Policy and monitoring aspects on deforestation Towards a post 2012 climate regime Eskil Mattsson Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research Rapport/Report 08:01 Centrum för klimatpolitisk forskning The Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research Report Series The reports in the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Series have been peer-reviewed by at least two senior researchers before publication. This publication can be quoted as: Mattson, Eskil, 2008, Policy and monitoring aspects on avoided deforestation. Towards a post 2012 climate regime. CSPR Report 08:01, Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Norrköping, Sweden. The report is available at www.cspr.se/publications About the author Eskil Mattsson is a PhD student in Geography at the Earth Sciences Centre, University of Gothenburg. The aim of his doctoral project is to investigate monitoring aspects to deforestation and degradation in developing countries, with a focus on Sri Lanka. Important methods are to use remote sensing application and forest inventory data and to apply the findings and their feasibility by following the international climate change negotiations regarding reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries (REDD). Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research The Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research is a joint venture between Linköping University and the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. We conduct interdisciplinary research on the consequences of climate change as well as measures to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases and ways to adapt society to a changing climate. Producing effective climate strategies presupposes that the climate issue is studied in its context with other measures for sustainable development, therefore the Centre also undertakes research on related environmental and resource issues. Our research spans international and global as well as Swedish conditions. For more information on our research and other publications please visit www.cspr.se Postal Address Linköping University Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research The Tema Institute SE-601 74 Norrköping Sweden Telephone + 46 (0)11 36 33 47 Telefax +46 (0)11 36 32 92 E-mail: [email protected] Report revised 2008-04-30 Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research ISSN 1654-9112 ISBN 978-91-7393-917-1 Abstract Tropical deforestation is the second leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions, after energy production, and is responsible for about 20-25 percent of all emissions. Proximate drivers to deforestation and forest degradation are agricultural expansion, wood extraction and infrastructure development. Quantifying green house gas emissions averted from reduced deforestation requires measurements of changes in forest cover and associated changes in carbon stocks. The uncertainties in emissions from deforestation remain large but have improved over the last years through the use of satellite remote sensing. Avoided deforestation – the idea that governments and forest owners are paid to prevent deforestation that would otherwise occur has become a key policy issue in the climate change negotiations. At the 11th Conference of the Parties several calls were expressed for inclusion of forests under Kyoto’s trading instruments. The Convention decided to evaluate the issue until the 13th Conference of the Parties in Bali, December 2007. The Convention has been engaged in intensive discussions about an instrument for reducing emissions from deforestation in a second commitment period post 2012. Parties and accredited observers were invited at two occasions to submit there views on this issue. A number of methodological issues have been addressed, including setting a baseline level and considering issues such as permanence and leakage. In 2007 there appears to be an emerging consensus among delegates and negotiators that a mixed approach may be required i.e. between a market- based approach and non-market based approach. All proposals have been an important input to policy-makers and delegates. There are substantial costs included to finance an avoided deforestation scheme; however these are over-bridged by the large mitigation potential resulting from reducing emissions from forest conservation at low costs. Developing countries that voluntarily joins an avoided deforestation compensation scheme can expect additional income if the policy schemes are developed appropriately. If necessary emission reductions of green house gases from deforestation are to be achieved without compromising prospects for economic and social development, compensation schemes have to be well-targeted, robust and benefit local communities. Developed countries can also support developing countries with technology transfer and capacity building in order to construct these avoided deforestation mechanisms. In Bali, delegates finally agreed to include emissions from tropical deforestation in the United Nations Framework on Climate Change and future climate change negotiations. Now, as part of the two-year Bali Action Plan, work is to begin to widen the discussion further in order to decide upon a sound compensation scheme at the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen 2009. 2 Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 6 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 7 1.1 OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 10 2. DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION ..................................................................................................... 10 2.1 FORCES BEHIND FOREST LOSS ............................................................................................................. 11 2.2 PROXIMATE CAUSES ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 UNDERLYING CAUSES ........................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 GOVERNED AND UNGOVERNED DEFORESTATION .............................................................................. 12 2.5 DEGRADATION ...................................................................................................................................... 13 3. UNCERTAINTIES IN MONITORING DEFORESTATION .......................................................... 14 3.1 EARTH OBSERVATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 14 3.2 CHALLENGES OF INTEGRATING DEFORESTATION INTO MARKETS ................................................... 15 3.2.1 UNCERTAINTIES IN CARBON MEASUREMENTS .................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 NON-PERMANENCE ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.2.3 ADDITIONALITY AND LEAKAGE ......................................................................................................... 16 3.2.4 BASELINES .......................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2.5 OTHER CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 COULD LOCAL COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM REDD? ..................................................................... 18 4. PROPOSALS FOR THE INCLUSION OF REDD MECHANISMS ............................................... 19 4.1 COMPENSATED REDUCTIONS .............................................................................................................. 20 4.2 JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE PROPOSAL ............................................................................................... 21 4.3 BRAZILIAN PROPOSAL ......................................................................................................................... 21 4.4 PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ...................................................................................... 22 4.5 RELATED COMPONENTS AND KEY ISSUES ........................................................................................... 22 5. WHICH SCHEMES WORK BEST? ................................................................................................... 24 5.1 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES WITH A MARKET-BASED APPROACH ............................................... 24 5.2 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES WITH A NON MARKET-BASED APPROACH ....................................... 25 6. HOW MUCH WOULD REDD COST? .............................................................................................. 26 7. RECENT DISCUSSIONS ON REDD ................................................................................................. 27 3 7.1 MEETINGS WITHIN UNFCCC ............................................................................................................. 27 7.2 COP 13 .................................................................................................................................................. 28 7.2.1 COP DECISION