REDD+ and Other Sectors: Climate Change Mitigation Through Integration and LowEmission Development

Energy and GHG Mitigation 7 4.1 The impact of global climate change on forests 13 4.2 REDD+ and adaptation policies and measures 14 5 REDD+ and Low-Emission Development Plans 16 5.1 Gen

REDD+ and Other Sectors:

Climate Change Mitigation Through Integration and Low-Emission

Development

Matthew Ogonowski

November 2012

Page

2.1 Drivers and mitigation opportunities 3

2.2 MRV for forestry and agriculture 5

3 REDD+ Energy and GHG Mitigation 7

4.1 The impact of global climate change on forests 13

4.2 REDD+ and adaptation policies and measures 14

5 REDD+ and Low-Emission Development Plans 16

5.1 General principles and objectives

of low-emission development plan designs 16

5.2 Comprehensive low-emission development

Table of Contents

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)

is facing many challenges, not least the slow and uncertain rate of progress

in reducing actual greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry sector For

many of us with experience working in this sector, these diffi culties are not

unexpected Critical issues pertinent to forestry and land use remain, including

the need for further technical and institutional capacity building at both the

national and local levels, development of effective fi nancing and benefi tsharing

arrangements, addressing tenure rights and governance issues, and the need

for more integrated land-use planning

On an optimistic note, REDD+ has helped shift the debate forward, bringing

greater attention to the forestry sector’s role in global climate change and

helping to spur debate in some countries on the role of local communities

in forest management It has also fostered real advances in transparency of

forest data and the means to measure forest cover changes and estimate

emissions It is important that the international community continues to build

on these developments and to provide the necessary investment in REDD+

over the long term SNV has identifi ed a number of critical areas in which

we believe further thinking is needed in order to advance application of

REDD+, namely: (i) how to better link the sectors driving deforestation and

forest degradation through low-emission development planning; (ii) near-term

options for measurement, reporting and verifi cation (MRV) for REDD+; and (iii)

REDD+ fi nancing SNV hired Matthew Ogonowski, an independent consultant

based in Washington, DC who has been closely involved in the development

of REDD+, to provide further insights on each of these topics Mr Ogonowski

is now employed at the US Agency for International Development (USAID)

Global Climate Change Offi ce; the opinions and views expressed in this paper

are those of the author and not necessarily those of USAID and SNV

This fi rst paper is examining ‘REDD+ and Other Sectors: Climate Change

Mitigation through Integration and Low-Emission Development’

Richard McNally

SNV Global REDD+ Coordinator

In the international discussions regarding actions to address global climate change, the

design and implementation of low-emission development plans (LEDPs) has become a

central focus of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in developing countries

The draft decision of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action agreed at

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP 17 meeting

in Durban, South Africa, for example, “encourages developing country Parties to develop

low-emission development strategies, recognizing the need for fi nancial and technical

support by developed country Parties for the formulation of these strategies, and invites

interested developing country Parties to share experience on the formulation of low-emission

development strategies…” [emphasis in the original].1 LEDPs are intended as country-driven,

economy-wide blueprints to enable developing countries to attain a high standard of living

by implementing low-emission activities in specifi c sectors, and by achieving

emission-reducing synergies across sectors The goal is to set these countries on a path to sustainable

livelihoods and development, without the fossil fuel- and resource-intensive production and

consumption patterns that have characterized growth in developed countries

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) has been another

key element of climate change activities over the past few years Most prominently, the

negotiations on REDD+ in the UNFCCC culminated in 2010 in the decision reached at COP

16 in Cancun, Mexico A number of multilateral and bilateral REDD+ support programs

have been implemented as well, and efforts undertaken by tropical forest countries include

small- to medium-scale REDD+ pilot projects, development of national REDD+ plans,

and other capacity building activities (e.g., reference level analysis, design of systems for

measurement, reporting and verifi cation (MRV) and institutional development) REDD+ has

also become recognized as an important tool that can be used to reduce GHG emissions

and at the same time encourage alternative rural livelihoods and boost incomes As a result

the potential role played by REDD+ in low-emission development (LED) in tropical forest

countries has become increasingly appreciated, and is a component of a number of bilateral

and international efforts to craft and implement effective LEDPs.2

Agricultural, forestry and other land-use activities will - and indeed must - be a central focus

of successful LEDPs Agriculture and forestry are important sources of national income and

provide livelihoods for the vast majority of the world’s poor They also account for the majority

of emissions in most developing countries, and some 30% of global GHG emissions.3 The

role of agriculture as a driver of deforestation is widely known and being addressed through

REDD+ projects in many countries; however, the broader linkages and synergies between

Introduction

1 See Paragraph 38 Available at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01_02cp17.pdf.

2 See for example the US government strategy on REDD+ (December 2010) and its relationship to low emission development strategies (LEDS), available at http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/climate/docs/UnitedStatesREDD+Brochure.pdf

forestry and agriculture in the context of GHG emissions mitigation have yet

to be addressed in a comprehensive manner On a broader scale, little effort

has been made to explore the full extent of opportunities and risks associated

with the links between forestry/REDD+ and other sectors (energy supply,

transportation, industry and mining) In part this is the result of the continuation

of the historical “sector-by-sector” approach to climate change policy in the

context of LEDPs, as well as the fact that LED is a very recent project still in

the process of being elaborated

With a complex and intricate web of interactions between forestry and many

other sectors, the potential benefi ts from incorporating forestry/REDD+ into

an integrated, cross-sectoral LEDP policy framework are substantial, as are

the potential risks from ignoring them This paper is intended as a contribution

to the design of such an integrated framework By detailing the linkages

between these sectors and presenting policy options for achieving synergies

and minimizing risks, this analysis aims to contribute to the development of

effective LEDPs that can achieve the promise of effective, economy-wide

low-emission planning

The paper begins with a discussion of the role of agriculture as a driver of

deforestation and potential mitigation opportunities, followed by a presentation

of recent efforts to integrate the methodologies for GHG emissions accounting

in these sectors Part III discusses the role played by activities in other sectors

(energy, transportation, etc.) in deforestation, and details opportunities for

GHG mitigation and achieving potential synergies with forest conservation

Part IV discusses the connection between REDD+ and adaptation The paper

then builds upon the sectoral analysis to develop key principles for LEDPs

It concludes with a presentation of a proposed framework for effective LEDP

design for forest conservation that goes beyond protection of natural forest

areas for REDD+

3 See http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/fi gure-spm-3.html

REDD+ and Agriculture

4 Kissinger, G., Herold, M., and De Sy, V., August 2012, Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+

Policymakers, Lexeme Consulting, Vancouver, Canada, p 11 Available at

http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/international-climate-change/6316-drivers-deforestation-report.pdf

5 See Butler, R., “62% of deforested Amazon ends up as cattle pasture,” September 4, 2011 Available at http://news.mongabay.

com/2011/0904-amazon_deforestation_causes.html Brazil has made signifi cant progress in reducing the rate of deforestation in the Amazon over the past decade

6 Carlson, K., et al., October 7, 2012, “Carbon emissions from forest conversion by Kalimantan oil palm plantations,” Nature Climate

Change Available at http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1702.html.

7 For additional discussion of this topic see Graham, G., and Vignola, R., 2011, REDD+ and Agriculture: A Cross-sectoral Approach

to REDD+ and Implications for the Poor, REDD-net, London Available at http://redd-net.org/fi les/REDD%20and%20agriculture%20

laid%20up.pdf

8 For more on these programs see Karousakis, K., 2007, Incentives to Reduce GHG Emissions from Deforestation: Lessons Learned

from Costa Rica and Mexico, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France Available at http://

unfccc.int/fi les/methods_science/redd/application/pdf/incentives_to_reduce_ghg_emissions_from_deforestation_lesson_learned_ from_costa_rica_and_mexico.pdf

In this section, we discuss the linkage between agriculture, forestry and REDD+, and the

status of MRV related to these sectors

The role played by agriculture in tropical deforestation is well-known, and therefore only

a brief introduction will be provided here Over the past three decades agriculture has

overtaken logging and other forest uses as the preeminent driver of tropical deforestation

worldwide A recent study estimates that agricultural development currently accounts for

about 80% of deforestation globally, with commercial agriculture accounting for around

two-thirds of deforestation in Latin America and one-third in Africa and subtropical Asia.4

Production of crops such as rice, coffee, oil palm, and rubber, as well as livestock, have

all contributed, and large-scale agriculture has been a driver in a number of countries with

important forest ecosystems In Brazil, cattle ranching has been the preeminent driver of

deforestation, with over 60% of the deforested area in the Brazilian Amazon through 2008

occupied by pasture.5 In Indonesia, palm oil production continues to be a signifi cant factor

in both the clearing of forests and the degradation of peat lands A recent study estimates

that oil palm plantations in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) totaled 3.2 million ha in 2010,

with 90% of this development from 1990 occurring in forest areas and nearly 50% in intact

forests.6 In addition, small-scale agriculture by lower income farmers has led to clearing

and degradation of forests and damage to protected areas across the globe The need for

approaches that can satisfy demand for agricultural products - and maintain the livelihoods

of the many individuals and economies that depend upon agriculture - in a manner that does

not require the clearing of natural forests is thus one of the most important challenges for the

success of REDD+

A large number of REDD+ policies and measures to address agricultural drivers of

deforestation have been proposed and attempted.7 These include:

• Direct payments to farmers and agricultural companies for conserving natural forests

These include REDD+ projects on the voluntary market offering payments based on

the carbon conserved, and payments for environmental/ecosystem services (PES)

programs for forest conservation not based on carbon (e.g., Mexico’s Payment for

Environmental Hydrological Services program, with payments per ha based on forest

type; Costa Rica’s Payment for Environmental Services Program, with payments per

ha based on specifi ed land uses).8

• Intensifi cation programs to increase productivity

• Re-location of agricultural operations to barren or degraded lands

• Agroforestry and production of forest-friendly crops (e.g., shade-grown

coffee, cocoa, perennials)

• End-use certifi cation schemes (e.g., sustainable palm oil, fair trade

coffee)

The record of success of such measures to date is mixed For example, a

number of agroforestry projects have succeeded in protecting tropical forest

areas While intensifi cation programs could reduce pressures on forests in

some cases, in others they may simply increase profi ts without slowing the

expansion of agricultural operations as the increased revenues are invested

in new areas REDD+ offers a path to providing an incentive for farmers

to maintain, rather than clear, forests, but the voluntary market is still in its

infancy and the initiation of a global compliance market under the UNFCCC

still some way away

Given that agriculture is a large and complex sector with a diverse number

of players, activities and interactions, efforts to address deforestation and

its associated GHG emissions will require a comprehensive and integrated

approach that explores the linkages between such factors This would

include estimation of emissions through an integrated approach to MRV,

and embedding climate change policy for these sectors within a

cross-cutting, national LEDP framework Integration offers a number of potential

advantages over separate treatment of forestry and agriculture for both

emissions accounting and policy For example, development of combined

emission inventories can improve accuracy, reduce the risk of double counting

and lower costs of data collection and MRV By evaluating the net impacts

of land-use activities and GHG mitigation actions across the sectors, an

integrated approach can also identify new targets for mitigation beyond forest

conservation (e.g., converting agricultural lands or settlements to forests), as

well as potential negative feedbacks

The next section explores MRV for the sectors LEDPs will be discussed later

in the paper

2.2 MRV for forestry and agriculture

Sector emissions and climate change background

In emission inventories, GHG emissions from deforestation are included in the land use,

land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector, which includes emissions from forests and

other land types (grasslands, wetlands and settlements) LULUCF emissions can include

CO2 emissions from: deforestation; forest and soil degradation; drainage and degradation of

peat lands and wetlands; fi res; and development of lands for settlements and infrastructure

Sources of CO2 removals from trees and forests include afforestation, reforestation,

enrichment planting and assisted natural regeneration Agricultural emissions can include:

CO2 emissions from soil tillage, lime and urea application and fossil fuel combustion in

vehicles, equipment and buildings; methane emissions from enteric fermentation, rice

cultivation, irrigation, manure management and fl ooded lands; and nitrous oxide (N2O)

emissions from managed soils (e.g., fertilizer application) and manure management

As noted previously, deforestation and agriculture together account for some 30% of

global GHG emissions The proportion is much higher in most developing countries, and

on an individual basis both sectors are prominent in their GHG inventories However, in

international climate change negotiations and domestic GHG mitigation actions deforestation

has received far more attention This includes the negotiations on REDD+ and the Cancun

decision in 2010, the inclusion of afforestation and reforestation as options in the Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM), more recent discussions of the treatment of LULUCF

under the Kyoto Protocol, and the many REDD+ projects already undertaken In contrast,

agricultural emissions have been largely ignored This is in part the result of the prior

attention given to forest conservation by NGOs and in multilateral forums (e.g., the campaign

to “green” the World Bank in the 1980s, the negotiations on a forest treaty at the Rio Earth

Summit in 1992 and the UN Forum on Forests), the perceived range of cost-effective and

feasible opportunities available for GHG emissions mitigation in forestry and lack thereof

in agriculture, concerns over potential impacts on food supplies and prices, and perhaps a

relatively greater level of risk adversity in agriculture Emissions from forestry and agriculture

are also reported separately in National Communications submitted to the UNFCCC With

respect to climate change policy and emissions accounting, LULUCF and agriculture have

thus proceeded on separate tracks

Integration of MRV methodologies

Until recently, the guidance developed by the IPCC included separate frameworks for

reporting GHG emissions from agriculture and LULUCF A step toward an integrated

approach to forest and agriculture emissions accounting came with the release of the 2006

IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories This document for the fi rst

time provided an integrated framework combining agriculture and LULUCF into one sector

called Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU).9 The 2006 Guidelines also

include extended and improved default values, more detailed accounting methods (e.g.,

for emissions from wetlands), and addition of new categories of emission sources (e.g.,

9 For an overview of this integration process see http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/presentation/LULUCF-AFOLU.pdf The 2006 IPCC

Guidelines are available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html

indirect N2O emissions from nitrogen deposition, urea application and treatment of harvested

wood products) The IPCC’s stated goals for this integration work were to resolve data

inconsistencies, avoid double counting and reduce the potential for omissions The 2006

Guidelines stipulate that only GHG emissions from managed lands are included in emissions

inventories

The presentation of an integrated set of guidelines for emissions accounting from agriculture

and LULUCF is a useful step forward toward the goal of an integrated approach to climate

change policy in these sectors The 2006 Guidelines will likely be most helpful to new

countries that have yet to develop detailed procedures for GHG inventories and departments

dedicated to them Since they are starting earlier, the new Guidelines could help encourage

a combined framework for managing the sectors more broadly By itself however the new

framework will likely have only minimal impact One major problem is that in most countries

multiple institutions are responsible for managing the two sectors These institutions

(government ministries or agencies) often employ different procedures for data collection

and estimation of land-use changes and emissions for forests and agricultural lands In some

countries, the situation is further complicated by the existence of the same pattern among

sub-divisions or offi ces within institutions as well.

Vietnam provides an illustrative example The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

(MARD) is responsible for management of the country’s forests and agricultural operations

MARD is the focal point for REDD+ policy, and its Forest Inventory and Planning Institute

(FIPI) conducts a national survey of Vietnam’s forests every fi ve years to develop the

National Forest Inventory In addition, other institutions within MARD, such as the Forest

Protection Department (FPD) and the Department of Forestry (DOF), have been involved

in forest assessments, but each agency uses different methods to collect and analyze

data The General Department of Land Administration of the Ministry of Natural Resources

and Environment (MONRE) develops land use and zoning plans for a range of land types,

approves plans developed by MARD, and is the lead agency on climate change policy

The procedures used by MONRE to classify and track changes in forest areas are different

from those used by MARD, and these inconsistencies, along with overlapping mandates

have hampered institutional coordination.10 This pattern is repeated in many countries As

this example shows, the coordination of government institutions for managing forests and

agricultural activities will be a crucial hurdle for climate change policy to overcome

In the following section, we expand the analysis to explore the linkages between LULUCF

and other energy-related activities in the context of REDD+ and forest management

10 See Scheyvens, H., ed., 2010, Developing National REDD-Plus Systems: Progress Challenges and Ways Forward – Indonesia

and Viet Nam Country Studies, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan, pp 62-64, available at http://

enviroscope.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=3051, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2008, Forest Carbon Partnership

Facility (FCPF) Readiness Plan Idea Note (R-PIN) Template, p 2, available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/

forestcarbonpartnership.org/fi les/Documents/PDF/Vietnam_FCPF_R-PIN_0.pdf

3.1 Primary Fuels

Fuel wood

Wood continues to be one of the main energy sources for some two billion people around the

world Fuel wood collection and charcoal production is the main driver of forest degradation

in Africa, but is less important in Latin America and Asia.11 While the reliance on fuel wood

typically declines as populations become more urbanized and per capita income increases,

it is nonetheless projected that by 2030 fuel wood consumption will increase by 17% above

2005 levels in Sub-Saharan Africa and South America.12

Addressing emissions from this source presents signifi cant challenges, especially given that

individuals and communities utilizing wood for fuel tend to be poor and located in rural areas

Adopting REDD+ measures that close off forests could in turn reduce access to needed

wood supplies and increase the cost of other fuels Much of the unsustainable harvesting

of wood is also done illegally, making enforcement of logging restrictions more diffi cult In

addition, the transaction costs of measures to address degradation from fuel wood collection

can be high, as harvesting is often conducted by large numbers of individual smallholders

REDD+ actions in this area must therefore provide communities with alternative fuel

sources, and should be designed and implemented with the active participation of the local

community

A number of mitigation options exist to address this driver Afforestation and reforestation

with fast-growing wood species is an attractive option, provided that the cost of plantations

is not prohibitively high and that wood supplies can be adequately matched to demand

From a climate change perspective, a signifi cant advantage is that this measure can lead to

a substantial net sequestration of carbon when implemented on a broad scale The use of

higher effi ciency cookstoves to reduce the amount of wood or charcoal needed is another

option, along with development of biogas and biodigester units for heat Educating local

communities in the use of sustainable forest management techniques can also be benefi cial

Restricting harvesting to levels adequate for natural regeneration is often diffi cult to achieve

in practice, however, and will in any case cause some level of damage and degradation to

forests This option should therefore be considered only after efforts to meet supply with

plantations and reduced demand are undertaken and deemed insuffi cient

Fossil fuels and renewables

In addition to the use of wood as a fuel source, limitations on access to and use of forests

can also have impacts on primary energy supplies For example, in countries such as

Indonesia substantial quantities of coal are located within tropical forests With coal being the

most carbon-intensive of fossil fuels, restricting access to forest-based coal deposits as part

of REDD+ could increase prices and make supplies more diffi cult to obtain, which in theory

will encourage energy effi ciency and make renewables more competitive On the other hand,

failure to account for these potential impacts to prevent bottlenecks and price shocks could

adversely affect the economy and harm lower income individuals A related concern is that

REDD+ activities could also inhibit the development of some low-emission energy sources

This is a particular concern in Indonesia, a country with some 28 gigawatts of geothermal

potential, mostly located within forest areas

REDD+, Energy and GHG Mitigation

11 Kissinger, G., Herold, M., and De Sy, V., Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+

Policymakers, p 11.

12 Mead, D.J., 2005, “Forests for Energy and the Role of Planted Trees,” Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24(5): 407–421, cited in

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010, What Woodfuels can do to Mitigate Climate Change, FAO

Forestry Paper 162, FAO, Rome, p 31 Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1756e/i1756e00.pdf.

3

Countries undertaking national or sub-national REDD+ programs should

include an assessment and mapping of deposits of such energy sources in the

early stages of LED planning In cases where forest protection appears likely

to impact access to energy supplies, appropriate studies can be conducted

using sectoral and computable general equilibrium (CGE) modeling to

estimate the likely impact on energy prices, GHG emissions and economic

activity Conducting such analysis and making the results publicly available

can help to ensure that a broad range of stakeholders that may be affected are

included, thereby lowering potential concerns over, and opposition to, REDD+

programs In the case of the implementation of the moratorium on new permits

for clearing forests and peat lands in Indonesia announced in 2011, the

government decided to exempt forest areas with energy supplies such as coal

or geothermal power from the regulation Similar decisions in other countries

will need to be based on the quantity of the energy supplies, the relative

economic benefi ts of harnessing them versus leaving the forest intact, the

extent and carbon content of the forest concerned, and other factors

3.2 Electricity

Electricity generation can have signifi cant interactions with forests and

their associated emissions, both positive and negative The location of coal

deposits within tropical forests has already been discussed It should be

further noted that combustion of coal currently accounts for about 40% of

electricity generation worldwide To the extent that the reliance on coal-fi red

electric power generation rises over time in some countries, this will in turn

increase the likelihood that forest-based deposits of this fuel will be exploited

more broadly, in turn causing additional deforestation and degradation

Large-scale hydroelectric power also poses substantial risks for tropical

forests Brazil, for example, relies on hydroelectric units for over 80% of its

power generation, and many of the existing dams are located in or near forest

areas Hydroelectric power is also important in a number of Asian countries

Going forward, over 20 new dams are planned in the Brazilian Amazon and

in the Mekong region 11 dams are planned in the near-term and 77 through

2030.13 With respect to existing dams, large-scale deforestation in these

regions could lead to siltation and a reduction in dam capacity Over time

this may in turn encourage the construction of new coal-fi red power plants

to meet electricity demand, leading to a large increase in CO2 emissions

New hydroelectric dams located in forests lead to direct deforestation as

large areas are cleared and then fl ooded Large dams also emit signifi cant

quantities of methane over their lifetime, a greenhouse gas with 21 times the

global warming potential (GWP) of CO2, but these emissions are not typically

reported.14

13 Tavener, B., September 25, 2012, “New Dams Planned for Heart of Amazon,” The Rio Times,

available at

http://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/new-dams-planned-for-heart-of-amazon; Orr, S., et al., “Dams on the Mekong River: Lost Fish Protein and the Implications for

Land and Water Resources,” Global Environmental Change, Volume 22, Issue 4, October 2012,

Pages 925–932, available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012000647

14 For additional discussion see for example Graham-Rowe, G., February 24, 2005, “Hydroelectric

Power’s Dirty Secret Revealed,” available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046

To maintain the capacity of existing dams and avoid creating perverse feedbacks with

fossil-fi red electricity generation, LEDPs for countries such as Brazil should target forests

located near and upstream from hydroelectric reservoirs (or tributaries that feed into them)

for protection One useful option that has been employed in some countries is a payments

for ecosystem services (PES) system in which local communities are trained and paid to

maintain such forests Funding can be provided through public sources, though another

innovative option is to pay for the program by charging downstream users of the water and

electricity services provided This was explored in Vietnam through the Payment for Forest

Environmental Services (PFES) pilot program in Lam Dong Province funded by the US

Agency for International Development (USAID), in which funding originated from the utilities

benefi ting from the services.15

Deforestation from constructing new dams presents a more diffi cult problem, as any

alternative must provide a means of meeting the same level of electricity demand In the

past, hydroelectric dams have sometimes been constructed without adequate evaluation

of the potential benefi ts and costs LEDPs in developing countries with substantial planned

increases in hydroelectric capacity should therefore include detailed studies that take into

account a realistic lifetime of the dams, potential declines in dam capacity over time, and,

most importantly, the extent to which demand could be met through improvements in existing

supply (e.g., replacement of ineffi cient smaller or older thermal generation units with larger

or newer designs, addressing transmission and distribution losses) and end-use energy

effi ciency measures To the greatest extent possible, required new generation should be met

with development of renewables, including small-scale hydro, solar and wind power National

REDD+ and low-emission development plans should also adopt detailed and long-term

strategies for protecting forests located near any new dams built in the future

One area where positive synergies between electric power generation and forestry/REDD+

can be achieved is the use of biomass for fuel Many older existing coal-fi red boilers that

power steam turbines can be co-fi red with biomass In the pulp and paper and palm oil

industries biomass is widely used for cogeneration, avoiding the need to purchase

fossil-fi red electricity from the regional grid Use of biomass for electric power can achieve

reductions in GHG emissions, provided that the biomass source is produced in a sustainable,

“carbon-neutral” manner Afforestation and reforestation of barren lands to produce biomass

plantations offers a promising pathway that can increase terrestrial carbon sequestration and

reduce emissions from fossil fuels, although the location of the targeted power plants must

be taken into account If plants are located far from areas to be reforested the biomass will

need to be transported, with a corresponding increase in emissions from oil and gasoline

consumption

3.3 Transportation

The development of road, rail and transportation networks has been a driver of deforestation

in some countries In addition to the direct clearing of forests during the construction phase,

road development can also have a substantial secondary effect as migrants and illegal

loggers obtain greater access to forests that were hitherto inaccessible In the Peruvian

Amazon, for example, one study estimates that paving of the Interoceanic Highway since

15 For more information see Winrock International, 2011, Payment for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study on

Pilot Implementation in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam from 2006 - 2010 Available at http://www.winrock.org/fnrm/fi les/

PaymentForForestEnvironmentalServicesARBCPCaseStudy.pdf

2006 combined with other drivers increased carbon emissions from deforestation by over

60%, and doubled those from forest degradation.16 The negative impact of roads extends

to biodiversity protection and climate resilience as well In the case of the former, roads,

bridges, tollbooths and checkpoints divide and often block animal migration pathways vital

to the reproduction of keystone and other species, and increase animal deaths from vehicle

collisions They can also disrupt the fl ow of streams and rivers In addition, roads increase

the number of edges and corners of forest areas and divide formerly contiguous ecosystems

into smaller ones Such edge effects can decrease the health of forest stands and make

them more vulnerable to wind, fi res and storms Air and water pollution from construction can

further affect the health of stands and biodiversity alike

The development of road and transportation networks is a fundamental component of

development and poverty reduction Particularly in rural areas, proximity to roads often

determines the ability of individuals and communities to bring goods to market and increase

and diversify incomes LEDPs should, however, conduct mapping and planning for new

roads carefully, and should endeavor to locate road and rail networks outside of and away

from forest areas The use of road-to-rail has been shown to be a viable option for GHG

emissions mitigation by reducing the dependence on heavy-duty vehicles for transporting

goods This could also be explored as an alternative to construction of new roads (in forest

areas) intended primarily for economic activity and trade, with the added benefi t of reducing

oil and gasoline consumption Sustainable transportation plans should be combined with

national REDD+ and forest management plans to ensure that the impact of road building on

forests is minimized

In cases where new roads are constructed within primary forests, LED planning teams

should include trained conservation biologists and climate adaptation specialists who can

conduct detailed studies of the long-term impact on ecosystems Assessments should

identify existing wildlife migration pathways that will be disrupted, and the development of

conservation corridors should be designed and built into the transportation plan as a core

component Similarly, adaptation specialists can identify areas of forests likely to become

more vulnerable to fi res and other stressors, and appropriate monitoring and protection

options can then be implemented accordingly

Production and use of forest- or crop-based biofuels can also be employed as a mitigation

option to address fossil fuel emissions from transportation The use of biofuels from sugar

cane, jatropha, oil palm and other sources to replace gasoline has been extensively

researched and well-covered elsewhere Large-scale production and use of biofuels has

been successfully implemented in Brazil, where the use of alcohol from sugar cane was

projected in one study to reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles by one-third below

business-as-usual levels in 2020.17 LEDPs considering the use of biofuels should develop

plantations on barren or degraded lands It should also be kept in mind that while some

crops can be grown on a range of different land types, the use of biofuels such as palm oil

may involve clearing of forest areas, with a corresponding large initial release of carbon

LED planners should also consider the potential impact on food production, particularly with

respect to large-scale biofuel production In some cases intercropping with food and biofuel

crops may be a possible solution

16 Asner, G.P., et al., August 10, 2010, High-resolution Forest Carbon Stocks and Emissions in the Amazon, PNAS, Washington, DC

Available at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/30/1004875107.full.pdf

17 La Rovere, E.L., et al., Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Brazil: Scenarios and Opportunities through 2025, Center for Clean Air Policy

(CCAP), Washington, DC, p 122 Available at http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/538/Final%20Brazil%20Report%20(Nov%20

21%202006).pdf

3.4 Industry

Development and expansion of the pulp and paper industry is another economic activity

which has had signifi cant impact on tropical forests In Indonesia, unsustainable logging of

natural forests and insuffi cient supply from plantations for pulp feedstock has historically

been a contributor to forest loss, although the country has made some progress in recent

years (including an accelerated growth in plantations and a target for full plantation sourcing

by 2014).18 In countries with substantial pulp and paper production, LEDPs should work with

the industry to meet demand through dedicated plantations with fast-growing species The

replacement of small and older mills should also be explored

In the iron and steel industry, in Brazil, renewable charcoal is an important fuel source The

Plantar project in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, developed as a CDM project under the

World Bank Prototype Carbon Fund is a prominent example Charcoal is produced from local

eucalyptus plantations and used as fuel in place of coal coke, reducing GHG emissions from

this source.19 This process can be technically challenging to implement, but LED planners

may wish to explore its applicability in their own iron and steel industries

3.5 Mining

Large-scale industrial mining has become recognized as an emerging driver of deforestation

In many countries signifi cant deposits of valuable minerals such as coal, copper, gold, silver,

nickel, tin, iron and natural gas have been identifi ed within tropical forest areas Mining can

produce many of the same impacts associated with road construction; the difference is

that while forests and lands converted to roads can sometimes be reclaimed, the impact of

large-scale mining on forest landscapes will in most cases be permanent and irreversible

Mining represents a formidable challenge for forest conservation and LEDPs: unlike many

agricultural drivers the scale of the profi ts to be made will place most mining concessions

well beyond the practical range of revenues from carbon payments and PES programs,

and the strategic importance of many minerals provides another powerful incentive for

governments to move ahead with their extraction As such, while the status of protected

areas and parks may prevent mining from going forward, LED planners should understand

that many mining operations in forest areas will inevitably proceed

LEDPs should begin by ensuring that detailed analysis accurately identifi es the mineral

types and quantities located in forest areas In forests where mining will proceed, LEDPs

should expand and enhance the practice of conducting environmental impact assessments,

with consideration of multiple options to minimize the impact on forests (analogous to

the procedure discussed for road building) This should include the likely impact on local

communities and indigenous peoples from the permanent loss of forest Concession owners

could also be required to protect or rehabilitate degraded forests located in other areas as

a condition of their using the forest This could be done by having the fi rms directly invest

in REDD+ or afforestation/reforestation projects, or by implementing a national tax related

to the forest area, carbon stocks and/or ecosystem services that will be lost This revenue

18 See Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2010, The Impact of Research on Policy and Practice in Indonesia’s Pulp and

Paper Sector, UK Department for International Development, London Available at http://www.dfi

d.gov.uk/What-we-do/Research-and-evidence/case-studies/research-case-studies/2011/Indonesias-pulp-and-paper-sector

19 For more information see http://wbcarbonfi nance.org/Router.cfm?Page=Projport&ProjID=9600#DocsList