International Union for Conservation of Nature

The International Union for Conservation of Nature

The role of forest landscape restoration in addressing climate change

Stewart Maginnis

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Industry14%

Agriculture14%

Land Use18%

Buildings8%

Transport14%

Power24%

Waste3%

Other energy use5%

Energy emissions

Non-energy emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions 2000Source Stern review 2006

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Forests and Climate Change

FAO 2005

Net changes in forest area 2000-2005

International Union for Conservation of Nature

• What is at stake?– Sukbdev estimates USD 2 – 5 trillion natural forest

capital lost each year– Stern estimates USD 5 – 15 billion per year to cut

deforestation rates by half!

• But…• GEF invests USD 100 million in forests per year• Certified forest products annually= USD 120 million• ODA investments in forest protection = USD 800 million• NGO investments in forest conservation = USD 1.2 billion

(source Coalition of Rainforest Nations)

• So..• In theory, REDD payments could make up the difference

International Union for Conservation of Nature

The restoration link

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Tropical countriesTropical countries’’ forest endowment:forest endowment:Distinct situations, different approachesDistinct situations, different approaches

e.g. Gabon, Suriname, PNG,Estado do Amazonas

Time Time sequencesequence

Mosttropicalcountries

Many forest-poor countries

e.g. Tropical China,Some states in India, Philippines, Costa Rica,South Africa, ...

Forest Landscape Restoration:Forest Landscape Restoration:Afforestation /Reforestation:Afforestation /Reforestation:Increasing carbonIncreasing carbon poolspools

REDD: REDD: ReducingReducing emissionsemissions fromfromdeforestationdeforestation and and forestforest degradationdegradation

SFM: SFM: conservingconserving existingexisting carboncarbon stocksstocks

AfforestationAfforestation and and reforestationreforestation,,forestforest landscape restorationlandscape restoration

80%80%

ForestForestCoverCover

..20%20%

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Appropriate strategies will change over time!

CASE STUDY: Western Region,GHANA

1986Accuracy: 94 %

Mixed land cover (mainly agroforest)Forest

UrbanBare soil

20 km

Legend

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Mixed land cover (mainly agroforest)Forest

UrbanBare soil

20 km

Legend

2000Accuracy: 88%

Approximately 2% per year

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Mixed land cover (mainly agroforest)Forest

UrbanBare soil

20 km

Legend

2007Accuracy: 90 %

Little forest left outside gazetted forest reserves –

fewer opportunities to avoid deforestation

International Union for Conservation of Nature

So perhaps the focus should shift to restoring degraded forest lands

Dome River Forest Reserve 1990Dome River Forest Reserve 2007

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Forest Degradation Process Deforestation(land-use change)

Devegetation

------ Sustainable use of existing forest:RED(D)RED(D) About 77 GtCO2e until 2030About 77 GtCO2e until 2030

Closed forest Production forest Degraded forest Non-forest

years

C+++ C+ C-

------ Plantations & Agroforestry: Carbon sequestrationincluded in A/R CDM

min. 18.7 GtCO2e up to 2030min. 18.7 GtCO2e up to 2030

tC

------ Forest Restoration on degraded forest lands: Not clearly considered as a mitigation option yet

estimated at estimated at 117 GtCO2e up to 2030117 GtCO2e up to 2030

International Union for Conservation of Nature

A REDD /forest restoration modelEmission of

tCO2

2009 2029

.

.

.2005

1990

C Gain1

Year

C Gain2

B: Setting abaseline of DD R:Reference

scenario

Committed period for REDD incentives

BB

RR

S1S1

S2S2

.Scenario 1: objective:focus on avoidingdeforestation

S2: Same as S1, but includes restoration

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Forests and Climate Change

KEY MESSAGE– The potential contribution that a multi-

function, multiple value forest resourcecan make to climate change WILL SELDOM BE FULLY REALISED unless"REDD-type" arrangements includemeasures to halt and reverse forestdegradation.

International Union for Conservation of Nature

•There is a real risk that future schemes are designed to pursue emissions reduction through “avoiding deforestation” alone

•Yet forests are unique in helping to avoid emissions, sequester additional carbon and enhance ecosystemand livelihood resilience (adaptation).

•Simple ‘carbon’ solutions might fail deliver a broad range of benefits from forest landscapes.

•More integrated approaches could incorporate forest-based mitigation & climate change adaptation with, for example, Forest Landscape Restoration.

WARNING: Forests are more than sticks of carbon!

International Union for Conservation of Nature

.. and simple carbon solutions may noteven deliver mitigation benefits

Emission Reductions

Finance Mechanisms&

Monitoring Protocols

Basic Governance & SFM

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Other Challenges

• Payments for ecosystem services (such as carbon) appealing at the global level but it is at the national and sub-national level that the real challenges emerge:

• How to avoid creating perverse incentives for forest owners? E.g. early schemes in NZ effectively “nationalized” carbon and slowed the rates of private tree planting

• How to ensure that payments fairly benefit forest managers, forest owners and forest communities?

• Similar approaches needed to address these whether the focus is REDD or FLR

International Union for Conservation of Nature

• Build on in-country capacity aimed at improving basic governance and complement processes designed to address degradation

• Participation of forest dependent communities and appropriate benefit sharing mechanisms

• Support national processes aimed at reviewing and clarifying forest rights & tenure

• Treat these problems as land-use (not simply forest) issues – involve other departments!

• Take a learning approach.

Getting started