A Little REDD ModelReducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Richard G. Dudley
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
Amount of CO2Stored in Forest
Lands
amount of CO2being sequestered
by the forest
release of carbonstored in forest
mean amount CO2stored per ha
EXPECTEDDEFORESTATION
RATE
SATURATIONAMOUNT
TIME NEEDEDTO REACH
SATURATION
Forest Area
deforestation
forestation
Amount of CO2Stored in Forest
Lands
amount of CO2being sequestered
by the forest
release of carbonstored in forest
mean amount CO2stored per ha
EXPECTEDDEFORESTATION
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 $/Year
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Year
value of policy caused carbon in forest$/hectare
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
Policy: Sustainable Forest Management
accumulating carbon value $/year per hectare
value of policy caused carbon in forest$/hectare
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
Policy: Sustainable Forest Management
accumulating carbon value $/year per hectare
value of policy caused carbon in forest$/hectare
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?
Top Related