A Little Redd Model Rgd 20090525

A Little REDD ModelReducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Richard G. Dudley

[email protected]

Forests and Climate

• Forests are usually thought of as CO2 sinks– Forests will soak up excess CO2

• growing trees create a net absorption of CO2 • Forests contain large stocks of carbon

• BUT Forests are also major sources of CO2 emissions… especially via– Deforestation and forest degradation

• Permanent removal or damage to forests causes the contained carbon to be released as CO2

17% of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions

are from Forests

• Mostly from deforestationand forest degradation

• Mostly as CO2

waste and wastewater

3%

energy supply26%

transport13%

buildings8%

industry19%

agriculture14%

forestry17%

Thus… preventing deforestation can also

substantially reduce human caused

greenhouse gas emissions.

Sources of Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas

Emissions

What is REDD? Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation

• A proposed program to be included as a part of new international climate agreements.

• Emphasizes protection of carbon in existing forests.

• Payments would be made to protect these forests in order to keep carbon from being emitted as CO2.

How Will REDD Work?

• Payments for carbon contained in “Avoided Deforestation”

• In other words…

Payment will be made for carbon that would have been emitted as CO2

if new policies had not been implemented

Payment for REDD Carbon Credits• Will be based on additional carbon actually

retained in newly protected forests compared to a baseline

• Will be based on the forest carbon difference between a

baseline “business as usual” scenario and a

policy “forest saving” scenario

• Source of funds will be sale of carbon credits in the ‘carbon market’

A Few (of Many) Problems• What is the Baseline?

– What would have happened if we had no policy to reduce deforestation emissions?

• How accurately is carbon measured?– Millions of dollars of transactions

(Incentives for cheating?)

• What type of “policies” will be allowed?– Most discussion is about full forest protection,

but is that realistic?

• Who will actually get the money?

My Interest – This ModelA very specific, simple, sub-set of these issues

•A model allowing quick comparisons of possible baseline vs policy scenarios

• An instructive model which also allows:– tracking of carbon in forest products– tracking of carbon price if desired

• A model that has potential for further expansion but remains understandable… for example …– add carbon in soils?– examine landscapes with mixed ‘policies’??

Model Basics

Amount of CO2Stored in Forest

Lands

amount of CO2being sequestered

by the forest

release of carbonstored in forest

Forest Area

deforestation

forestation

EXPECTEDDEFORESTATION

RATE

mean amount CO2stored per ha

SATURATIONAMOUNT

TIME NEEDEDTO REACH

SATURATION

BL net change inforest CO2

policy net changein forest CO2

AccumulatedPolicy Caused

Forest CO2accumulatingCO2 due to

policydifferences

Forest Area

deforestation

forestation


Lands


by the forest




RATE

SATURATIONAMOUNT

TIME NEEDEDTO REACH

SATURATION

Forest Area

deforestation

forestation


Lands


by the forest




RATE

SATURATIONAMOUNT

TIME NEEDEDTO REACH

SATURATION

Baseline ScenarioPolicy Scenario

-

=Two Copies of the Model:

a Policy Scenario and a Baseline Scenario

Value of Avoided Carbon Emissions

baselinenet changein forest C

policy netchange inforest C

AccumulatedPolicy Caused

Forest Cnet C changedue to policydifferences

value per tonof avoided

emissions ofcarbon

Accumulated Valueof Policy Caused

Forest Cincreasing extracarbon value

decreasing extracarbon value

mean value of extraforest stored carbon

accumulating valueof carbon due topolicy differences

Best option for determining value of

carbon credits

Carbon in Forest Products?

Carbon in ForestProducts product

decomposition

productlength of life

fraction of C releasescaptured in durable

products

C being storedin products

release of Cstored in forest

A Basic Example:• Baseline: 3% deforestation

• Policy: Full forest protection

• This was the typical, prototype, REDD policy scenario

Ton

s of

car

bon

per

hect

are

Baseline vs Policy Scenario: Carbon in Forest Lands250

200

150

100

50

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Year

Difference =avoided emissions

Baseline: 3% deforestation

Policy: Protect Forest

Ave

rag

e

Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario2,000 $

80 $/Year

1,500 $60 $/Year

1,000 $40 $/Year

500 $20 $/Year

0 $0 $/Year

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Year

value of policy caused carbon in forest$/hectare

accumulating value of forest carbon $/year per hectare

This is a good indicator of the level of payments that might be expected

under REDD

Probably a discounted value of this flow

Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario2,000 $

80 $/Year

1,500 $60 $/Year

1,000 $40 $/Year

500 $20 $/Year

0 $0 $/Year

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Year


accumulating carbon value $/year per hectare

For example: Perhaps a 25 year contract with an ultimate total amount paid of

perhaps $1,100 per hectare

With a declining payment schedule

Paym

ent

sche

dule

What About Other Policies?

• Sustainable Forest Management?

• Plantations?

• Unsuccessful forest protection? = slower deforestation…

• Can these approaches also help prevent CO2 emissions from deforestation?

That policy was:Full Forest Protection

That was the original REDD concept

Policy Scenario: Sustainable Forest Management

• Baseline: 3% deforestation

• Policy: 3% Harvest with replanting or natural ‘regeneration’

• Can also include carbon in long-lived forest products (houses, furniture)– Fraction of tree carbon ending up as

product is about 25%– Half life of products is about 40 years

Baseline vs Policy Scenario: Carbon in Forest Lands

2000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Year

250

200

150

100

50

0

ton

s

New Policy Difference =avoided emissions

Baseline: 3% deforestation

Policy: Sustainable Forest Management

Original Policy: Protect Forest

Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario

2,000 $80 $/Year

1,500 $60 $/Year

1,000 $40 $/Year

500 $20 $/Year

0 $0 $/Year

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Year




Value of Avoided Emissions of CO2 Due to Policy Scenario

2,000 $80 $/Year

1,500 $60 $/Year

1,000 $40 $/Year

500 $20 $/Year

0 $0 $/Year

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Year




Probable 25 Year payment schedule

Compare to payments under full forest protection

250

200

150

100

50

0

ton

s

Policy: Sustainable Forest management

Change in Stored Carbon: Forest + Products

Additional avoided emissions due to policy caused differences in

carbon stored in forest products

Avoided emissions due to sustainable forest management

compared to baseline of 3% deforestation

1. This difference is also dependent on what wood from deforested lands was used for

Carbon in products is important, BUT

2. Who would receive payments for carbon credits derived from

wood products?

Value of Avoided Emissions for Three Possible Policiescompared to 3% deforestation

80

40

0

-40

-800 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Year

$/Y

ear

Protect forest

Forest management

Plantation management

Summary:• A simple model allows quick comparison of

policy options• Policies involving tree harvest create younger

forests which hold less carbon• Nevertheless, policies with modest harvest

might allow carbon credits to supplement harvest income

• Carbon in long-lived wood products could possibly add additional carbon credit income

• Rapid turnover plantations are probably not a viable option for REDD credits

Questions?

Comments?

Suggestions?

A Little Redd Model Rgd 20090525

Documents

Transcript of A Little Redd Model Rgd 20090525