Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

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