Getting real about REDD+

Having set out the ideas behind REDD+ in my last post, I am now going to explore some of the factors that may constrain its potential to be a real “silver bullet” for tackling climate change. The 2012 review paper “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+): game changer or just another quick fix?” by Venter and Koh is an excellent overview of the potential limitations of REDD+. I will briefly explain summarise their key concerns:

• Carbon markets - these are divided into compliance markets (where buyers are legally-obliged to reduce emissions) and voluntary markets (where buyers are making a choice to offset). REDD+ carbon credits are currently excluded from the compliance markets meaning they cannot be purchased to meet emissions-reduction targets agreed by the UNFCCC in the Kyoto Protocol, as was initially hoped. Despite this, there is still wide-spread support, and the REDD+ Partnership (http://reddpluspartnership.org/en/) has 75 member countries to date, with hope that REDD+ will be included in a post-2012 international climate agreement.

• Additionality – the reduction in emissions must be “additional” to any that would occur in the absence of REDD+ financing to prevent surplus carbon credits from flooding the market which may in turn lead to a net increase in emissions. To avoid this it is essential to set appropriate reference levels of deforestation – this can pose a challenge in itself (Sloan and Pelletier, 2012).

• Leakage – this is when conservation of forest and carbon saving in one location results in intensification of deforestation elsewhere so there is no net benefit.

• Permanence – conservation of habitat is the short-term does not mean that it may not be lost in the future.

• Fraudulence – due to the financial gains involved, there is an incentive for carbon sequestration rates to be overestimated. Careful monitoring by independent organisations is needed to avoid the creation of fictitious carbon credits.

• Socioeconomic considerations – application of REDD+ may constrain community development through reducing employment and revenue generation opportunities for people living in and beyond the REDD+ affected area. To prevent this safeguards have been included in policy negotiations stating that REDD+ activities must be “undertaken in accordance with national development priorities” and “in the context of sustainable development and reducing poverty” but there is still opposition from various centres.

 A recent protest in California against REDD+ (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/10/17/18723986.php)

This brings us to the question, what is it all for? If the whole point of REDD+, and climate change mitigation activities in general, is to benefit and sustain human lives in the long-term by maintaining a habitable planet, then is it counter-intuitive for such schemes to be detrimental/disruptive to human societies in the short-term?

A recent article on “The challenge of assessing social dimensions of avoided deforestation: Examples from Cambodia” specifically addresses the socioeconomic concerns of REDD+. The author highlights the importance of secure resource rights and tenure, specifically for indigenous communities, plus the necessity of equitable distribution of financial benefits. The increased land value added by REDD+ could result in governments or businesses taking control of forests previously accessed and used by local people, resulting in conflicts at the local level which have the potential to undermine REDD+. The article calls for better frameworks for assessing the social impacts in order for REDD+ to be a success. These issues must be resolved if REDD+ is to have any meaningful role in helping to combat climate change.