Belize, Bolivia, Indonesia, Brazil, Norway Tropical deforestation = 20-25% of annual GHG emissions (1990s thru today) Releasing huge amounts of CO2 Brazil and Indonesia Deforestation emissions together during next 4 years = All reductions mandated by Kyoto Protocol Roughly equivalent to all emissions from global transport Sector (Stern Report 2006) Tropical forests offer the "single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions? UK Stern Report, 2006 [quick and cheap] Old growth forests are ?carbon heavy? e.g. Tambopata 290-400 tons C/ha Like big saturated sponges holding on to a lot, so if you cut or burn it you release a lot Young forests absorb Carbon quickly, 8-12 tons/ha/yr Tambopata Don?t hold as much but absorb really fast Type 1. Avoided deforestation projects. Pay to protect a forest that was going to be logged My making the payment they ?earn? the right to release carbon Type 2. Reforestation and Restoration projects. Count its success as credit for how much CO2 you want to emit Why target the tropics for forest carbon sequestration projects? Deforestation fastest in tropics Young tropical forests absorb carbon fastest e.g. WI: 1-2 tons/ha/yr vs. Tambopata 8-12 tons/ha/yr Land is cheaper in tropics. Money can go further than in the US Ecological rationale: most carbon heavy forests found in the tropics International policy context During Kyoto Protocol, 2 limits on forest projects: 1. Forests were part of Flexibility mechanisms. Each Annex 1 country could use flexibility mechanisms for ~5% of emissions reductions. 2. Only reforestation and plantation projects were allowed. No avoided deforestation. Concern about moral hazard. International policy context Post Kyoto Protocol: Seeing REDD? REDD = Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries Likely to be major part of post-Kyoto strategies. Political criticisms ?Carbon colonialism? , i.e. 1. Threaten sovereignty of developing countries 2. Threaten rights of local resource users, 3. Example of industrial countries forcing their agenda on the south Technical criticisms Deforestation may be displaced elsewhere thus no net reduction in GHG emissions Leakage - doesn?t matter where carbon is stored or emitted, if you store it in one place and the loggers move elsewhere you aren?t conserving the total? 2. GHG stored in forests is insecure, fire, storms or war could undermine sequestration plans 3. Amount of GHG stored in forests is negligible compared to amount emitted by industrial countries burning fossil fuels Aren?t enough forests around to be able to offset the huge amount of carbon emissions Case study 1: Rio Bravo, Belize ?eco-topia? Rio Bravo Reserve. Really small population Ecotourism is a big part Was originally privately owned but then? Industrial agriculture surrounding Rio Bravo Last part of land went up for auction and Coca-Cola wanted to buy it to make it a citrus plantation for minute maid Key Players Programme for Belize (local Non-profit organization) Concerned about biodiversity, called TNC The Nature Conservancy Helped find a donor to help but the remaining land and protect it Wisconsin Electric Goal: avoid emitting 8.8 million tons of carbon dioxide over 40 years; $5.6 million total investment WI Electric annual emissions 26 million tons/year Result: WE wanted strict preservation but indigenous people have historically used the land; some added for forest preservation, low impact logging, forest products harvesting, training Side Benefits Local jobs Access to game, medicinal, fiber Biodiversity conservation Cultural artifacts Case study 2: Noel Kempff National Park, Bolivia A Little bit of a larger project Chunk of rainforest about to be auctioned off to loggers Key Players Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza (Bolivan NGO) Concerned with biodiversity again The Nature Conservancy Intermediary again U.S. energy companies (CT, MA, RI) Goals Protect 1.5 million hectares of tropical forest 5.8 million tons of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years. $9.6 million Problems: conflict with indigenous community, they objected to park and restrictions on their agriculture; no longer allowed to practice shifting ag, living in really poor conditions Comparing Belize, Bolivia & (proposed) Brazil REDD projects Belize Bolivia Brazil (proposed, see*Belize total higher for smaller area due to assumption that ALL forest in project would be clearcut for agriculture vs. Bolivia where only some of forest would have been damaged by logging.
Want to see the other 3 page(s) in 5/1: PAYING FOR TROPICAL FORESTS TO STORE CARBON?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!