Advertisement

Conserving Carbon and Biodiversity Through REDD+ Implementation in Tropical Countries

  • Lokesh Chandra Dube
Chapter

Abstract

This article analyses the twin objectives of conserving carbon and biodiversity through results based payments coming from implementation of ‘reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks’ (collectively known as REDD+) activities in tropical countries. Possible ways to amalgamate the international carbon and biodiversity markets have been explored. Forest carbon stock can be conserved through financing mechanisms under both, compliance and voluntary structures of the carbon market. Most of the tropical countries are developing economies that need capacity building, technology transfer and financial support to efficiently reduce deforestation and conserve biodiversity. Under the New York Declaration on Forests, countries have taken collective voluntary targets to reduce deforestation. An estimation of potential emission reduction from reduced deforestation through voluntary targets in selected tropical countries has been presented.

Keywords

Carbon stock Biodiversity Paris agreement REDD+ Finance 

Notes

Disclaimer

Views presented in this article are author’s personal views and do not represent the position of NATCOM project or other departments of the Government of India in whatsoever manner.

References

  1. Baccini, A., Goetz, S. J., Walker, W. S., et al. (2012). Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nature Climate Change, 2, 182–185.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow, J., Lennox, G. D., Ferreira, J., et al. (2016). Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature, 535, 144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekessy, S. A., & Wintle, B. A. (2008). Using Carbon Investment to Grow the Biodiversity Bank. Conservation Biology, 22, 510–513.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00943.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CBD. (2009). Biodiversity and climate action.Google Scholar
  5. Corlett, R. T., & Primack, R. B. (2011). Many tropical rain forests. In: Tropical rain forests (pp. 1–31). Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Denman, K. L., Brasseur, G., Chidthaisong, A., et al. (2007). Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dube, L. C., & Sen, A. (2009). Avoided deforestation coupled with biodiversity banking (p. 118). Raipur: VRM Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Engel, A. (2014). Forest interactions between the CBD and UNFCCC An analysis of forest-related institutional interactions and proactive interaction management between the biodiversity and climate change regimes. MSc Thesis, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  9. FAO. (2006). Global forest resources assessment 2005: Progress towards sustainable forest management. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  10. FAO. (2007). State of the world’s forests. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  11. FAO. (2015). Global forest resources assessment 2015. How are the world’s forests changing? Google Scholar
  12. Forneri, C., Blaser, J., Jotzo, F., & Robledo, C. (2006). Keeping the forest for the climate’s sake: avoiding deforestation in developing countries under the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 6, 275–294.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2006.9685602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton, K., Ricardo, B., Guy, T., Douglas, H. (2007). State of the voluntary carbon market 2007 picking up steam. New Carbon Finance, a service of New Energy Finance Ltd, and Ecosystem Marketplace.Google Scholar
  14. Hamrick, K., Goldstein, A. (2015). AHEAD OF THE CURVE: State of the voluntary carbon markets 2015. Forest Trends Ecosystem Marketplace. P. 3.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Hagen, S. C., et al. (2012). Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science, 336, 1573.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houghton, R. A. (2003). Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850–2000. Tellus Series B, 55, 378–390.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01450.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC. (2014). In Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva: IPCC 151 pp. IPCC.Google Scholar
  18. Jantz, P., Goetz, S., & Laporte, N. (2014). Carbon stock corridors to mitigate climate change and promote biodiversity in the tropics. Nature Climate Change, 4, 138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kindermann, G. E., Obersteiner, M., Rametsteiner, E., & McCallum, I. (2006). Predicting the deforestation-trend under different carbon-prices. Carbon Balance and Management, 1, 15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-1-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., et al. (2008). Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 10302–10307.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710616105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kissinger, G., Herold, M., de Sy, V. (2012). Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation: A synthesis report for REDD+ policymakers. 48p.Google Scholar
  22. Koziell, I., & Swingland, I. R. (2002). Collateral biodiversity benefits associated with “free–market” approaches to sustainable land use and forestry activities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360, 1807.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurg, T. (2007). Positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation. Cairns: National Institute for Space Research – INPE, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research – IAI.Google Scholar
  24. Milesa, L., Kate, T., Matea, O., et al (undated). REDD+ and the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets promoting synergies in international forest conservation efforts.Google Scholar
  25. Lee D., & Pistorius T. (2015). The impacts of international REDD+ finance.Google Scholar
  26. Madsen, B., Becca, N., Nathaniel, C., et al. (2011). Update: State of biodiversity markets. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar
  27. Neeff, T., Eichler, L., et al. (2007). Updates on markets for forestry offsets. The FORMA project, CATIE.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, M., & Nakhooda, S. (2015). The state of REDD+ finance.Google Scholar
  29. Panfil, S. N., Harvey, C. A. (2015). REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: A review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, C. (2014). Overview of REDD+ financing landscape, sources and types of funds.Google Scholar
  31. Phelps, J., Friess, D. A., & Webb, E. L. (2012a). Win–win REDD+ approaches belie carbon–biodiversity trade-offs. REDD Conserv, 154, 53–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phelps, J., Webb, E. L., & Adams, W. M. (2012b). Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2, 497–503.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson, J. M., & Chan, L. M. (2011). Species richness in a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Journal of Biogeography, 38, 2043–2044.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02619.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Santilli, M., Moutinho, P., Schwartzman, S., et al. (2003). Tropical de-forestation and the Kyoto protocol: A new proposal. Milan.Google Scholar
  35. Stern, N. H. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, L. V., Alexander, S. K., Allen, N. L., Bindoff, F.-M., Bréon, J. A., Church, U., Cubasch, S., Emori, P., Forster, P., Friedlingstein, N., Gillett, J. M., Gregory, D. L., Hartmann, E., Jansen, B., Kirtman, R., Knutti, K., Krishna Kumar, P., Lemke, J., Marotzke, V., Masson-Delmotte, G. A., Meehl, I. I., Mokhov, S., Piao, V., Ramaswamy, D., Randall, M., Rhein, M., Rojas, C., Sabine, D., Shindell, L. D., Talley, D. G., Vaughan, & Xie, S.-P. (2013). Technical summary. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Strassburg, B., Turner, R. K., Fisher, B., et al. (2009). Reducing emissions from deforestation – the “combined incentives” mechanism and empirical simulations. Tradit Peoples Climate Change, 19, 265–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Streck, C. (2016). Mobilizing finance for + after Paris. Journal of European Environment Plan Law, 13, 146–166.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01302003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Swingland, I. R., Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., Hilhorst, D., Royal Society Staff, et al. (2003). Capturing carbon and conserving biodiversity: The market approach. New York: Routledge, Florence: Taylor & Francis Group [Distributor].Google Scholar
  40. UN. (2014). New York declaration on forests (in forests: Action statements and action plans).Google Scholar
  41. UNFCCC. (2015). Paris agreement.Google Scholar
  42. UNFCCC. (2016). Technical assessment process for proposed forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels submitted by developing country parties.Google Scholar
  43. UNFCCC, UNCCD, CBD. (2016). Report of the fourteenth meeting of the Joint Liaison Group of the Rio Conventions. Bonn.Google Scholar
  44. Warren, R., VanDerWal, J., Price, J., et al. (2013). Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nature Climate Change, 3, 678–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolosin, M., Breitfeller, J., & Schaap, B. (2016). The geography of REDD+ finance deforestation, emissions, and the targeting of forest conservation finance. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lokesh Chandra Dube
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.NATCOM Project Management Unit, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate ChangeNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.TERI UniversityNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations