Improving uncertainty in forest carbon accounting for REDD+ mitigation efforts
Ruth D. YanaiCraig WaysonDavid LeeAndrés EspejoJohn L. CampbellMark B. GreenJenna M. ZukswertShira B. YoffeJuliann E. AukemaAndrew J. ListerJames W. KirchnerJavier G. P. Gamarra
40
Citation
53
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Abstract Reductions in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are urgently needed to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of warming. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation presents a climate change mitigation opportunity critical to meeting Paris Agreement goals. One strategy for decreasing carbon emissions from forests is to provide developing countries with results-based financial incentives for reducing deforestation: nearly two billion dollars are currently committed to finance such programs, referred to as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks). Countries participating in these programs must document the uncertainty in their estimates of emissions and emission reductions, and payments are reduced if uncertainties are high. Our examination of documentation submitted to date to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) reveals that uncertainties are commonly underestimated, both by omitting important sources of uncertainty and by incorrectly combining uncertainties. Here, we offer recommendations for addressing common problems in estimating uncertainty in emissions and emission reductions. Better uncertainty estimates will enable countries to improve forest carbon accounting, contribute to better informed forest management, and support efforts to track global greenhouse gas emissions. It will also strengthen confidence in markets for climate mitigation efforts. Demand by companies for nature-based carbon credits is growing and if such credits are used for offsets, in exchange for fossil fuel emissions, it is essential that they represent accurately quantified emissions reductions.Keywords:
Deforestation
Carbon accounting
Carbon credit
Carbon offset
Sustainable Forest Management
Abstract Reductions in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are urgently needed to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of warming. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation presents a climate change mitigation opportunity critical to meeting Paris Agreement goals. One strategy for decreasing carbon emissions from forests is to provide developing countries with results-based financial incentives for reducing deforestation: nearly two billion dollars are currently committed to finance such programs, referred to as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks). Countries participating in these programs must document the uncertainty in their estimates of emissions and emission reductions, and payments are reduced if uncertainties are high. Our examination of documentation submitted to date to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) reveals that uncertainties are commonly underestimated, both by omitting important sources of uncertainty and by incorrectly combining uncertainties. Here, we offer recommendations for addressing common problems in estimating uncertainty in emissions and emission reductions. Better uncertainty estimates will enable countries to improve forest carbon accounting, contribute to better informed forest management, and support efforts to track global greenhouse gas emissions. It will also strengthen confidence in markets for climate mitigation efforts. Demand by companies for nature-based carbon credits is growing and if such credits are used for offsets, in exchange for fossil fuel emissions, it is essential that they represent accurately quantified emissions reductions.
Deforestation
Carbon accounting
Carbon credit
Carbon offset
Sustainable Forest Management
Cite
Citations (40)
The last decade has seen a wave of forest carbon projects across the world, many in
Africa. These have been a response to the pressing challenges of climate change
mitigation. Conserving or enhancing forest carbon stocks is presented as a way both
to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and, most importantly, to offset
emissions elsewhere. A range of new market-based mechanisms have been put in
place to facilitate a variety of offset arrangements through payments and trade in
carbon credits. This is occurring through a variety of institutional arrangements;
some, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Reduced
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (UN-REDD and REDD+) process
are formally linked with compliance mechanisms associated with international
climate change negotiations and the Kyoto Protocol, while others are linked to
voluntary carbon markets, regulated in different ways (see Arhin and Atela, this
book; Fong Cisneros, 2012). A mass of literature is now asking how forest carbon
projects are unfolding, how they might be most effectively geared to climate
mitigation challenges and how forest users might benefit from them (e.g. Angelsen
et al., 2009, 2012; Corbera and Schroeder, 2010; Blom et al., 2010; Sunderlin et al.,
2014a, 2014b; Luttrell et al., 2013; Pokorny et al., 2013; Schroeder and McDermott,
2014), as well as how such initiatives are presented in the media and policy discourse
(Di Gregorio et al., 2013). At a larger scale, others have been examining the
institutional architectures, funding mechanisms and regulatory and governance
challenges of the new carbon economy, and its associated interventions (Karsenty,
2008; Angelsen, 2008, 2013; Vatn and Angelsen, 2009; Boyd and Goodman, 2011;
Goodman and Boyd, 2011; Boyd et al., 2011; Lederer, 2012a; Stripple and Bulkeley,
2013). Others have been tracking the effects of volatile carbon prices and the
evolution of particular markets, highlighting in recent years the low prices and lackof market spread, as well as irregularities, scams and market politics (Stephan and
Paterson, 2012; Peters-Stanley et al., 2013; Lane and Stephan, 2014).1
Carbon offset
Carbon credit
Carbon market
Deforestation
Carbon accounting
Cite
Citations (13)
The emission of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, and the consequent potential for climate change are the focus of increasing international concern. Temporary land‐use change and forestry projects (LUCF) can be implemented to offset permanent emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector. Several approaches to accounting for carbon sequestration in LUCF projects have been proposed. In the present paper, the economic implications of adopting four of these approaches are evaluated in a normative context. The analysis is based on simulation of Australian farm–forestry systems. Results are interpreted from the standpoint of both investors and landholders. The role of baselines and transaction costs are discussed.
Reforestation
Carbon offset
Carbon accounting
Carbon credit
Accounting method
Cite
Citations (122)
Carbon offset
Iron fertilization
Carbon credit
Carbon accounting
Carbon sink
Accounting method
Cite
Citations (23)
Reducing deforestation and forest degradation presents a climate-change mitigation opportunity that is critical to meeting the Paris Agreement goals, and to achieving reductions in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) provides developing countries with results-based financial incentives for reducing deforestation and forest degradation through either non-market payments (payments without generation of carbon credits), or market-based mechanisms (carbon credits). REDD credits have been recently accepted to be used in offsetting programs (e.g., CORSIA) and are being considered under Article 6. However, various publications have questioned whether carbon credits from REDD should be accepted under market-based mechanisms, and have identified issues regarding their environmental integrity and their ability to offset emissions from other sectors. In recent years, REDD implementation has moved from the project level to the national or subnational (jurisdictional) level, and is addressing some of the concerns that have been raised for project-level interventions regarding the robustness of baselines and leakage, for example. In this paper we compare the environmental integrity of credits from REDD programs with that from on-grid renewable energy projects by examining aspects related to permanence, additionality, baselines, uncertainty, and leakage. We show that the environmental integrity of emission reductions sourced from REDD programs has unique strengths, and that those sourced from renewable energy projects have weaknesses of their own. Probably due to a lack of understanding of the respective weaknesses and strengths of these two sources of credits, the emission reductions from REDD programs have been historically questioned and subjected to a level of scrutiny that has not been made with emission reductions from other sectors, such as renewable energy projects. Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of emission reductions from both types should help decision makers and carbon standards recognize the high quality of emission reductions from REDD programs, and rationalize the current requirements or restrictions imposed.
Additionality
Carbon credit
Carbon offset
Deforestation
Cite
Citations (15)
Additionality
Carbon offset
Carbon credit
Carbon sink
Tree planting
Deforestation
Cite
Citations (2)
The emission of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, and the consequent potential for climate change are the focus of increasing international concern. Temporary land-use change and forestry projects (LUCF) can be implemented to offset permanent emissions of carbon dioxide from the energy sector. Several approaches to accounting for carbon sequestration in LUCF projects have been proposed. In the present paper, the economic implications of adopting four of these approaches are evaluated in a normative context. The analysis is based on simulation of Australian farm-forestry systems. Results are interpreted from the standpoint of both investors and landholders. The role of baselines and transaction costs are discussed.
Reforestation
Carbon offset
Carbon accounting
Carbon credit
Accounting method
Cite
Citations (5)
Carbon accounting
Carbon credit
Afforestation
Carbon offset
Carbon sink
Carbon finance
Cite
Citations (24)
In December 2010, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to encourage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from forest losses with the financial support of developed countries. This important international agreement followed about seven years of effort among governments, non-governmental organizations (NGO) and the scientific community, and is called REDD+, the program for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. REDD+ could achieve its potential to slow emissions from deforestation and forest degradation either as a new market option to offset emissions from developed nations, or as a mitigation option for developing countries themselves. Aside from representing an important step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a growing list of potential co-benefits to REDD+ include improved forestry practices, forest restoration, sustainable development, and biodiversity protection. Indeed the agreement is heralded as a win–win for climate change mitigation and tropical forest conservation, and it could end up contributing to a global economy based on carbon and ecosystem services.
Deforestation
Carbon offset
Cite
Citations (58)
The aim of the paper is to offer a systemic overview about some critical and interdependent relations among carbon offset, carbon sequestration and carbon stock. Rooting in the complexity perspective, the work discusses some relevant measurement methods and financial issues related to the land use - land use change forestry (LULUCF) applied under Kyoto Protocol rules. There are uncertainties on the estimation on carbon flux owing to the application of various models of estimates. The study also focuses on the credits of forestry projects, which can be sold or purchased on the carbon market. In conclusion, the work sheds light on the complex side of decision processes in framing and selecting models to estimate the carbon balance under the Kyoto Protocol target. The opportunity for investment in forest projects depends on the cost management of the projects themselves, and the price between wood market and unit carbon.
Carbon offset
Carbon sink
Carbon accounting
Carbon credit
Cite
Citations (11)