Transcript This presentation is supported by COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, MEXICO, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERU and URUGUAY UNFCCC Workshop on Reducing GHG Emissions from Deforestation in.

This presentation is supported by COLOMBIA, ECUADOR,
GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, MEXICO, NICARAGUA,
PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PERU and URUGUAY
UNFCCC Workshop on
Reducing GHG Emissions from
Deforestation in Developing
Countries
Rome, 29 August – 1 September
What is
?
• 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
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.
Examples of drivers
in the region
• 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.
Source: FAO
Projected deforestation in
tropical Latin America,
2000-2010
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, marketbased 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.