The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

! 10 percent reduction in the annual rate of deforestation, the REDD market would still be about $3 billion. SSA has a large potential to contribute to reduced GHG emissions through REDD. According to Nabuurs, et (2007), Africa’s potential for GHG mitigation through reduced deforestation is 1,160 Mt CO 2 per year in 2030 (at costs of $100 per t CO 2 or less), representing 29% of the global total; while reduced forest degradation resulting from improve forest management could reduce emissions by 100 Mt CO 2 per year. If half of these potential emissions reductions were achieved, this could result in payments of more than $6 billion per year, assuming a carbon price of $10 per tCO 2 . Most of the potential for REDD is in humid forest areas, where carbon losses from deforestation and forest degradation are greatest. Probably less than 10% of the potential REDD market is in drylands (Ecosecurities and Global Mechanism 2008). REDD payments could have many beneficial impacts on ecosystem services in SSA resulting from reducing deforestation and forest degradation, such as preserving biodiversity, protecting watersheds, and reducing soil erosion, sedimentation of watercourses and threats of floods. They may also be used to help to preserve and improve the livelihoods of forest dependent people, and they provide potentially large new funding sources to help finance rural development investments. However, there are also many potential challenges and constraints that may limit how well such benefits are achieved, and whether they reach poor people. These are discussed in a subsequent subsection. Many design issues will need to be decided in designing a REDD payment system. Among these are questions about the scope of the system (what resources, activities and countries are eligible), the baseline that reduced deforestation will be measured against (how it will be measured, over what time period and spatial scale), how the payments will be distributed (where and to whom, what assets will be rewarded, at what scale), and how the payments will be financed (whether by a market, a fund, or a combination of mechanisms) (Parker, et al. 2008). The impacts of whatever system is adopted (if any) will of course depend on how these issues are resolved. For example, if payments are made for sub-national level projects, the ease of monitoring and verifying reductions may be greater and the developmental impacts easier to assure, but problems of leakage (shifting of deforestation to nearby sub-national areas) may be greater. If a market mechanism is used to finance payments (as with the CDM), this may harness ! ',!
! greater financial resources than if financing depends on a fund established by donor governments and multilateral organizations; but the initial costs of capacity strengthening and project development may prove difficult for project developers in developing countries to finance if only a market mechanism is in place. Many proposals for REDD payment systems have already been developed by governments and by non-governmental organizations, with differing propositions on these issues. Almost all propose that REDD systems should include payments for both reduced deforestation and reduced forest degradation, while a few propose going further to also include carbon enhancement activities (Ibid.). Most propose that reductions should be measured at the national level, while some propose measuring reductions at a sub-national level (combined with national level measurement) or at a more global level. Most propose that reductions should be measured relative to deforestation rates during an historical period, while some advocate measuring relative to projected future deforestation and degradation, and one advocates measuring relative to current levels. Many of those that advocate measuring relative to historic rates propose allowing for adjustments for expected development, which brings those closer to the proposals to use projected rates (Ibid.). With regard to the distribution of payments, most proposals do not specify an explicit distributional mechanism, which implies that payments would be distributed solely on the basis of emission reductions. Some proposals argue for some explicit distribution of payments to countries who would not benefit much from a REDD payment scheme, such as low emitting developing countries. With regard to funding mechanisms, most proposals advocate multiple mechanisms, with special funds used to finance capacity strengthening and project development costs and markets providing payments once projects are established. Agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU) As with REDD, AFOLU activities have large potential to impact GHG levels in the atmosphere. Smith, et al. (2008) estimate that GHG reductions of more than 5 billion t CO 2 e per year by 2030 are possible globally through improved agricultural and land management practices, assuming carbon prices of up to $100 per t CO 2 e (Figure 4-2). Most of these reductions are from soil and biomass carbon sequestration activities, including restoration of organic/peaty soils, improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, and restoration of degraded lands, which together account for more than three-fourths of the total reduction from agriculture and ! (-!
Page 1 and 2:
Land&Climate The Role of Sustainabl
Page 3 and 4:
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Climate
Page 5 and 6:
Table of Contents Executive Summary
Page 7 and 8:
List of Figures Figure 2-1. Number
Page 9 and 10:
ICRISAT IGAD IPCC ISDR JI lCER LDCF
Page 11 and 12:
! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Coping with cli
Page 13 and 14:
! organic carbon. SLM represents a
Page 15 and 16: ! tenure insecurity in many African
Page 17 and 18: ! To achieve success in the first t
Page 19 and 20: ! degradation, soil and biomass car
Page 21 and 22: ! 2. The Challenge of Climate Varia
Page 23 and 24: ! production and food security for
Page 25 and 26: ! production in Africa and other re
Page 27 and 28: ! Ethiopia consider soil and water
Page 29 and 30: ! the region is degraded to such an
Page 31 and 32: ! In terms of affected area, UNEP (
Page 33 and 34: ! techniques, like bunding (e.g. Ke
Page 35 and 36: ! flooding in sloping lands and pro
Page 37 and 38: ! Reducing Emissions from Deforesta
Page 39 and 40: ! organic carbon. Principles of div
Page 41 and 42: ! A first major impact in Africa wo
Page 43 and 44: ! the practices and qualitatively a
Page 45 and 46: ! o Several adaptation funds have b
Page 47 and 48: ! feeding practices), improved fert
Page 49 and 50: ! billion for the CTF and $2.0 bill
Page 51 and 52: ! require social and environment be
Page 53 and 54: ! focus on financing CDM and/or JI
Page 55 and 56: ! nations have ratified (or adopted
Page 57 and 58: ! vulnerability assessment, develop
Page 59 and 60: ! The TerrAfrica partnership is pla
Page 61 and 62: ! o increased use of voluntary carb
Page 63 and 64: ! • increased integration of clim
Page 65: ! allowances and offsets are within
Page 69 and 70: ! activities (these challenges are
Page 71 and 72: ! CER can be carried over to subseq
Page 73 and 74: ! However, the limited extent of su
Page 75 and 76: ! doubts about the verifiability an
Page 77 and 78: ! REDD payments also could have neg
Page 79 and 80: ! VCS, rather than trying to measur
Page 81 and 82: ! Applied research and knowledge ma
Page 83 and 84: ! important to address, so that the
Page 85 and 86: ! As shown earlier in this report,
Page 87 and 88: ! non-A/R projects (a lower thresho
Page 89 and 90: ! countries, including national pov
Page 91 and 92: ! and developing programs and proje
Page 93 and 94: ! • Land degradation increases th
Page 95 and 96: ! • Constraints to increased use
Page 97 and 98: ! and TerrAfrica process to develop
Page 99 and 100: ! Table 2-2. Projected mean tempera
Page 101 and 102: ! Table 2-5. Severe environmental c
Page 103 and 104: ! Table 3-2. Importance of Causes o
Page 105 and 106: ! Practice Adaptation aspects Mitig
Page 107 and 108: ! Table 4-1. Carbon markets, volume
Page 109 and 110: ! Table 4-3. Summary of Progress du
Page 111 and 112: ! Figure 2-3. Projected increases i
Page 113 and 114: ! Figure 3-1. NDVI based estimates
Page 115 and 116: ! Figure 3-3. Greenhouse gas emissi
Page 117 and 118:
! Figure 4-2. Potential savings by
Page 119 and 120:
! References ! Ambrosi, P. 2009. No
Page 121 and 122:
! Dregne, H. and M. Kassas. 1991. A
Page 123 and 124:
! Kruseman, G., Ruben, R. and G. Te
Page 125 and 126:
! Sustainable Land Management in th
Page 127:
! United States Government Accounta
show all

The Role of Sustainable Land Management for Climate ... - CAADP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?