![La Presentación ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a REDD: Implicaciones, preocupaciones y el reto para las comunidades forestales
Semelhante a REDD: Implicaciones, preocupaciones y el reto para las comunidades forestales (20)
Mais de Fundación PRISMA
Mais de Fundación PRISMA (20)
Último
Último (10)
REDD: Implicaciones, preocupaciones y el reto para las comunidades forestales
- 1. REDD: Implicaciones, preocupaciones y el reto para las comunidades forestales Deborah Barry Rights and Resources Initiative ¨Reducciones de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación: Implicaciones para Comunidades Forestales¨ October 7, 2009
Notas do Editor
- Good morning. We’ve heard over the past two days how important the issue of climate change is for forests. How it is important for the survival of forests, how changes in climate have many unintended consequences for forests and the people that rely on them and on government policy. This morning we heard 4 great presentations: Mr Kurz and Mr Giryaev explained some of the science. John gave his impressions of the politics in the global financing for REDD Luiz covered Brazil and its positions as it engages in an effort to combat deforesation. And so I will not take too much time, but try to open the debate for the next session by highlighting some issues of concern and uncertainty that are facing the world as it tries to address REDD and some questions for forest agencies and their interactions to make meaningful reductions in forest carbon emissions. Of course, we must recognize that only Brazil and Indonesia are participating REDD countries, but the US and Canada are potential purchasers of REDD credits. But if conservation and restoration are included China could also participate. But it was interesting to hear over lunch the other day that BC is trying to find ways to offset its 6000ha of deforestation and the the US is having difficulties getting landowners engaging in carbon programs. It might point to how difficult REDD will be in tropical countries.
- To continue I’d like to look at some of the assumptions that are orienting the international debate on the use of forests as a mitigation tool. I think it’s important to look at some of these assumptions (and my identification of them might be mis-guided) because these are some of the main considerations now informing a lot of what happens in the negotiations. Negotiations are not finished and the details must be worked out but a lot is operating on some (founded or un-founded assumptions). Firstly, much of the international discussions are dominated by the desire to find “predictable finance” at a huge scale. Some of the leading proponents of REDD within the negotiations – PNG – are calling for the world to open up its wallet. And McKinsey has estimated that the world needs to invest between 15 and 20billion/year to get a 25% decrease in deforestation over the next few years. Secondly, the monitoring question still lingers. While the definitions of deforestation are still to be worked out, there is the assumption that techonology is good enough already to be used to accurately monitor deforestation, degradation and ensuing carbon status. Some would disagree. The need for on-the-ground verification is still present and this would require significant effort. Thirdly, it’s assumed that REDD can scale up rapidly once the agreement is worked out. Proponents of REDD cite test cases where REDD is working very well. Often these are in places where there are few conflicts, where tenure is addressed, homogenous ethnic groups, etc. And it’s assumed that the private market will engage substantially. Fourthly, there is the impression that REDD is being designed to deliver all things to all people: carbon, development, biodiversity, timber supplies. Will this really play out? Fifthly, it’s assumed that whatever is decided can actually work – what’s our track record on that? CDM not too successful with A/R, TFAP not very successful Sixthly, it’s assumed that REDD is the cheap and easy way to mitigate climate change. Yes it might be cheaper than shutting down cement factories, but is it really that easy? And by connection it’s assumed that paying communities is cheap, but that might be based on bad assumptions about the real “subsistence opportunity costs”. Communities use forests for so much.
- Governments: Nepal, China (tenure reform and CDM project), Brazil (esfuerzos múltiples- Meridian, TFD, RRI,