Reduced deforestation in developing countries as a means for combating global climate change Brent Swallow Global Coordinator, ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya Open seminar organized by the Finland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 7 February 2008, Helsinki, Finland
Background on Avoided deforestation: 1. important tropical deforestation contributes 17% of all GHG emissions Clean Development Mechanism has effectively excluded the forestry sector EU Emission Trading Scheme deliberately excludes forestry Tree planting comprises about 36% of the voluntary carbon market (Forest Trends) US forestry and agriculture allowed by the (low-priced) Chicago Climate Exchange
Background on Avoided deforestation: 2. back on the agenda in 2005-2006 Compensated reductions discussed seriously again in 2003 Avoided deforestation back on UNFCCC agenda in 2005 Huge emissions from deforestation of peatlands reported in 2006
Background on avoided deforestation: 3: Reduced Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries at COP 13 in Bali Avoided deforestation supported by most highlevel presentations at COP 13 in Bali. Indonesia had two-day side event to present results of its Indonesia Forest Climate Alliance CIFOR and the Collaborative Partnership on Forestry hosted Forest Day with over 800 participants REDD contact group met throughout COP13 Major concerns that REDD outside of negotiations that REDD will result in re-centralization of forest governance: Decision at COP13 supports: methodology development, lesson sharing, Demonstration activities, Sub-national projects within nationallevel accountability
Background: 4. important but (too) costly Cost of Abatement In Euro / tonne CO 2 eq 100 McKinsey Vattenfall 50 0 Medium cost low cost afforestation afforestation Sugarcane biofuel Efficient lighting, air 50 conditioning, heating 100 Building insulation Avoided deforestation Abatement beyond BAU (GtCO2eq per year in 2030) Obersteiner et al at IIASA adopt these suggestive numbers and argue that actual costs of REDD will be even higher because of difficulties in targeting low opportunity cost emissions.
Background: 5. important and potentially cost effective Stern Report identifies avoided deforestation as a cost-effective approach for achieving large reductions in GHGs, based on bottom up comparisons of returns to land. Chomitz in At Loggerheads, underlies Stern Report and draws heavily on previous ASB results. Woods Hole Research Centre results, show low opportunity costs associated with avoided deforestation in Brazilian Amazon
The ASB Partnership Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB) began in 1994 ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins in 2006 Network of international and national organizations known for sound comparative studies across the margins of the humid tropical forests Global Coordination Unit at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in Nairobi and regional coordination for SE Asia, Africa and the Amazon
Objectives of ASB collaborative study: Estimate opportunity costs of avoided deforestation for large multi-functional landscapes in the humid tropics Present results in the form of pollution abatement cost curves for comparison with other (net) emission reduction activities Help climate change negotiators and investors at national and international levels to have a more realistic understanding of the potential and challenges of REDD
100 Opportunity Cost of Abatement In $ / tonne CO 2 eq 50 0 Abatement beyond Business as Usual 50 100 Abatement costs = opportunity costs + transaction costs (info + contracting + enforcement) + costs of fixing policy and market distortions
Sites
Cameroon
Results for Ucalayi, Peru
Results for Cameroon
Results: Different land use and C dynamics in the two sites Very little land in cocoa agroforests despite apparent win-win Agr pressure in Awae: C loss Logging and outmigration in Akok: C gain
Overall Conclusions: (1) Farmers respond to market incentives in choices to shift to lower-carbon and higher-carbon land uses. (2) About 80% of emitting land-use changes in the study areas since 1990 could have been offset by payments of less than $5 / tonne. Large amounts less than $1 / tonne. (3) Future opportunity costs will depend on REDD incentives and land-use incentives. Large increases in farm price of biofuels may be a major threat to standing carbon, especially in areas with good market access.
Key messages: (1) Powerful economics driving deforestation and C losses. Markets for products, and lack of markets for C and other services, drive deforestation and afforestation. (2) Stern is rightthere are cost-effective opportunities for large reductions in CO2 emissions from avoided deforestation in the humid tropics, esp. in areas of low market access and certainly including Asia. (3) Peat forests and converted peatlands are the biggest bills left on the sidewalk : including conversion and use of peatlands (4) There are opportunities forever lost every day to reduce deforestation. Governments and other stakeholders should take positive pragmatic steps (eg bilateral deals for medium-term Carbon leases?) as they negotiate long-term agreements.
(5) Overall patterns of forest transition underlie C loss and gain in different locations defining opportunities for compensated reductions and need for accompanying measures. 1990 2005
For more information... www.asb.cgiar.org