This Friday, The Economist published my three-page feature on avoided deforestation. Avoided deforestation is a hot topic these days as climate negotiators have enthusiastically taken up the idea that reducing the rate of deforestation the world can make a substantial dent in global carbon emissions.For most of those at the coal face of these things, the feature only really grazes the surface of major unresolved issues. But the point of the piece is to introduce a wider audience to the idea of REDD and some of the issues it faces.
As with most pieces of this size and scale there is a substantial tranche of overmatter to follow on this blog. A great deal was left on the cutting room floor. I've picked up some helpful material about Waxman-Markey, and also quite a lot about palm oil which is, frankly, quite depressing. But for now, here is that piece itself. You can follow the link to read it at The Economist.
The conclusion I reach about REDD, for anyone who doesn't want to read the entire article is merely that paying for environmental services is basically a good idea, but whether it is going to work to deliver global carbon emissions reductions will really depend on whether we can get a lot of little details right. That remains to be seen.
I also take the point made to me by several people I interviewed, which is that if we decide it isn't going to work, then it absolutely isn't. My view is, lets give REDD a chance to work. Scary to think that it is one of the better options on the table.
Last gasp for the forest
Sep 24th 2009
A new climate treaty could provide a highly effective way to reduce carbon emissions by paying people to not cut down forests
IN THE south-eastern corner of the Brazilian state of Amazonas, in the municipality of Novo Aripuanã, there is thick forest cover—for now. But as new, paved highways are driven into the trees, illegal loggers inevitably follow. At the current rate of deforestation, around one-third of the forest in Amazonas will have been lost by 2050, releasing a colossal 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (More...)
Natasha-
ReplyDeleteYour 'Last gasp of the forest' is indeed an informative introduction to REDD.
The Juma Reserve is a shining positive of early carbon trading projects. Even the Marriott hotel chain believes it is the ideal project to source VER's for their guests!
Of course there are many negative examples as well: the long delays and political interferences of the Ulu Masen REDD project in Sumatra, Indonesia, and the tree planting FACE project at Mt. Elgon, Uganda, that was destroyed in a fit of villager rage come to mind.
You mentioned the Waxman-Markey bill in your post, and I wanted to bring up an interesting nuance to REDD that those of us over at RAN have been thinking a lot about.
As it is defined now, an REDD mechanism can refer to just about anything; there are few rules on the law books of any nation.
Many of us have assumed REDD must include a market to trade, loan, shortsell, and do whatever else traders can think up with carbon credits generated from REDD projects, but what if we take a step back that assumption?
Emissions caps are quickly becoming a reality. These caps create a ceiling on emissions for polluters, and mandate that these polluters be punished for their violation of the said emissions cap. Why not simply levy a fine against these polluters, rather than ask them to participate in a carbon market? These fines will generate a fairly predictable revenue stream, which can then be used to implement REDD projects around the world, seeking out the cheapest locations to prevent forest destruction.
Far fetched you say? Unworkable? The momentum behind carbon trading too strong? Well, that might be true, but the version of the Waxman-Markey bill that has passed the House does include a plan to use 'Special allowance allocations' towards REDD projects that will generate an additional 10% of the USA's carbon emissions reductions, all without the use of carbon credits. Instead, the US government will pay revenues into specific national and international projects that promise to reduce deforestation.
As you and many others have pointed out, carbon credits are unreliable, prone to abuse by scammers, and downright dangerous to tropical forests. So may be it is time to shift all this climate change momentum from carbon credits to forest conservation trusts.
-David Gilbert
Research Fellow, Rainforest Action Network
http://understory.ran.org
Dear David,
ReplyDeletethis is exactly my understanding of how Waxman Markey would work in the absence of an agreement over Copenhagen, or if the Copenhagen protocol was agreed but not ratified by Congress. WM allows for a % of its emissions reductions to come from forest carbon which will be purchased in the form of bilateral deals.
Even if Copenhagen is agreed and goes ahead a real market is a long way down the road.
natasha