9 June 2015 | BONN | Germany | Everyone got enough of what they wanted here this week for negotiators meeting under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) to agree on a draft text for REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation of forests).
The text is available here, and was approved by the REDD+ Contact Group this afternoon, after SBSTA negotiators last night reached agreement on the three final issues: safeguards, non-carbon benefits, and non-market approaches.
Still unresolved, however, is whether industrial countries can incorporate REDD+ into their national climate action plans, or "Intended Nationally-Determined Contributions" (INDCs), in such a way that they can offset their greenhouse gas emissions by slowing deforestation in developing countries. That question is being addressed in the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), which is the central negotiating track, and won't be resolved until year-end talks in Paris.
Check back shortly for details on how the outstanding issues were resolved.
Governments around the world will have pledged more than $7 billion to support "REDD", which is an acronym for "Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation" of forests. The acronym covers a broad set of activities that aim to slow climate change by saving endangered forests and keeping carbon locked in trees. In this series, we examine the history of REDD and the evolving role of indigenous people.
NOTE: This story is a work-in-progress, and will be further developed in the coming months. Anyone interested in discussing the early days of REDD is encouraged to contact Steve Zwick at SZwick@ecosystemmarketplace.com.
3 June 2015 | By all accounts, REDD was born in 1988 – not so much to save the planet as to help poor farmers in Guatemala manage their land more sustainably. It's germination, however, began three decades earlier, in 1958, at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. That's where the late American scientist Charles Keeling started measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – an exercise that eventually yielded the "Keeling Curve": a diagonal line that zigzags upwards as CO2 levels increase year-to-year.
The upward slant continues to this day, while the zigzags reflect the rhythm of farms and forests in the Northern Hemisphere coming alive in summer, when they sponge up CO2, and falling dormant in the winter. If this natural rythm had such a pronounced effect on the atmosphere, scientists began to wonder, what impact does rampant deforestation have? How much of our greenhouse gasses come from industrial emissions, and how much form chopping trees?
Scientists had known about the greenhouse effect since the early 1900s, when Swedish scientist Svante August Arrhenius dubbed it the "hot-house" effect, but Keeling's curve showed that CO2levels were rising faster than most believed. As the curve continued to climb over the ensuing decades, so did interest in climate change.
By the early 1970s, scientists were beginning to see climate change as a very real but distant threat – one that would eventually force us to completely restructure our industrial economy. Physicist Freeman Dyson was one of those who decided to get ahead of the challenge by looking for workable solutions.
"Suppose that, with the rising level of CO2, we run into an acute ecological disaster," he wrote in a 1977 article entitled "Can We Control the Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere?", published in the journal Energy. "Would it then be possible for us to halt or reverse the rise in CO2 within a few years by means less drastic than the shutdown of industrial civilization?"
His conclusion: yes, it would be possible to slow climate change by planting trees – but not as a permanent solution. Instead, he saw trees as a short-term, stopgap measure that would slow the process long enough for technology to catch up.
"The long-term response, if such a catastrophe becomes imminent, must be to stop burning fossil fuels and convert our industry to renewable photosynthetic fuels, nuclear fuels, geothermal heat and direct solar-energy conversion," he continued. "But a world-wide shift from fossil to non-fossil fuels could not be carried out in a few years… An emergency plant-growing program would provide the necessary short-term response to hold the CO2 at bay while the shift away from fossil fuels is being implemented."
Meanwhile, in 1974, humanitarian organization CARE had launched a program called Mi Cuenca (My Watershed) to help Guatemalan farmers save their topsoil – in part by planting rows of trees on steep farmland to capture runoff and create natural terraces. The project soon became an unqualified success, and farmers across the region were clamoring to join, but by 1988 CARE was running out of money, and the project was on its last leg.
That same year, the United Nations launched the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to explore the science of global warming, while an energy executive named Roger Sant started looking to expand his company's output – preferably by building wind farms. A proponent of green energy in the Carter Administration, Sant had co-founded a company called Applied Energy Services (AES), in part with the objective of making green energy work.
Wind-farm technology, however, wasn't what it is today, so Sant asked the World Resources Institute (WRI) if there was a way to offset his emissions by reducing them somewhere else – a radical concept at the time. WRI picked up Dyson's idea – which other scientists had since moved forward – and suggested he plant trees across the United States. That quest found its way to Paul Faeth, an agricultural engineer with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), which was in the process of merging into WRI.
Faeth knew of Mi Cuenca's plight, and he proposed killing two birds with one stone: by planting trees in Guatemala, he said, AES could help both the environment and the rural poor.
Intrigued, AES began working with WRI to explore the science of carbon accounting – science that had, ironically, been perfected by timber companies to estimate the amount of wood in a forest. It was a simple but labor-intensive process that involved measuring trees at chest-height and then applying "allometric equations" based on the trees' species and circumference to see how much wood they contained. From there, it was simple math to extrapolate the amount of carbon: basically, divide the wood by two.
But there was more to it than just the carbon in the newly-planted trees.
Researchers at the time were estimating that deforestation contributed about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions – estimates that have since been confirmed by the IPCC. That meant you could reduce greenhouse gas emissions faster by saving endangered forests than by planting new trees, which would need decades to get big enough to matter. Plus, living forests provide habitat for endangered species and deliver "ecosystem services" such as water filtration and climate control. On top of that, saving forests seemed inexpensive.
WRI had just hired a policy analyst named Mark Trexler, who pointed out that any trees they planted on the slopes would also save endangered forest further up, because farmers wouldn't have to keep abandoning their land for greener pastures. That, he argued, was more important from a carbon perspective than planting trees – especially if many of the newly-planted trees ended up being cut down to supply farmers' immediate needs. He proposed focusing their attention on saving the trees
In the end, AES decided to spend $2 million to save and expand Mi Cuenca to offset 2 million tons of its own internal CO2 emissions. CARE re-named the project "Mi Bosque" (My Forest), and today their experiment is considered by some to be the world's first REDD project. Although a later analysis found it drastically over-estimated the amount of carbon that was kept out of the atmosphere, it sparked the decade of experimentation that led to the creation of today’s rigorous carbon standards.
The project caught the eye of The Nature Conservancy, and pilot projects started proliferating across Latin America. The term "REDD" wouldn't enter the vernacular for another 15 years, but NGOs began developing structured, methodological approaches to "Avoided Deforestation" (AD), which became a hot topic at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, as well as at the First Conference of the Parties (COP 1) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Berlin in 1995.
As climate talks progressed, analysts like Trexler and ecologists like Tia Nelson of The Nature Conservancy argued for the inclusion of REDD in the UNFCCC framework as a critical means of immediately dampening the rise in greenhouse gases.
On the REDD front, proposals ranged from "project-based" frameworks like Mi Bosque to "national baseline frameworks" using a country's historic rate of deforestation as a performance baseline and then offering payments for beating it.
The proposals, unfortunately, found little traction – for a variety of reasons. To begin with, few climate negotiators had a forestry background, so the science was lost on them. Furthermore, "offsetting" had become equated with "incentivizing industrial reductions", and most environmental organizations were horrified by the idea of cheap offsets, which they feared would flood the market and remove the incentive to change industrial practices. Finally, developing countries – still mindful of their recent colonial past – feared that REDD would cost them control of their forests. On top of all that, no one really agreed on how best to determine which forest was in danger and which was not.
As a result, when the Kyoto Protocol emerged from COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, REDD was off the UN table and relegated to voluntary markets, where it continued to evolve at the pilot scale under real-world conditions.
Over the next 15 years, standard-setting bodies like the Verified Carbon Standard and the American Carbon Registry emerged to provide ways of determining which forest was endangered and which procedures can be used to save it. At the same time, the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance emerged to ensure indigenous rights, and forest communities that embraced REDD found themselves able to earn income from their stewardship of the land.
Within the UNFCCC, however, REDD remained on ice until 2005. That's when Papua New Guinea wrangled it back onto the agenda at Climate Talks in Montreal (COP 11). In 2010, REDD was the sole bright spot in the otherwise dismal Copenhagen Accord. By 2011, governments around the world were harvesting the lessons of voluntary REDD pilot project developers and offset buyers to launch larger-scale regional REDD programs that accounted for avoided deforestation at the "jurisdictional" scale but still allowed early pilot projects to generate emissions reductions and earn offsets and revenue (i.e. "nest") within their borders. The UNFCCC and World Bank, however, steered clear of anything involving offsets and drifted toward purely jurisdictional approaches that left individual projects in limbo. (If that seems like a lot to swallow, keep reading the articles that follow.)
Then, at the 2013 climate talks in Warsaw, the UNFCCC finally agreed on a REDD Rulebook for jurisdictional REDD. Technically, it's not a book, but a collection of seven decisions that provide guidance on how countries can harvest available data to earn REDD income. The Rulebook's provisions for program development are significantly less rigorous than the standards imposed on voluntary projects, but the payments into jurisdictional programs aren't offsets – meaning countries can't claim to have reduced their own carbon footprint. Instead, jurisdictional programs are increasingly seen as "payments for performance" that could slow deforestation by supporting sustainable agriculture – while at the same time creating a framework within which more rigorous individual projects can address specific local challenges.
In this series, we'll examine the development of REDD in the Amazon rainforest – and the evolving role of indigenous people.
Today marks our 45th Earth Day – 45 years of watching vertebrates die to the point that we now have half as many as we did in 1970, and 45 years of watching greenhouse gas concentrations soar, to the point that temperatures are now inching menacingly upwards. But in the past year, we’ve also seen a surge in awareness of our own dependence on our planet’s living ecosystems – an awareness that may, just may, spark the kind of action needed to get us out of this mess.
22 April 2015 | Two days after posting what may be the first rap song about ecosystem services, spoken-word artist Prince Ea has drawn nearly 25 million visitors to the video of his song “Sorry”, which begins as a hypothetical apology to future generations but mutates into a call to action inspired by visits to forest carbon projects in Africa: Kenya’s Kasigau Wildlife Corridor Project and the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Mai Ndombe Forest Conservation Project.
“Trees are amazing," he says. "We literally breathe the air they are creating. They clean up our pollution, our carbon. They store and purify water. They give us medicine that cures our diseases, food that feeds us, which is why I’m so sorry to tell you that we burned them down.”
To save them, he adds, “We must…realize that we are not apart from nature; we are a part of nature, and to betray nature is to betray us. To save nature is to save us.”
After the ode to ecosystem services ends, Ea implores his fans to “balance the amount of pollution that you yourself give off” by purchasing offsets through the Stand for Trees program, which aggregates forest-carbon offsets from across Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Judging by his Facebook page, people are getting the message. “You nail it once again,” wrote James Cleave of London. “Thank you. I've donated.”
Purists will argue that offsets aren't really "donations"; they're "payments for ecosystem services" (a subtle but important distinction that underlines the value of nature, rather than the goodness of the giver), but it's still reassuring to see an entertainer reaching out to a mainstream audience with a challenging message that goes beyond the usual bromides and broadsides we're accustomed to. Can it be that the innovative financing mechanisms pioneered in the 1970s are also finally beginning to resonate among the larger community?
Here's a few reasons why the answer may be "yes".
Water conservation and management. In Peru, the Ministry of Environment has been working in partnership with Ecosystem Marketplace publisher Forest Trends to develop the Watershed Services Incubator, which promotes cost-effective methods to maintain watershed services and keep the water flowing in Lima, one of the world's largest desert cities. The program works with Lima’s water utility, SUNASS, implementing highly innovative solutions to the dire problem of sustaining our water supply.
Protecting the forests that store carbon – with finance, not fences. The financing mechanism called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) supports the protection of “ecosystem services” (living forests, for example, which suck carbon out of our atmosphere). One such recent REDD success story comes from the Madre de Dios region of Peru, where the Tambopata REDD Project aims to support 1,100 farmers on sustainable cocoa production and protect a biodiverse national reserve, with help from a $7 million investment by Althelia Climate Fund.
Supporting the stewards of the forests. A consortium of nine environmental and indigenous organizations called AIME (Accelerating Inclusion and Mitigating Emissions) tackles some of the thornier parts of climate change – and offers real hope. Indigenous people and other local communities control about 33 percent of forest tenure in Latin America. Their stewardship of these swaths of trees – which absorb the carbon emissions of our planet – is a vital tool in the fight against climate change. AIME is exploring the possibility of harnessing indigenous Life Plans to secure carbon finance for indigenous people and embedding indigenous conservation efforts in jurisdictional programs supported by global carbon finance.
Supply chains and sustainability. Our demand for palm oil, soybeans, and beef is driving illegal deforestation around the world, but more and more companies are promising to deliver "deforestation-free" products. Supply-Change.org lets you see which companies are keeping their promises and which are not.
Promotion of non-timber products from the forest. One way to keep forests intact is to make sure they're worth more alive than dead. That's what REDD aims to achieve, but we can also promote demand for sustainably-harvested non-timber forest products. The communities of indigenous people working to conserve their forests and generate alternative sources of income are a key part of controlling climate change, and such trade provides vital support for these communities.
Biodiversity protection. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species, agriculture impacts over 8,000 threatened species globally. The forestry sector impacts just under 8,000. A recent study looks at how to promote a solution called a “four-step mitigation hierarchy” to implement biodiversity protection in these sectors. The strategy seeks first to avoid impacts, then to minimize those impacts that are deemed unavoidable, then to restore the areas impacted, and finally to offset damages by restoring comparably habitat nearby.
Earth Day remains relevant. This week, President Obama will celebrate Earth Day by heading to the Florida Everglades to talk about his administration’s commitment to climate change mitigation. Brian Deese, senior advisor to the president, said, “We’re far beyond a debate about climate change’s existence. We’re focused on mitigating its very real effects here at home.”
Real solutions do exist, and maybe this will be the year we start paying attention to them.