Climatic Change

, Volume 130, Issue 4, pp 635–648 | Cite as

Addressing uncertainty upstream or downstream of accounting for emissions reductions from deforestation and forest degradation

Article

Abstract

Uncertainty in emissions and emission changes estimates constitutes an unresolved issue for a future international climate agreement. Uncertainty can be addressed ‘upstream’ through improvements in the technologies or techniques used to measure, report, and verify (MRV) emission reductions, or ‘downstream’ through the application of discount factors to more uncertain reductions. In the context of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+), we look at the effects of upstream interventions on reductions in uncertainty, using data from Panama. We also test five downstream proposals for discounting uncertainty of the potential credits received for reducing emissions. We compare the potential compensation received for these emission reductions to the cost of alternative upstream investments in forest monitoring capabilities. First, we find that upstream improvements can noticeably reduce the overall uncertainty in emission reductions. Furthermore, the costs of upstream investments in improved forest monitoring are relatively low compared to the potential benefits from carbon payments; they would allow the country to receive higher financial compensation from more certain emission reductions. When uncertainty is discounted downstream, we find that the degree of conservativeness applied downstream has a major influence on both overall creditable emission reductions and on incentives for upstream forest monitoring improvements. Of the five downstream approaches that we analyze, only the Conservativeness Approach and the Risk Charge Approach provided consistent financial incentives to reduce uncertainty upstream. We recommend specifying the use of one of these two approaches if REDD+ emission reductions are to be traded for emission reductions from other sectors.

Supplementary material

10584_2015_1352_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (685 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 684 kb)

References

  1. ANAM/ITTO (2003) Informe final de resultados de la cobertura boscosa y uso del suelo de la Republica de Panama: 1992–2000. Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente, Panama, Republica de PanamaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoszczuk P, Horabik J (2007) Tradable permit systems: considering uncertainty in emission estimates water, air, & soil pollution. Focus 7:573–579Google Scholar
  3. Canadell JG et al (2010) Interactions of the carbon cycle, human activity, and the climate system: a research portfolio. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CATHALAC (2009) Informe final de actualización de la cobertura boscosa de la República de Panamá 2008. República de Panamá, PanamáGoogle Scholar
  5. Chave J, Condit R, Aguilar S, Hernandez A, Lao S, Perez R (2004) Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. Phil Trans Royal Soc London Ser B-Biolo Sci 359:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FCPF (2013) FCPF carbon fund methodological framework. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. GFOI (2013) Integrating remote-sensing and ground-based observations for estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases in forests. Methods and Guidance from the Global Forest Observations Initiative. Group on Earth Observations, Geneva, 2014Google Scholar
  8. Gillenwater M, Sussman F, Cohen J (2007) Practical policy applications of uncertainty analysis for national greenhouse gas inventories water. Air Soil Pollut Focus 7:451–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. GOFC-GOLD (2012) A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation. GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office, Wageningen University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. Grassi G, Monni S, Federici S, Achard F, Mollicone D (2008) Applying the conservativeness principle to REDD to deal with the uncertainties of the estimates. Environ Res Lett 3:035005 (035012 pp.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grassi G, Federici S, Achard F (2013) Implementing conservativeness in REDD+ is realistic and useful to address the most uncertain estimates. Clim Change 119:269–275. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0780-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutierrez R (2010) Forest resource assessment 2010: country report Panama vol National Report FRA2010/160. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Henry M (2013) GlobAllomeTree: international platform for tree allometric equations to support volume, biomass and carbon assessment. iForest 6:326–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herold M, Skutsch M (2011) Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD plus programmes: two proposals. Environ Res Lett 6 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014002Google Scholar
  15. Hewson J, Steininger M, Pesmajoglou S, eds. (2013) REDD+ Measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) Manual. USAID-supported forest carbon, markets and communities program, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiraishi T et al. (2006) Quantifying uncertainties in practice. In: IPCC (ed) IPCC Good practice guidance and uncertainty management in national greenhouse gas inventoriesGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), HayamaGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories vol 4. Institute For Global Environmental Strategies, JapanGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonas M, Marland G, Winiwarter W, White T, Nahorski Z, Bun R, Nilsson S (2010a) Benefits of dealing with uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories. Introd Clim Change 103:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonas M, White T, Marland G, Lieberman D, Nahorski Z, Nilsson S (2010b) Dealing with uncertainty in GHG inventories: how to go about it? In: Marti K, Ermoliev Y, Makowski M (eds) Coping with uncertainty: robust solutions. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonas M, Marland G, Winiwarter W, White T, Nahorski Z, Bun R, Nilsson S (2011) Lessons to be learned from uncertainty treatment: conclusions regarding greenhouse gas inventories. In: White T, Jonas M, Nahorski Z, Nilsson S (eds) Greenhouse gas inventories: dealing with uncertainty. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knoke T (2013) Uncertainities and REDD+: implications of applying the conservativeness principle to carbon stock estimates. Clim Change 119:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Canadell JG, Marland G (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat Geosci 2:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lieberman D, Jonas M, Winiwarter W, Nahorski Z, Nilsson S (2007) Accounting for climate change. Introd Water Air Soil Pollut 7:421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marland G, Hamal K, Jonas M (2009) How uncertain are estimates of CO2 emissions? J Ind Ecol 13:4–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marland E, Cantrell J, Kiser K, Marland G, Shirley K (2014) Valuing uncertainty part I: the impact of uncertainty in GHG accounting. Carbon Manag 5:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. CDM Methodologies Panel (2008) Draft guidance on how to deal with uncertainties in emission reduction calculations (MP32, Annex 14)Google Scholar
  28. Nahorski Z, Horabik J, Jonas M (2007) Compliance and emissions trading under the kyoto protocol: rules for uncertain inventories water. Air Soil Pollut Focus 7:539–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Olofsson P, Foody GM, Stehman SV, Woodcock CE (2013) Making better use of accuracy data in land change studies: estimating accuracy and area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation. Remote Sens Environ 129:122–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olofsson P, Foody GM, Herold M, Stehman SV, Woodcock CE, Wulder MA (2014) Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sens Environ 148:42–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ometto JP et al (2014) Amazon forest biomass density maps: tackling the uncertainty in carbon emission estimates. Clim Change 124:545–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pelletier J, Ramankutty N, Potvin C (2011) Diagnosing the uncertainty and detectability of emission reductions for REDD+ under current capabilities: an example for Panama. Environ Res Lett 6:024005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelletier J, Martin D, Potvin C (2013) REDD+ CO2 flux estimation and reporting for early actions: dealing with uncertainty. Environ Res Lett 8:034009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plugge D, Baldauf T, Köhl M (2013) The global climate change mitigation strategy REDD: monitoring costs and uncertainties jeopardize economic benefit. Clim Change 119:247–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romijn E, Herold M, Kooistra L, Murdiyarso D, Verchot L (2012) Assessing capacities of non-annex I countries for national forest monitoring in the context of REDD+. Environ Sci Policy 19-20:33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. UNFCCC (2003) Technical guidance on methodologies for adjustments under Article 5, Paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol (FCCC/SBSTA/2003/10/Add.2). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  37. UNFCCC (2005) Good practice guidance and adjustments under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Kyoto Protocol Decision 20/CMP1 FCCC/KP/CMP/2005/8/Add.3Google Scholar
  38. UNFCCC (2010) The Cancun agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. United Framework Convention on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  39. UNFCCC (2012) Concept note: Uncertainty of measurement in baseline and monitoring methodologies vol CDM, EB 68, Annex 10Google Scholar
  40. VCS (2013) VCS standard, VCS version 3, requirements document, 8 October 2013, v3.4. Verified Carbon StandardGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanne Pelletier
    • 1
  • Jonah Busch
    • 2
  • Catherine Potvin
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Woods Hole Research CenterFalmouthUSA
  2. 2.Center for Global DevelopmentWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Smithsonian Tropical Research InstituteCiudad de PanamáRepública de Panamá

Personalised recommendations