Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions (original) (raw)
Related papers
2019
This article was finalised prior to the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties ('COP15') under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ('UNFCCC'), held in December 2009. At the COP15, parties failed to agree on a new, binding international pact to supplement or replace the UNFCCC for the period after 2012 (when current targets set under the Kyoto Protocol expire). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries ('REDD') was one of the few issues to achieve significant, widespread support at COP15. The non-binding 'Copenhagen Accord', agreed by a group of parties at COP15, and noted by the Conference of Parties ('COP'), recognised 'the crucial role' of REDD and agreed on the need to provide 'positive incentives' for REDD through 'the immediate establishment of a mechanism … to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries'.[1] Given this inter...
Climate Policy, 2006
A process for reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries has been initiated under the UNFCCC. Efforts to agree on a legally binding instrument to halt deforestation have previously failed in other international fora. The magnitude of the social, economic, technical and political complexities underlying deforestation have led to negotiations being challenging. What policy instruments could provide incentives to reduce deforestation, and how could these instruments be framed, under the UNFCCC? This article analyses the advantages and disadvantages of the available alternatives within and outside of the Kyoto Protocol. Staying within the Kyoto framework means low institutional development costs, established but limited incentives for action, and low flexibility. Alternatives outside the Protocol provide higher institutional development costs, uncertainties with regard to the incentives, but greater flexibility. We argue that a separate protocol may be the most viable option, as it could offer the necessary flexibility and avoid some technical and political pitfalls that would be likely to beset new efforts under the Kyoto Protocol. The article also presents the concept of ‘committed forests’ as a means of defining geographically where the reduction of emissions from deforestation can take place.
Deforestation as a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Tool : Economic Issues for Consideration
2006
Tropical deforestation is a significant contributor to accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Previous estimates of GHG emissions from tropical deforestation have been in the range of 1 to 2 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) per year for the 1990s, equivalent to 15% to 30% of global annual GHG emissions from fossil fuels. Currently, forestry activities under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol are limited to afforestation and reforestation on areas that were not forested in 1990, excluding actions to avoid deforestation. However, interest in creating carbon credits for avoided deforestation was renewed after the 11 Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP11) decision in late 2005 to explore approaches to reduce emissions from deforestation. This paper examines the extent of baseline deforestation and associated carbon emissions and the economic potential for incorporating reductions in deforestat...
Clearing the way for reducing emissions from tropical deforestation
Environmental Science & Policy, 2007
Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation account for about 25% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions but cannot be credited under current climate change agreements. In the discussions around the architecture of the post-2012 climate regime, the possibility of including credits for reduced emissions from deforestation arises. The paper reviews two approaches for this, compensated reductions (CR) as proposed by Santilli et al. and the Joint Research Centre proposal that combine voluntary commitments by non-Annex I countries to reduce emissions from deforestation with carbon market financing. Both approaches have the clear advantages of simplicity and the possibility of fitting to an evolving greenhouse gas emission reduction regime. The authors consider the strengths and limitations of each proposal and build upon them to address several implementation challenges and options for improvement. Given the urgency of avoiding dangerous climate change, the timely development of technically sound, politically acceptable, cost-effective and practicable measures to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is essential. These two approaches take us a step closer to this goal, but they need to be refined rapidly to enable this goal to be realised.