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.

If you go down to the woods today you’re sure of a big surprise….

The extensive deforestation that has occurred and is still occurring across the planet is widely reported in the press, often accompanied by emotive images of ravaged and frequently charred and fire-scarred landscapes. People know that it is a problem. However, it can sometimes be hard to envisage the scale of the destruction. We’re talking about more than a few football pitches here. These images show the extent of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in Rondônia, western Brazil. The picture on the left was taken in 1975 and the picture on the right in 2012, both captured by NASA’s Landsat satellites.

(http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Gallery/landsat.php)

Trees are cut down for timber and fuel and land is cleared to make way for agriculture and settlements. The consequences of habitat destruction on such a large scale will not only affect the forest inhabitants, although the consequences for biodiversity are acute. Deforestation may account for 12% of annual anthropogenic CO₂ emissions according to Van der Werf et al (2009), and the IPCC put the figure as high as one third. Either way, it is clear that if we are seriously going to try and limit global climate change deforestation cannot be ignored.

Finally I want to say a few words about Barry Commoner, an inspirational environmental scientist who died a few days ago, and someone, I am sorry to confess, I had not heard about until today. A pioneer of modern ecology, Commoner was early to recognise the harm that human activities are having on the planet and made it his life’s work to bring environmental issues to the forefront of public and political consciousness. I think we can all learn something from Commoner’s life philosophy which I think is summed up with this gem from The Independent: “He did not bother to iron his shirts, to save electricity”. Sounds like a legend.