Redd co-creator urges idea's adoption in Copenhagen

Redd co-creator urges idea's adoption in Copenhagen

Marcio Santilli

A hot topic at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen will be a concept called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Redd). If Redd is included in a future climate regimen, industrialized nations could meet greenhouse targets in part by funding developingworld projects to slow deforestation. And if he were so inclined, Brazil's Marcio Santilli could claim some credit. Santilli, co-founder of the Socio-Environmental Institute (ISA), a leading Brazilian green group, is one of the concept's original proponents.
That's why Time magazine named him one of its "Heroes of the Environment" for 2009. Santilli cofounded ISA in 1994, after serving in Brazil's Congress.
He became ISA's first executive director but took a leave in 1995 to lead Funai, Brazil's indigenous-affairs agency, returning to ISA two years later. He now coordinates ISA's Environmental Law and Policy Program. Santilli spoke recently with EcoAméricas correspondent Michael Kepp.

Were you the first person to come up with the Redd idea?

I and five other people presented the concept, which we called Credd, or Compensation for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, at the UN climate change meeting in Milan in 2003. Credit should go to the whole group and to the efforts of many others who have tried to find a viable solution to encourage the reduction of tropical deforestation.

Why should Redd be included in a post-Kyoto climate treaty?

Protecting existing tropical forests is essential for the future of the planet. Yet the Kyoto Protocol didn't provide financial compensation for projects in countries that reduce greenhouse gas emissions through forest conservation. Any post-Kyoto treaty that results from the Copenhagen conference needs an instrument like Redd to correct this omission. Providing such compensation could cause developed countries to transfer billions of dollars in the form of carbon credits to tropical, developing nations, which have slowed greenhouse emissions by reducing deforestation rates. It is crucial that developing countries get the financial encouragement needed to reduce deforestation rates. Deforestation accounts for 17%-20% of greenhouse emissions worldwide, more than the global transport sector.

Some critics say carbon savings through Redd would lack permanence since forests can later be cut, and so-called leakage can occur when conservation in one area boosts deforestation in another.

Using annual, national deforestation rates is the best way to avoid this leakage. Forestry-related carbon stocks, because they are on the earth's surface and in contact with the atmosphere, will always be the most at risk. As such, measures to protect them need to be strengthened, not dismissed. The permanence of these stocks should be guaranteed on a daily basis, both by satellite monitoring and the constant presence of federal and state environmental field teams. If, for whatever reason, these carbon stocks are released into the atmosphere, all global efforts to reduce carbon emissions will be for naught. [Developing] countries with the most greenhouse emissions need to be compensated, a posteriori, for verifiable reductions of their deforestation rates. Countries whose forests have historically suffered from a significant amount of deforestation but which do not have control systems, such as satellite monitoring, should have access to investments, say donations, that are not linked to carbon credits. Although those countries should provide most of the capital for such control systems, part of the outside investments could go to putting control systems in place. It's of paramount importance that countries with forests have affordable access to remote monitoring technologies that can be coupled to local verifications systems. Countries whose forests have historically not suffered significant deforestation should be supported by other mechanisms outside the carbon-credit market such as developed-country donations and a tax on all carbon-market transactions.

Critics also say Redd might harm forest communities by triggering land grabs by governments or companies eager to earn income for protecting woodlands. And they claim developed nations might use Redd to skirt their greenhouse limits, creating a counterproductive shell game.

For Redd to function effectively, three things need to be put in place: international rules, national policies and local projects by forest communities. Without even one of these components, Redd will produce no results or skewed results. I don't believe any government or private company can reach consistent deforestation emissions reductions by expelling forest communities, among them indigenous groups, from their land. If such expulsions were to somehow occur, the responsible parties should be denied compensation because they have practiced a crime against humanity. As for developed countries using Redd credits to avoid post-Kyoto commitments, I feel that in any post-Kyoto agreement, all signatory countries must reach part of their targets by a compulsory reduction of their own emissions. They can't be allowed to reach their targets simply by buying enough carbon credits in developing countries. If some signatory countries don't achieve any emissions reductions, they should not have access to a compensatory mechanism, not even Redd.

Industrialized nations seem supportive of Redd, but worry it might flood the market with carbon credits, threatening revenue streams for renewable energy projects.

It would be marvelous if implementation of Redd were to suddenly cause significant deforestation-emissions reductions in tropical countries to the point of inundating the carbon market.
But I don't think that this is a realistic hypothesis. Even with the existence of Redd, [reducing global greenhouse emissions] will be difficult and costly, and there will be a delay in the effective reductions from deforestation. So brokers of carbon credits coming from energy projects shouldn't get nervous.

What do you expect to emerge in the wake of Copenhagen?

I hope for strong climate-change mitigation, but the signs are that there will be bold emissions-reduction targets only for 2050, and laxer ones for 2020. And I hope any post-Kyoto treaty includes Redd programs. Developed countries need to adequately compensate developing countries for reaching post-Kyoto treaty targets. Redd is a fundamental mechanism for doing so.

Eco Américas, v. 12 n. 1, nov. 2009, p. 12

http://www.ecoamericas.com/en/story.aspx?id=1065