Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
mechanism, monitoring and reporting/verification<br />
methodologies (see Parker et al. 2009 for a synopsis<br />
of REDD proposals).<br />
SCOPE OF REDD AND REDD-PLUS<br />
REWARDING BENEFITS THROUGH PAYMENTS AND MARKETS<br />
Box 5.11: The costs and benefits of reducing GHG emissions from deforestation<br />
Estimated costs of reducing emissions from deforestation vary across studies, depending on models and assumptions<br />
used. In comparison to GHG mitigation alternatives in other sectors, REDD is estimated to be a<br />
low-cost mitigation option (Stern 2006; IPCC 2007c).<br />
Eliasch (2008) estimated that REDD could lead to a halving of deforestation rates by 2030, cutting emissions<br />
by 1.5-2.7 Gt CO 2 /year and would require US$ 17.2 billion to US$ 33 billion/year. It estimated the long-term<br />
net benefit of this action at US$ 3.7 trillion in present value terms (this accounts only for the benefits of reduced<br />
climate change).<br />
A study from the Woods Hole Research Centre estimates that 94% of Amazon deforestation could be avoided<br />
at a cost of less than US$ 1 per tonne of carbon dioxide (Nepstad et al. 2007). Olsen and Bishop (2009) find<br />
that REDD is competitive with most land uses in the Brazilian Amazon and many land uses in Indonesia at a<br />
carbon price of less than US$ 5 per tonne of CO2 equivalent. Kindermann et al. (2008) estimate that a 50%<br />
reduction in deforestation in 2005-2030 could provide 1.5-2.7 Gt CO2 /year in emission reductions and would<br />
require US$ 17.2 billion to US$ 28 billion/year (see Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008 for a review of cost studies).<br />
Sources: Stern 2006; IPCC 2007a; Eliasch 2008; Nepstad et al. 2007;<br />
Kindermann et al. 2008; Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008<br />
A well-designed REDD mechanism that delivers real,<br />
measurable and long-term emission reductions from deforestation<br />
and forest degradation is expected to have<br />
significant positive impacts on biodiversity since a decline<br />
in deforestation and degradation implies a decline<br />
in habitat destruction, landscape fragmentation and biodiversity<br />
loss. At the global scale, Turner et al. (2007)<br />
examine how ecosystem services (including climate regulation)<br />
and biodiversity coincide and conclude that tropical<br />
forests offer the greatest synergy. These cover<br />
about 7% of the world’s dry land (Lindsey 2007) yet the<br />
world’s forests contain 80 to 90% of terrestrial biodiversity<br />
(FAO 2000). Targeting national REDD activities at<br />
areas combining high carbon stocks and high biodiversity<br />
can potentially maximise co-benefits (see Figure 5.8<br />
on Panama below) 8 .<br />
A REDD-Plus mechanism could have additional<br />
positive impacts on biodiversity if achieved<br />
through appropriate restoration of degraded forest<br />
ecosystems and landscapes. Afforestation and refo-<br />
restation (A/R) 9 activities can provide incentives to regenerate<br />
forests in deforested areas and increase connectivity<br />
between forest habitats. However, there is a<br />
need for safeguards to avoid potential negative effects.<br />
A/R activities under a future REDD mechanism that resulted<br />
in monoculture plantations could have adverse<br />
impacts on biodiversity: firstly, there are lower levels of<br />
biodiversity in monoculture plantations compared to<br />
most natural forest and secondly, the use of alien species<br />
could have additional negative impacts. Conversely,<br />
planting mixed native species in appropriate locations<br />
could yield multiple benefits for biodiversity. Plantations<br />
can also reduce pressures on natural forests for the supply<br />
of fuel and fibre.<br />
NATIONAL AND SUB-NATIONAL<br />
BASELINES/REFERENCE LEVELS<br />
Baselines provide a reference point against which to<br />
assess changes in emissions. Various proposals have<br />
been tabled for how these could be established for<br />
REDD at national, sub-national 10 and project levels.<br />
The accounting level selected has implications for ‘carbon<br />
leakage’ i.e. displacement of anthropogenic<br />
emissions from GHG sources to outside the accounting<br />
boundary, with deforestation and/or forest degradation<br />
increasing elsewhere as a result. Such leakage<br />
<strong>TEEB</strong> FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 5: PAGE 25