UNFCCC Workshop on Reducing GHG Emissions from

Deforestation in Developing Countries

Rome, 29 August – 1 September

This presentation is supported by COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, MEXICO, NICARAGUA,

PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERU and URUGUAY

• Grupo Latino Americano de Discusión Sobre Bosques y Cambio Climático – Latin American Discussion Group on LULUCF and Climate Change

• GLAD-CC is an informal network of LULUCF experts and negotiators intended to promote policy and technical analysis, mutual understanding and dialogue in Latin America before and during official UNFCCC negotiations.

• We are a 5 year old network, not a formal negotiation group in the UNFCCC process.

• We maintain an open and constant dialogue with other regions and countries.

What is ?

• What we’ve done so far: – Two/four annual meetings since 2001– Joint submissions (on AR-CDM, on avoided deforestation)– Capacity-building seminars on AR/CDM (in many

countries)– Web site and name (since 2006)

• What we plan to do:– Build task forces made up of international experts and

Latin American government officials aimed at discussing key issues in the AD negotiation process

• Main sources of funding: – Meetings: UNEP, IUCN, FAO, ONF, Switzerland, World

Bank, seeking for support for future meetings– Web page: maintained by CATIE (www.glad-cc.net)– Task forces: proposal seeking funding

What is ?

Deforestation in Latin America

• The forest sector in Latin America has the capacity to store very large amounts of carbon in vegetation and soils.

• However, currently it is also a large source of emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation, with the region’s accounting for about half of total deforestation worldwide (approximately 6.5 million ha/yr).

• GLAD-CC countries lost around 1.6 million ha/yr in the period 2000 - 2005.

Examples of drivers in the region

• Identified direct drivers in the Amazon rainforest include:

– cattle ranching,

– extensive agriculture,

– subsistence agriculture,

– Illegal (and sometimes, legal) logging.

• In Latin America deforestation is caused mainly by e.g. illegal logging, energy needs (fuelwood), the expansion of the agricultural frontier, fire and illegal crops.

• Poverty is one of the main indirect drivers in Latin America, for people tend to move into forested areas and extract resources necessary for their survival.

• Each driver, direct and indirect, requires different policy approaches and represents different opportunity costs in various sectors of the society.

• There is a need for studies contrasting the economics and possible policy approaches of these circumstances.

Examples of drivers in the region

Projected deforestation in tropical Latin America,

2000-2010 S

ou

rce

: F

AO

GHG EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION

• LULUCF GHG emissions in the region are in general very significant

• In many countries they are similar or even larger than emissions from energy generation (e.g. Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Ecuador, Peru)

• Emissions from GLAD-CC countries represent about 740 MtCO2e yr-1

ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THE REGION

• An important amount of land is afforded some sort of protection

• Local projects promoting sustainable management while benefiting locals are on the rise

• Several governments have passed policies to enhance protection of forests.

• The region has experience in developing carbon conservation projects (around 30 registered in the WRI database)

ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THE REGION

• Many countries in the region have developed eco-tourism and environmental services programs as a means to generate revenue to protect forests (e.g. Costa Rica, Mexico, Bolivia).

• Despite all the efforts carried out by our countries, the forests of the region are still facing tremendous challenges from numerous development threats.

Policy approaches

• To strengthen actions to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation, national institutions will possibly need to engage, inter alia, in:

(a) ensuring the implementation of existing and new measures to control deforestation,

(b) modifying existing legislation in order to remove institutional/legal perverse incentives that increase deforestation, and

(c) investing in programs of payment for environmental services related to forest protection.

Positive incentives

•National level:

–Institutional capacity building to allow the implementation of GHG emission reduction policies in the land use sector and to strengthen agencies in charge of monitoring and controlling deforestation as well as changes in carbon stocks.

– Technical capacity building and technology development and transfer.

– Consolidation and enforcement of protected areas.

Approaches should take into account specific national circumstances and enable a variety of measures while building on existing positive experiences

Positive incentives

• Local level:

– Financial incentives to:

• compensate for the opportunity costs of land use,

• to engage in sustainable agricultural practices, and

• to cover transaction costs

Funding

• FAO 1997 estimates that the forestry sector alone is funded only 27 percent of what it requires.

• The United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (1992) estimated the cost of protecting tropical forests through sustainable development at $30 billion per year.

• Innovative approaches to attract new and additional funds to the forest sector in developing countries are required to reduce forest loss and avoid GHG emissions.

Sources of funding

• Capacity building: ODA, bilateral and multilateral agreements, public-private partnerships and other mechanisms.

• Up-front financing is essential. Possible sources: revolving funds, advanced payments, ODA and new donor programs, among others.

• For prompt-start experiences, market-based approaches are also a possibility.

Sources of funding

• To reduce GHG emissions at a scale that would be adequate for pursuing the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC, positive incentives should be based on market mechanisms and/or other innovative and flexible financial approaches.

• Mechanisms for reducing GHG emissions from deforestation should not undermine GHG emission reduction efforts by Annex I countries, nor weaken the existing flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.

Technical issues

• Actions to curb GHG emissions from deforestation should be implemented at the project level; a project may be implemented up to the regional or national scale.

• Reference scenarios on GHG emissions from deforestation should not disadvantage countries that have taken early actions.

• Definitions should allow the participation of all Parties and the use of different types of activities for reducing GHG emissions from deforestation.

• The discussion on technical issues should not prevent or delay the adoption of adequate and equitable policy approaches and positive incentives.

Conclusions

• We must start building capacities in developing countries while we study and discuss policy approaches/incentives/mechanisms.

• Conditions and drivers are very different, there is no “silver bullet”, therefore innovative mechanisms have to be designed and assessed.

• Consequently, we need to keep ALL the options open at this point in the negotiation process.