Tuesday, September 15, 2009

What is so bad about reducing deforestation through REDD?

About 20% of global greenhouse gases arise from deforestation.

There is a move to address this through REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

I like to approach things in simple steps, working from the axioms to the policy. So:

1. It is vitally necessary to stop deforestation as part of addressing climate change.
2. Poor countries with forests will be tempted to call in the loggers in order to improve their current account in the short (but not the long) term.
3. REDD seeks to address this problem by paying forested countries not to destroy their forest.
4. If we reject REDD, we need a comprehensive worked out alternative.

But a lot of good people, including many greens, are critical of REDD. Why?

For a quick take on this I dive into Wikipedia*.

1. The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful emission reductions at home.

RL: Companies will have REDD payments on their balance sheets, proportional to their carbon usage. Their carbon costs have gone up. The pressure is still there for the company to cut its costs by cutting carbon, for instance, by installing its own CHP, or by buying low-carbon electricity.
So argument 1 lacks force.

2. Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon markets.

RL: That depends on the value set on carbon credits. The European system has failed because the carbon price was set too low.

3. Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This sentence could equally well be written " Putting a commercial value on forests complements the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities."

This argument has no force at all. There is no necessary logical exclusion between spiritual value and commercial value. Recall that the "commercial value" of REDD is in fact more a conservation value than a commercial value, since the whole point is that the trees shall not be killed and traded.

4. There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.

How about "reduction in the total area covered by the forest" for a start? This can then be determined very simply and accurately by satellite surveillance (think Google Earth).
On top of quantitative area counts, there is also the matter of quality, which could be assessed by ecological surveys. Perfectly possible, though it comes at a cost, but the upside is that it provides work for our friends the ecologists.

5. * Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without a prior reform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems in many countries.
Ok, so let's set about doing just that.

Now, I am just a peripheral observer, and amateur in the sense that I just love trees. There are deeply held views against REDD, and there are many other detailed objections. I may be wrong. REDD may indeed turn out to be the worst thing since sliced white bread. In that case, prove me wrong with robust logical arguments, and also show us what the alternative strategy should be.
*Yes, I know. But if you think that the Wikipedia article is deficient, then bloody well dive in and improve it if you're such a smart ass. Or point me to a better summary of the criticisms against REDD.

[update: Link to detailed piece on REDD, and how it could help forest peoples]

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

REDD is the only hope for the forests of South East Asia, I believe. My organisation is concerned with the survival of the orangutan in the wild, and protecting its habitat from conversion to agriculture is the only way we can succeed. REDD provides this possibility.
Michelle Desilets
Executive Director
Ornagutan Land Trust
www.forests4orangutans.org

Dorothea said...

All these carbon trading schemes sound to me to be very complex and therefore inherently likely to screw up (KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid). Gentraso ecology blog has a post on the subject, referencing Natasha Loder and showing how things are already shaping up (ie very dodgily) in the carbon trading business in PNG.

DocRichard said...

Hi Dorothea
Where there's brass, there's muck, as I am sure you agree. Carbon trading is in its infancy, and infants are notoriously mucky people, with very poor sphincter control. We should not therefore be surprised at stories such as the one you allude to.

Which is why I begin at the beginning:
1. It is vitally necessary to stop deforestation as part of addressing climate change.
2. Poor countries with forests will be tempted to call in the loggers in order to improve their current account in the short (but not the long) term.
3. REDD seeks to address this problem by paying forested countries not to destroy their forest.
4. If we reject REDD, we need a comprehensive worked out alternative.

I have a totally open mind about alternatives, it is just that I have not yet seen any.

If you see an alternative, please let me know.

Kind regards

Richard

Dorothea said...

In many of these countries democracy is in its infancy too, and even looks like it has suffered infant mortality in a lot of places.

As someone who remembers my parents and grand-parents talking about species extinction, deforestation, overpopulation and consumerism 35 years ago and more, it looks to me like the human race is running out of alternatives.

Or maybe we already have.

Through sheer greed, obstinacy and stupidity.

DocRichard said...

Hi Dorothea
I agree, it is difficult to maintain optimism, but we must choose to remain active, in the hope that reason may prevail once everything else has failed.

Dorothea said...

Well, I’m more of a believer in remaining INactive, in the sense of trying NOT to travel far, NOT to consume too much, but yes, of course, no point in giving up is there.

All this carbon credits stuff is altogether too complicated for my poor head, and I just distrust it instinctively as being machinations of overpaid bureaucrats drafted in to dream up some lip-service to look like something is being done, to cover up the fact that it isn‘t.

Hopefully lots of people who invested in complex financial instruments have by now learnt the useful variant on “if it sounds too good to be true it probably is”, namely that “if it sounds very complicated it’s probably a con.” This whole “carbon market” thing seems similarly inherently flawed and looks prone to disaster, as reported here.

It’s no good giving in to the “do something, do anything” mentality - something that I’ve heard literally from some of the 60s generation of greens, would you believe?

When you ask about alternatives what exactly is it you are trying to achieve? Stopping forests being destroyed or degraded? If so then would this not be better achieved by money-rich biodiversity-poor nations simply paying money-poor, biodiversity-rich nations to conserve their ecosystems?

DocRichard said...

Dorothea wrote:

"When you ask about alternatives what exactly is it you are trying to achieve? Stopping forests being destroyed or degraded? If so then would this not be better achieved by money-rich biodiversity-poor nations simply paying money-poor, biodiversity-rich nations to conserve their ecosystems?"

RL: And this is what REDD is about. Which is why I I posed the question: "What is so bad about reducing deforestation through REDD?"

The link you gave was interesting. It identifies a couple of major cases where the Clean Develoment Mechanism broke down, whether through incompetence or malpractice is for m'learned friends to decide in their own sweet time.

This is the kind of thing that can be expected at this early stage in the game. I hope that given intelligence and motivation, the legislators can close the loopholes.

The alternative view is that the CDM is one big loophole. Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't put much weight on the opinion of that JoanneNova, being as she seems to be in denial over AGW.

Dorothea said...

Just tried to find more information about it and got deluged with dozens of huge websites, acronyms and sheafs of PDFs. Not exactly readily amenable to public scrutiny.

Still looks to me like a vastly complicated and bureaucratised way of getting anything done.

DocRichard said...

Wikipedia gives a good introduction and overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDD#Key_questions

(I think Wikipedia is unjustly denigrated. Yes, there are wacky bits, but if someone cannot tell wiki from wacky, that is their problem imho.)

Dorothea said...

Wikipedia's got a lot of good points.

Apparently there’s REDD-plus too now. Article at Plant-Talk magazine

DocRichard said...

God link. Saying we have to stop deforestation and reafforest at the same time.