information on how safeguards are addressed and respected, FREL/FRL, and
drivers of deforestation).
However, one of the main challenges that has hindered the implementation of the
REDD+ process (and the provision of adequate and timely capacity-building support)
in developing countries is the lack of clarity in how much financing is being invested
in REDD+ readiness.
Through its Readiness Fund, the FCPF4 supports tropical and sub-tropical developing
countries in preparing themselves to participate in a future, large-scale, system of
positive incentives for REDD+. This includes: adopting national REDD+ strategies;
developing reference emission levels (RELs); designing measurement, reporting, and
verification (MRV) systems; and setting up REDD+ national management
arrangements, including proper environmental and social safeguards.
The Programme supports national REDD+ readiness efforts in 55 partner countries,
spanning Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, in two ways: (i) direct support to
the design and implementation of UN-REDD National Programmes; and (ii)
complementary support to national REDD+ action through common approaches,
analyses, methodologies, tools, data and best practices developed through the UNREDD Global Programme. By June 2014, total funding for these two streams of
support to countries totaled US$195.7 million.
A number of countries are already in the pilot phase and should be able to do REDD+
by 2020. Brazil and Costa Rica can probably do full implementation immediately.
Costa Rica, Ghana, Chile, Mexico, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Congo
Brazaville have been accepted into the Carbon Fund for the pilot phase. Meaning they
are a step away from the full implementation phase. The remaining others are at
various levels of readiness.
An important challenge for REDD+ readiness is financing. Economic analyses by
Stern and Eliasch suggest that REDD+ could be a cost-effective, low-tech, inclusive
and quick way to contribute to mitigation, by putting a value on forest carbon.
However, following a number of years’ experience in REDD+ readiness financing, it
seems increasingly unclear whether carbon-related revenues will be able to compete
with revenues from other land uses, such as conversion of forest land for agricultural
production to meet global fuel and food demands. This is especially important for the
Congo Basin where the majority of forests have been spared the pressure of largescale conversions, although this is likely to change as land conversion associated with
4
economic development progresses in the near future. This is already the case for oil
palm plantations that have been established in some of the Congo Basin's countries.
For instance, countries that have made significant progress in their REDD+ readiness
endeavors may be selected to participate in the FCPF’s Carbon Fund, through which
the FCPF will pilot incentive payments for REDD+ policies and measures in
approximately five developing countries. Such performance-based payments will play
an essential part in valuing forests more while they are standing than when they are
cut. The Carbon Fund became fully operational in May 2011.
The FCPF’s Carbon Fund will remunerate the selected countries in accordance with
negotiated contracts for verifiably reducing emissions more than in the reference
scenario. The Carbon Fund’s payments are intended to provide an incentive to the
recipient countries and the various stakeholders—including forest-dependent
indigenous peoples, other forest dwellers or the private sector—within each of these
countries, to achieve long-term sustainability in financing forest conservation and
management programs. This would help reduce the negative impact on the global
climate from the loss and impoverishment of forests.
The total financing that has been disbursed and committed for REDD+ readiness is
challenging to establish, but a current estimate reported by funders through the
voluntary REDD+ database indicates a figure of approximately US$ 6.06 billion since
2006 (Redd+ online voluntary database: http://reddplusdatabase.org), with REDD+
readiness financing to beneficiary countries on the African continent totalling
approximately
US$1
billion
(Redd+
online
voluntary
database:
http://reddplusdatabase.org/).
In their paper on “Financing and current capacity for REDD+ readiness and
monitoring, measurement, reporting and verification in the Congo Basin”, Maniatis,
Gaugris, Mollicone, Scriven, Corblin, Ndikumagenge, Aquino, Crete and SanzSanchez conclude that “What is becoming increasingly apparent is that although the
UNFCCC REDD+ process is based on the principle of “inclusiveness” (i.e. all
countries wishing to voluntarily participate in the process should be able to access
“support”—including financing for readiness) support to developing countries has
been uneven. In addressing this disparity, the international community should seek to
ensure that “equal” opportunities are provided to developing countries wishing to
participate in REDD+ readiness, while ensuring that financing is provided where it is
believed that it will have the most impact (i.e. balancing efficiency and
inclusiveness)”5.
4. What is required at the Domestic Level?
Buy in from the highest level and consequently support. Inter-departmental issue:
forestry, agriculture, mining and energy. Requires inter-ministerial/agency
cooperation or collaboration. Also, domestic arrangements to be put in place e.g. on
legal, policy and institutional reforms, addressing land tenure issues, rights,
addressing drivers of deforestation among others would entail revisions to laws,
creation of new institutions and arrangements or revision of old, law enforcement etc.
5
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1625/20120310.full
Thus, the efficient deployment of REDD+ activities at the national level will be
difficult to achieve without executive backing and a holistic approach.
Moreover, one of the most important elements required at the domestic level is that
the international community has to give space for national sovereignty and ownership
over the entire process. Indeed, progress will be slowest where there is limited
national ownership. On the contrary, where strong agency for change is present and a
strong constituency that has taken over the national REDD+ process – making it fit to
the country’s specific national circumstances, great strides will be made in defining
policies and in the early steps towards implementing them.
Thus, the common aim of donors and recipients’ should the increase of the latter’s
willingness to undertake country-driven policy reforms, often referred to as
“ownership”.
5. How can the international community help?
Critical to the successful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the
deforestation and degradation of lands, to ensure broader participation, to avoid
leakage and to achieve greater reduction is the need to rapidly scale up investment in
REDD+ before 2020.
For this to be sustainable need to create demand for emission reduction from forests.
The Interim Forest Finance (IFF) project6 advocates a strategic intervention by donor
country and tropical forest country governments, and public financial institutions, to
scale up demand for REDD+ emission reductions in the interim period. It would
achieve this by using public sector funding to leverage considerably more private
sector investment. The IFF report highlights 7 key points:
1. There is a huge gap between supply and demand
Basic calculations show that, between 2015 and 2020, projected supply of emission
reductions from REDD+ and/or other forest and land-based activities is between 3
and 39 times larger than potential total demand. As of January 2014, the sources of
potential demand for the interim period include the California Emissions Trading
Scheme, FCPF Carbon Fund, BioCarbon Fund, Kf W REDD+. Early Movers
Programme and the voluntary market.
2. Early movers could exhaust current funding
For example, if the entire potential demand for international REDD+ offset credits
from the California ETS between 2015 and 2020 were spent on compensating the
State of Acre for their REDD+ emission reductions, it would pay for only around 70%
of these emission reductions. The FCPF Carbon Fund, if it bought the remainder,
would also exhaust its entire funds on purchasing emission reductions from Acre. The
remaining fraction of total potential demand from the other sources mentioned above
6
http://www.globalcanopy.org/sites/default/files/Stimulating%20Interim%20Demand%20for%20REDD+
%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
would need to cover emission reductions generated by all other early mover forest
countries/states worldwide, during the interim period. It is unlikely that this is
sufficient capital, or a strong enough economic incentive, to ensure that forest
countries continue to change their development pathways.
3. Funding needs to be scaled up at least to the magnitude of the Fast Start Finance
pledges
In Copenhagen in December 2009, Annex I countries pledged approximately US$4.5
bn for REDD+ in the Fast Start Finance (FSF) period from 2010 to 2012. According
to the Voluntary REDD+ Database, the five major donor countries – the UK, the
USA, Norway, Germany and Australia – pledged around US$3 bn for REDD+.
Assuming that a substantial proportion of emission reductions from forest and landuse activities in tropical forest countries are paid for through a REDD+ trading
mechanism, demand must be scaled up to a level that results in a dollar value of
primary market transactions between buyers and sellers (referred to as a ‘transaction
value’) of between US$4 bn and US$48 bn in the interim period. Donor country
governments need to pledge capital at least similar in size to the FSF funding in order
to stimulate this level of demand. Such a pledge would also build on the financial,
human and political capital already committed in the FSF period.
4. Funding must be scaled up rapidly
Although the absorptive capacity of some tropical forest countries for REDD+
funding may be limited, without a financial incentive in the interim period, tropical
forest countries and the private sector have little motivation to invest the necessary
political, human and financial capital in REDD+. Funding therefore has to be scaled
up rapidly, to provide incentives in the fast-approaching interim period. This also
requires the use of a ‘light’ institutional structure to manage the funds, avoiding
stagnation of capital.
5. Financial incentives need to be clear and long-term
A performance-based financial incentive, providing clear price signals to all counterparties, will improve the risk-return profile of REDD+ investments, leverage private
sector capital, match the goals of global REDD+ policy with the scale of funding
needed to achieve those goals, and retain the political momentum of forest country
governments. Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreements, options contracts and price
floors could be used to provide this incentive, against which financial capital could
then be raised from the private sector.
6. The strategic intervention could build on existing institutions and examples
Significant effort has gone into building momentum in the FSF period, and beyond,
e.g. the FCPF Carbon Fund, and designing the Green Climate Fund as a conduit for
REDD+ results-based finance. Examples from other sectors, such as the PublicPrivate Partnership (PPP) created under the Global Alliance for Vaccination and
Immunisation (GAVI), which makes long-term financial commitments to increase the
immunisation of children in its partner countries, also demonstrates the successful use
of international partnerships to scale up demand. Building on these institutions and
examples will help to create or adapt institutions needed to scale-up demand for
REDD+ emission reductions.
7. A strategic intervention would help maintain political momentum in REDD+
Whether funds such as the FCPF Carbon Fund or the BioCarbon Fund are scaled up,
or whether it is a new international Public Private Partnership similar to GAVI, a pilot
case for the Green Climate Fund, or channelled through national level climate funds,
an interim strategic intervention to stimulate demand would help maintain political
momentum behind REDD+.