Can Forests Save the Climate

1
Can Forests Save the Climate?

• by
• Arild Vatn
• Department of International Environmental and
  Development Studies
• Norwegian University of Life Sciences
• Presentation at the Thor Heyerdahl International
  Days 2009
• Larvik, October 28-29

2
Introduction

• Forests play an important role in the process of
  climate change
• Forests also play an important role in the
  international climate policy negotiations ?
  Copenhagen (Dec. 2009)
• Forests can be both sources and sinks of the
  climate gas CO2 (carbon dioxide). Growing forests
  accumulate CO2. If forests are burned CO2 is
  released. Cutting will also result in losses

Photo NASA
Photo Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson
3
Forests and the climate
4
Forests and the climate (cont.)Deforestation and
reforestation

• FAO (2005)

5
Forests and the climate (cont.)Carbon emissions
from forests
Based on IPCC 2007

• The losses from deforestation are uncertain
• Between 2000 and 2005 it is estimated that about
  13 mill. hectares of forests disappeared per
  year. This is on average between 1 and 1.5 of
  the forest area

6
Forests and the climate (cont.)Sources and sinks
(billion tons of carbon per year)
Source
CO2 flux (billion tons C y-1)
Time (y)
Based on Le Quéré, unpublished Canadell et al.
2007 and 2008
7
Forests and the climate (cont.)Sources and sinks
(billion tons of carbon per year)
Source
CO2 flux (billion tons C y-1)
Sink
Time (y)
Based on Le Quéré, unpublished Canadell et al.
2007 and 2008
8
Forests and the climate (cont.)Sources and sinks
(billion tons of carbon per year)
Source
CO2 flux (billion tons C y-1)
Sink
Time (y)
Based on Le Quéré, unpublished Canadell et al.
2007 and 2008
9
Forests in the present climate regime

• In the present climate regime the Kyoto
  protocol (1997 and onwards) forest projects are
  included under the so-called Clean Development
  Mechanism (CDM)
• This means that countries that have reduction
  responsi-bilities (Annex I countries (OECD
  countries with some notable exceptions like the
  US)) may buy reductions in developing countries
  as an alternative to cuts at home
• This concerns only so-called reforestation and
  afforestation (sinks). The parties to the Kyoto
  protocol has not be able to agree on the rules
  for including deforestation and forest
  degradation (source)

10
Forests in the present climate regime

• The amount of forest projects under CDM is low
  about 1 of the total. Projects on
  hydro-electric power, wind energy N2O and CFCs
  dominate
• Reason why there are so few forest projects
• Demanding to establish contracts institutional
  issues (land rights), securing additionality,
  securing permanence etc.
• The critical opinion against these projects
  eviction of people and reduced biodiversity
  (plantations)

11
The new agenda REDD

• REDD Reduced emissions from deforestation and
  forest degradation
• The idea of win-win-win Reduced emissions,
  reduced poverty and increased biodiversity
  protection
• It is one of the great challenges for the climate
  negotiations in Copenhagen (December 2009)
• Norway has played a core role in this process
  i.e., the Norwegian forest initiative. The
  climate agreement in the parliament including 15
  billion NOK to REDD over a five years period
• Important issues
• Why does deforestation and forest degradation
  happen
• The North South dimension
• The conflict over land
• The problems of base lines and leakage
• The ways of raising and distributing money

12
The new agenda REDD (cont.) Why deforestation
and forest degradation?

• There are three main processes behind
  deforesta-tion/degradation
• Agricultural expansions
• Collection of fuel wood
• Logging incl. illegal logging

13
The new agenda REDD (cont.) The North South
dimension

• The Stern (2007) report emphasized that REDD
  would be a cheap way to reduce climate gas
  emissions
• Raised the issue of whether the North should pay
  the South to reduce deforestation or rather do
  reductions at home. The South needs the forests
  for their develop-ment we have already cut
  ours. Economics vs. ethics

• The REDD way North pays the South to compensate.
  Who should be compen-sated (legitimacy)
• Poor people that lose their livelihoods
• Logging companies
• Countries that has not yet started to deforest.
• The potential perverse incentives in this

14
The new agenda REDD (cont.) The conflict over
land

• We need to reduce emissions of climate gases with
  about 80
• Land is now really becoming a scarce resource ?
  conflicts. Who has the capacity to pay? Cf.
  countries like Saudi-Arabia and China buying or
  leasing land in Africa and Latin-America
• We should increase food production till 2050 by
  100 (FAO 2009). 0ver one billion people are
  undernourished (2009). Population will increase
  till over 9 billion. Climate change seems to
  reduce our capacity to produce food (IFPRI 2009)

• We need areas to produce energy to substitute for
  fossil fuels. Land is an important factor here.
  To illustrate If that was to be covered by
  biofuels from agricultural land, it would demand
  grossly estimated about 8 times present areas
  of arable land

• We need to set aside more areas protect
  biodiversity
• We need to stop deforestation and increase forest
  areas to capture more CO2

15
The new agenda REDD (cont.) Baselines and
leakage

• What should the baseline be Should pay only for
  reduced deforestation that would not happen
  anyway
• How to avoid leakage If one pay for reducing
  deforest-ation at one place, it may just increase
  deforestation somewhere else
• Clear forests elsewhere to get land for
  agriculture
• Logging companies just move to another region,
  country
• Both these issues raises difficult questions for
  developing institutions for REDD the so-called
  REDD architecture including also the issues of
  fraud and corruption

16
The new agenda REDD (cont.) Raising and
distributing money

• The way money is raised and distributed may have
  substantial effects on what is obtained both
  concerning emissions, poverty reduction and
  biodiversity protection
• Raising money
• 1. Voluntary outside the climate agreement
  i.e., reductions added to those that countries
  accept when ratifying the international climate
  treaty
• 2. International carbon markets offering
  carbon credits
• a) A system like the Clean Development Mechanism
• b) International fund(s)
• Distributing money
• Actors in the North finance local REDD projects
  in the South (following 2a above)
• Actors in the North pay countries in the South to
  organize programs to combat deforestation
  either via a separate fund or as direct budget
  support (1 or 2b above)
• Differences concerning political legitimacy, the
  capacity to combat deforestation and reduce
  poverty

17
The new agenda REDD (cont.) Raising and
distributing money

• Setting up institutions for facilitating REDD is
  demanding
• One has either to build a market for a type of
  commodity that is both difficult to define and
  control, or establish systems for national
  administrations securing REDD activities on the
  ground
• Many not least the Norwegian parliament and
  press have expected that the Norwegian
  initiative would give quick actions on the ground
  it should be so cheap
• Instead one observes that a lot of structures
  need to be in place at both the international and
  national level to get the whole thing started
  e.g., the UN REDD readiness activities supporting
  countries in establishing national REDD policies
  and architectures

18
REDD a curse or blessing for the poor?

• Payments from North to South should be good
• There is, however, a danger of the South being
  trapped cf. not able to use the forest sector
  as an economic motor. Critics argue that the poor
  in the South looses access to necessary resources

19
REDD curse or blessing for the poor? (Cont.)

• Issues concerning internal distribution in
  developing countries
• Easy for funds to disappear on the way down
• Payments demand secure property rights these do
  often not exist. Forest land is dominantly owned
  by states. Local people only have user rights ?
  land grabbing, exclusion of the poor
• It is easier (cheaper per ton of CO2) to pay the
  larger land holders
• REDD is a new option for land use. The price of
  land will increase may affect the poorest
  segment negatively
• Relations to local values and norms
• A lot of care is demanded when building
  institutions to secure that the policy delivers
  well also concerning distributional issues. Here
  the fund model is better than the market solution

20
Can forests save the climate?

• Reduced deforestation is important to reach the
  goals for reduced climate gas emissions
• REDD can by far not solve the problem alone it
  must not be an excuse for not doing all the
  other things needed
• REDD raises also a series of questions concerning
  the relationships between North and South
• REDD is demanding to establish and run in a way
  that is legitimate and effective. REDD could and
  should be an important part of a future climate
  regime and even help reduce poverty. It may,
  however, also go very wrong