COP (18) OUT?

The UN climate summit is under way in Doha, Qatar (the nation with the highest per-capita carbon emissions in the world no less) and the heat is on to set up a new international climate agreement.  It is becoming increasingly unlikely that global warming will be kept below 2°C according to Peters et al (2012), highlighting the urgency that a deal be reached. However, with key countries including the USA, Russia and Japan refusing to sign up to a second commitment period for emissions reductions and tension running high in a row over carbon credits the outlook does not look good. REDD+ is one of the topics on the table for discussion but there are already signs that formal inclusion may be pushed back another year.

The climate change talks are taking place in Doha, Qatar. Photograph: Osama Faisal/AP 

Taken from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/29/climate-change-catastrophe-cop18-doha

Part of the dispute is over the need for a robust Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system for emissions reductions under REDD+ programs. It is essential that carbon estimates are accurate in order for carbon credits to be meaningful and for REDD+ to have any mitigating effects. Plugge et al (2012) outline the difficulties in estimating carbon stocks and the costs involved, suggesting that countries that already have low deforestation rates are unlikely to benefit from REDD+. This is because the set-up costs to accurately monitor carbon stocks would outweigh any potential financial gains. For an overview of the methods available to estimate carbon stocks see “Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality” (Gibbs et al 2007). Ranging from ground-based measurements to satellite remote sensing, a combined approach is usually the most effective. When there are uncertainties in carbon estimates the principle of conservativeness (yes I agree, a ridiculous word) should be invoked to minimise the chance of overestimating emissions reductions (Grassi et al 2008), further reducing the financial incentives associated with adopting REDD+ schemes.

The talks have a few days to run and if countries are willing to make compromises there is still a chance that an effective climate deal may be thrashed out. However, the part that REDD+ will play in mitigating climate change is becoming increasingly uncertain. Stay tuned to find out.

Russian Roulette

“Put starkly, current emissions pathways risk playing Russian roulette with the world’s largest forest. We can’t just wait and see because there is no going back. We won’t know we have passed the point where the Amazon turns from a sink to a source until afterwards, when it will be too late.”

Simon Lewis, 2011

I came across this quote while browsing the excellent blog http://www.redd-monitor.org/ which tracks REDD+ in the news. It raises the worrying point that with rising global temperatures a climate “tipping point” will be reached when forests will switch from being a CO₂ sink to become a CO₂ source. This is described by Phillips et al (2008) who used long-term forest plots to monitor changes in tree growth. They found that forest dynamics (growth rate, recruitment rate, death rate etc) have accelerated through the 80s and 90s, most likely driven by increased atmospheric CO_2. They highlight the Amazon’s sensitivity to atmospheric changes and warn that in the future temperature increases will increase photorespiration and tree mortality which both release carbon into the atmosphere. There may also be compositional shifts towards faster-growing species which tend to have lower wood density and therefore contain less carbon.

 Graphic from Lewis et al 2011 showing the extent of the 2005 and 2010 Amazon droughts

These changes may already be happening. The Amazon experienced two severe droughts in 2005 and 2010 (illustrated above) which caused widespread tree mortality and carbon losses. Droughts also increase the risk of forest fires. The 2005 and 2010 droughts have been linked to anomalous elevated sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the North Atlantic (Lewis et al 2011) and under future warming scenarios such droughts are predicted to become more frequent. Elsewhere, a short study by Lindroth et al (1998) observed Swedish boreal forest acting as a net source of CO₂. Worrying indeed.

This potential transition from forest friend to forest foe brings me to another excellent blog, The Global Mirror, written by Cathy Granneman, and in particular her recent post on forest albedo. To put it bluntly reading it made me feel slightly how I felt when I finished reading And Then There Were None or The Hollow Man for that matter: mind = blown. To summarise, forests are generally dark and have lower albedo than other biomes which mean they reflect less insolation. This warming effect, although compensated to some extent by evaporative cooling, has the potential to offset any benefits from carbon sequestration, particularly in boreal regions. Research by Gibbard et al (2005) simulated global land cover change with unconstrained SSTs and found that if all current vegetation across the globe was replaced by trees there would be a global mean warming of 1.6°C! This is clearly an unrealistic scenario but highlights that a lot more research is required before blindly relying on forest carbon storage to mitigate global warming.

It is undoubtedly a tricky one. Unlike in a detective novel we can’t flick to the end and see how it all works out. The future is far from certain but we should use the evidence available to us and try our damned hardest not to get shot in the head.

The mother of all threats

Barack Obama is safely installed back at the helm of the world’s largest global economy just days after Hurricane Sandy brutally forced the issue of climate change back into the limelight. There have since been rumblings of hope that now may be the time for the USA to tackle this “mother of all threats” and Al Gore, a renowned climate champion, has called for Obama to introduce a carbon tax.

This raises the question, that if something should be done, who should be doing it? Following a recent comment I wanted to elaborate a little further about where the burden of responsibility lies, and to what extent the REDD+ approach is really equitable.

Flooded streets under Manhattan Bridge in Brooklyn illustrate New York’s growing vulnerability to destructive storm surges. B. MATTHEWS/AP

http://www.nature.com/news/hurricane-sweeps-us-into-climate-adaptation-debate-1.11753

For starters REDD+ schemes by their very nature involve developed countries instructing developing countries on how to best manage their natural resources. This is slightly ironic really given that we have guzzled, burnt and flattened our own landscapes throughout the course of history. This aside, is it really ethical for the people with the cash to carry on, business as usual, and expect those living in some of the world’s poorest regions to change their livelihoods and restrict development in order to solve a problem that wasn’t even caused by them in the first place?

In a word, no. But the reality is that the forests with the greatest potential for carbon sequestration are in the tropics (see my previous post) and so if we want to save these forests and their troves of carbon then it is essential to engage with the people living in these regions. However, it is vital that developed countries also make meaningful changes and cut domestic CO₂ emissions. Worryingly, there is a danger that REDD+ schemes may reduce incentives for such action.

To avoid this Maslin and Scott advocate “robust ceilings on the use of REDD+ credits in domestic carbon markets”. In other words there should be a limit on how many carbon credits can be used to meet emissions targets.  They also emphasise the importance of “shared responsibility”. We are all in this together, as the image above illustrates all too well.

Norway – a case study

I love Norway. All those beautiful fjords, a fantastic welfare state and world leaders in the renewable energy industry (99% of mainland electricity is generated from hydropower plants). They have also just announced they are doubling the carbon tax on the North Sea oil industry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/11/norway-carbon-tax-oil). The funds generated from this will be used to establish a fund to tackle the impacts of climate change in developing countries and also combat deforestation.

Sognefjord, Norway. What’s not to love?

Norway was also one of the first countries to initiate a REDD scheme with the “groundbreaking” Oslo Pact formalised in May 2011. This deal between Norway and Indonesia could see Indonesia (the world’s 3^rd largest emitter of greenhouse gases) earn up to $1billion for forest conservation and reduction of deforestation. The crux of the pact is a 2-year suspension of new logging permits for carbon-rich peatlands and old-growth forests. The funds from this scheme will be used to develop infrastructure to monitor and protect forests, and reduce illegal logging.

However, some people are more cynical about this “landmark” agreement. Clements et al (2010) explain their reasons for “cautious optimism”. For a start Indonesia has a poor history of sticking to conservation commitments. A pledge to ban expansion of oil-palm plantations on peatlands in 2007 was scrapped just 2 years later, allowing an area of 2 million hectares (equivalent to 2 million rugby pitches) to be cleared. A similar plan to reduce the number of forest fires also failed. Furthermore money in Indonesia’s Reforestation Fund has, more often the not, been spent on projects unrelated to reforestation. Finally this pact only applies to “new” permits, and land already destined for conversion to plantations will not be protected.

Edwards et al (2012) also have reservations, particularly the fact that the area of forest protected under the scheme is tiny in comparison with the area that can continue to be exploited. The moratorium specifically applies to “old-growth” forest, excluding a much larger area of selectively-logged forest which may have high biodiversity and carbon stocks. A large portion of the protected “old-growth” forest is in mountainous areas and unlikely to be under threat, potentially violating the requirement of “additionality” for REDD to be effective.

So is it all a waste of time? I don’t think so. There are clearly lessons to be learned but the Norwegian-Indonesian partnership is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It is now time for other nations to follow Norway’s lead. 

Getting real about REDD+

Having set out the ideas behind REDD+ in my last post, I am now going to explore some of the factors that may constrain its potential to be a real “silver bullet” for tackling climate change. The 2012 review paper “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+): game changer or just another quick fix?” by Venter and Koh is an excellent overview of the potential limitations of REDD+. I will briefly explain summarise their key concerns:

• Carbon markets - these are divided into compliance markets (where buyers are legally-obliged to reduce emissions) and voluntary markets (where buyers are making a choice to offset). REDD+ carbon credits are currently excluded from the compliance markets meaning they cannot be purchased to meet emissions-reduction targets agreed by the UNFCCC in the Kyoto Protocol, as was initially hoped. Despite this, there is still wide-spread support, and the REDD+ Partnership (http://reddpluspartnership.org/en/) has 75 member countries to date, with hope that REDD+ will be included in a post-2012 international climate agreement.

• Additionality – the reduction in emissions must be “additional” to any that would occur in the absence of REDD+ financing to prevent surplus carbon credits from flooding the market which may in turn lead to a net increase in emissions. To avoid this it is essential to set appropriate reference levels of deforestation – this can pose a challenge in itself (Sloan and Pelletier, 2012).

• Leakage – this is when conservation of forest and carbon saving in one location results in intensification of deforestation elsewhere so there is no net benefit.

• Permanence – conservation of habitat is the short-term does not mean that it may not be lost in the future.

• Fraudulence – due to the financial gains involved, there is an incentive for carbon sequestration rates to be overestimated. Careful monitoring by independent organisations is needed to avoid the creation of fictitious carbon credits.

• Socioeconomic considerations – application of REDD+ may constrain community development through reducing employment and revenue generation opportunities for people living in and beyond the REDD+ affected area. To prevent this safeguards have been included in policy negotiations stating that REDD+ activities must be “undertaken in accordance with national development priorities” and “in the context of sustainable development and reducing poverty” but there is still opposition from various centres.

 A recent protest in California against REDD+ (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/10/17/18723986.php)

This brings us to the question, what is it all for? If the whole point of REDD+, and climate change mitigation activities in general, is to benefit and sustain human lives in the long-term by maintaining a habitable planet, then is it counter-intuitive for such schemes to be detrimental/disruptive to human societies in the short-term?

A recent article on “The challenge of assessing social dimensions of avoided deforestation: Examples from Cambodia” specifically addresses the socioeconomic concerns of REDD+. The author highlights the importance of secure resource rights and tenure, specifically for indigenous communities, plus the necessity of equitable distribution of financial benefits. The increased land value added by REDD+ could result in governments or businesses taking control of forests previously accessed and used by local people, resulting in conflicts at the local level which have the potential to undermine REDD+. The article calls for better frameworks for assessing the social impacts in order for REDD+ to be a success. These issues must be resolved if REDD+ is to have any meaningful role in helping to combat climate change.

Get cape. Wear cape. Fly. An introduction to REDD+

Captain Planet is the ultimate superhero as far as I am concerned. His mission is to save the world from environmental destruction, and his catchy theme song includes the lyrics “Captain Planet, he's our hero, Gonna take pollution down to zero.” Marvellous.

However, since he doesn't actually exist we need to come up with our own inventive ways to combat anthropogenic climate change. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one such idea that has emerged from international climate talks and is rapidly taking off the ground. It was first introduced in 2005 at the annual COP meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This 4-minute video is a clear (if slightly biased) summary of REDD+: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbQAxYqC0JE

Basically REDD+ is a market-based scheme offering financial incentives to people in developing countries not to deforest. The premise is that with REDD+ in place carbon that would have otherwise ended up in the atmosphere remains stored in the intact forest and this stored carbon is given a monetary value. Industrialised countries can purchase carbon credits as one way to offset their emissions. REDD+ is seen by some as a panacea – a way to combat climate change, save biodiversity and alleviate global poverty all in one hit. Win-win.

But some are more sceptical about what REDD+ may actually be able to achieve in practice. Can it really be a useful mechanism, or is it the equivalent to pinning all our hopes on a fictitious Captain Planet? I will explore these questions further in my next post so watch this space....

The Case Of The Missing Carbon Sink

Sounding like the sort of mystery Sherlock Holmes might resort to solving during a slow week for the detective industry, this puzzle actually has far greater importance for humanity than might first meet the eye.

Humans are doing their utmost to pollute, spewing out an estimated 8 billion tonnes of carbon each year. However, on average only 3.2 billion tonnes of this accumulates in the atmosphere. Good news for us, but where does the rest of it go? The oceans are absorbing around 2.2 billion tonnes (creating a whole new problem of ocean acidification, but that’s another story….), and terrestrial sinks, predominantly forests, account for the rest. So what exactly is all the fuss about?

Well the problem lies with the fact that scientists weren’t sure which trees were taking up all this carbon. Conventional carbon models predicted that over 90% of the 2.6 billion tonnes of terrestrially sequestered carbon were being taken up by forests in the mid to high latitudes, but no evidence could be found to support this level of net carbon uptake.

 (http://www.fao.org/forestry/32194/en/)

In 2007 a group of scientists led by Britton Stephens in Colorado published a paper in Science which revealed that most conventional atmospheric carbon models do not properly reflect vertical mixing through the atmosphere and this was producing misleading results. According to their findings, tropical ecosystems were in fact much stronger carbon sinks than had been previously thought.

HOWEVER, another twist came along in 2011 when Pan et al asserted that despite tropical forests having the highest carbon uptake rates, due to high levels of deforestation and the associated emissions, tropical forests were rendered effectively carbon neutral. In other words deforestation in the tropics is especially destructive since the potential carbon sequestration is much higher than elsewhere. In terms of the global carbon cycle the tropics are no longer acting as a sink for carbon,  and the "missing carbon sink" may reside in boreal and temperate forests after all…

There is still debate about this, but the bottom line is that forests around the globe are currently saving our skins by slowing the rate of atmospheric change. So how about the fact we’re cutting down 13 million hectares of forests a year? Shooting ourselves in the foot doesn't even cover it.