|
Fortunately, they were able to build on research from another project,
Integrating REDD into the Global Climate Protection Regime, a collaborative
analysis undertaken by CIFOR, the UK-based Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
and Brazil’s Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM). In June
2008, this project brought together 43 researchers, climate negotiators and
policy makers in Tokyo. The aim was to ensure that the UNFCCC negotiating
processes were informed by rigourous analyses of the implications of the
various proposals being put forward for REDD. The Tokyo meeting resulted in
a series of CIFOR Infobriefs, and these formed the basis for four chapters
in Moving Ahead with REDD. See
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/carbofor.
A major strength of the book is its refusal to oversell the virtues of
REDD or to propose specific solutions. Each chapter focuses on a problem,
presents the options on how to deal with it, and then assesses them using
three criteria: effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Can the REDD mechanism
bring significant emission reductions? Can these be achieved at an
acceptable cost? And can the benefits and costs be fairly distributed among
countries and within countries?
At COP 15, which will take place in Copenhagen in December 2009,
negotiators are expected to make REDD a key part of the agreement to replace
the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. There will still be much work to
be done on the ‘global architecture’ of REDD, but Angelsen and his
colleagues are optimistic about its prospects.
‘I think REDD has the potential to add to mitigation efforts involving
reform of the energy sector, not least because it will be cheaper,’ says
Angelsen. That’s because the returns from converting forest to other uses
such as agriculture are often relatively modest. Modest, that is, when
compared to other alternatives for meeting carbon emission reduction
targets.
The costs, nevertheless, will be considerable, and US $10–20 billion a
year could be needed if emissions from deforestation and degradation are to
be reduced by 50 per cent. According to Angelsen, many of the
non-governmental organisations promoting REDD are sceptical about carbon
markets, and would like to see the money raised by governments in the North.
‘But looking at current levels of forest and environmental aid,’ he says,
‘one can only dream about governments raising US $10–20 billion a year for
REDD.’
Angelsen suggests that REDD has the greatest chance of success if it is
linked to carbon markets, and governments are able to meet their commitments
to reduce emissions by buying carbon from countries which adopt REDD. If,
for example, just 5 per cent of the projected carbon markets in the EU and
the USA are made up of REDD credits, this could raise the amount needed to
cut deforestation by 50 per cent.
Moving Ahead with REDD is already considered a key reference, and the UN
Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD), a collaboration by the UN
Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the UN, has said that it intends to use it as a
textbook in its training courses.
‘What we need now,’ says Angelsen, ‘is a lot more independent research
and a detailed evaluation of projects designed to reduce emissions from
deforestation.’
Angelsen says there have been few independent evaluations of forest
conservation projects, and this is one reason why CIFOR hopes to conduct
research on a series of REDD pilot projects. These would provide new
insights into the potential benefits of REDD and the sorts of issues climate
change negotiators and policy makers need to consider when designing the
global architecture for REDD, as well as the mechanisms for implementing
REDD at the national level.
|
Download PDF
