Why forests matter? Why deforestation?

31%of the land is covered by forests

1.6 billionpeople rely on forests

1/4

3.3 billion m3of pharmaceutical drugs come from forests

of wood is generated in forests

36football fields are lost every minute

17%of the Amazon forest has been lost

15%

80%of all greenhouse gases emissions

of documented species is found in tropical forests

Other* Pasture

Logging

Small-scale agriculture

Large-scale agriculture

1010

20

20

40

ILLEGAL LOGGING

FIRE

FUELWOOD HARVESTING

*

REDD or dead? What does + stand for?

‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.

"REDD+" goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.’

UN definition

20051997 2009

2001 2007 2010

Adoption of Kyoto Protocol

Provision related to forest-related

sinks

Montreal Copenhagen

Marrakesh Accords

Bali Action Plan Cancun

REDD proposed for negotiations

Reconfirmation on REDD+

importance

Defined rules for land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)

Development from REDD to

REDD+

Proposal on specific work to

implement REDD+

2013

Warsaw Framework

7 decisions on REDD+ incl. result-driven

finance, monitoring system

2011Durban

Guidance on providing information regarding

forest related emissions

UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCES

A climate change mitigation solution that many initiatives are currently developing

Most cost effective way of stabilising the atmospheric concentration of GG emissions

Dualistic: Saving the planet & making money for developing nations

Not a panacea for combating climate change and it must co-exist with other significant emissions reductions

New future for carbon markets? Will it work?

1. A country slows down forest destruction

2. Country receives payment for reducing

carbon pollution

3. Country funds further forest preservation and job

creation

Trees are made of carbon

Deforestation raises carbon

into the atmosphere

If tropical forest countries slow

down forest destruction (CO2 emissions), they

receive payments

Countries invest that money to conserve the

forests and create jobs for local

people.

Industrialised countries will pay developing countries to keep forests standing, in order for them to act as a ‘carbon sink’.

To succeed, a number of stakeholders (government, international institutions, NGOs, local representatives, local farmers and labourers) must work together.

70,000 people directly benefiting from projects

More than 4 milion tons reduced since 2009

139 red list species habitat protected

14 million hectares of forests under protectionAround 73 REDD+ projects in 24 countries

validated

CUMMULATIVE MARKET VALUE OF FOREST CARBON MARKETS (US$MM)

EU50%

USA30%

Other20%

REDD+ projects are being included in national development programs by developing and testing forest monitoring

Projects are seen as beneficial for numerous actors

BUYERS

Community consultation is believed to assure informed consent of impacted people

Can we see forest from the trees?

DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT

Vast and complex in nature; Non functional

governance systems; Inadequate

infrastructure.

OWNERSHIP DISAGREEMENT

Unclear who owns the forests.

DISRUPTING LIVELIHOOD

Restricting access to forests disrupts local (often poor) people.

ALLOCATING FUNDS

Who receives money and how is it spent?

RE-CENTRALISING FOREST

MANAGEMENT: EXCLUDING LOCALS

New demands on national forest

managers; Exclusion of the local users that

need funds.

IGNORING OTHER GG FACTORS

North is to continue industrial growth whilst developing countries pay the

price.

IT IS NOT PARTICIPATORY

No discussions with local people.

COMMERCIALIZATION IS NON ETHICAL

Equalizing environmental

protection with economic

transactions.

CONTRIBUTING TO

URBANISATION

It will force local people to migrate to

cities.

Can we see forest from the trees?

Deforestation and forest degradation need to be tackled and the mismanagement of forests is having a detrimental effect on human induced climate change.

It is promising that global institutions such as the UN & World Bank agree that deforestation must be addressed at the global policy level.

On paper and in theory, REDD+ definitely addresses pressing issues regarding climate change and would certainly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions if implemented correctly.

REDD+ obscures the fundamental problem of climate change and its core roots in the north. Unless the big industrialised nations in the north reduce their emissions, climate change will not abate. Because REDD+ is such a vast and complex initiative, it lacks transparency and is corruptible at many levels.

As opposed to being participatory, REDD+ is likely to exclude local and indigenous people from the forests on which they rely to sustain their livelihoods, which will worsen poverty and deepen inequality.

If REDD+ is to be a success for all, it is imperative that forests are not completely shut off from indigenous peoples and preserved purely as ‘carbon sinks’. Agreements with local people must be negotiated in regards to sustainable forest usage, to ensure that the forests are both protected and available to be used to sustain the livelihoods of the local populace.

REFERENCESKühne, Kjell (2011) Why REDD+ is Dangerous (in its current form). [Online] Available from: http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/02/05/why-redd-is-dangerous-in-its-current-form/ [Accessed on 14th March 2014]

Laurence, William F. (2008) Can Carbon Trading Save Vanishing Forests? Bioscience, 58 (4): 286-287

Peters-Stanley, M., Hamilton, K., & Yin, D. (2012) Leveraging the landscape: State of the forest carbon markets 2012. Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace. [Online] Available from: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_3242.pdf [Accessed on 14th March 2014]

Phelps, Jacob, Webb, Edward L., and Agrawal, Arun (2010) Does REDD+ Threaten to Recentralize Forest Governance? Science, New Series, 328 (5976): 312-313

Schneider, Gia, Thomas, William L., and Vitale, Benjamin (2009) Banking on the Environment: Profiting from Investment in REDD. Natural Resources and Environment, 24 (1): 14-17

USEFUL WEBSITESCentre For International Forestry Research: Youtube video ‘Getting REDD+ to work’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ZlvTsA-UY

REDD-monitor.org: http://www.redd-monitor.org/redd-an-introduction/

Forest Carbon Partnership: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org

Global Justice Ecology: Youtube video ‘A darker shade of green: REDD alert and the future of forests’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPFPUhsWMaQ

UN-REDD programme: http://www.un-redd.org/aboutredd/tabid/102614/default.aspx

WWF: Deforestation https://worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation

Forest Trends http://www.forest-trends.org/

Conservation International http://www.conservation.org/Pages/default.aspx