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

REDD+ and Other Sectors:
Climate Change Mitigation Through
Integration and Low-Emission
Development
Matthew Ogonowski
November 2012


Table of Contents

Page
Foreword

i

1 Introduction

1

2 REDD+ and Agriculture
2.1 Drivers and mitigation opportunities
2.2 MRV for forestry and agriculture

3
3
5

3 REDD+. Energy and GHG Mitigation
3.1 Primary fuels
3.2 Electricity
3.3 Transportation

3.4 Industry
3.5 Mining

7
7
8
9
11
11

4 REDD+ and Adaptation
4.1 The impact of global climate change on forests
4.2 REDD+ and adaptation policies and measures

13
13
14

5 REDD+ and Low-Emission Development Plans
5.1 General principles and objectives
of low-emission development plan designs
5.2 Comprehensive low-emission development
planning based on forestry/REDD+

16
16

6 Conclusion

23

SNV REDD +

18

www.snvworld.org/redd


Foreword

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 difficulties 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 financing and benefitsharing
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 identified 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 verification (MRV) for REDD+; and (iii)
REDD+ financing. 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 Office; the opinions and views expressed in this paper
are those of the author and not necessarily those of USAID and SNV.
This first paper is examining ‘REDD+ and Other Sectors: Climate Change
Mitigation through Integration and Low-Emission Development’

Richard McNally
SNV Global REDD+ Coordinator

i SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


Introduction

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 financial 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 specific sectors, and by achieving emissionreducing 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 verification (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

1.

See Paragraph 38. Available at />
2.

See for example the US government strategy on REDD+ (December 2010) and its relationship to low emission development strategies

(LEDS), available at />
1 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


1

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 benefits 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 lowemission 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 />
2 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


REDD+ and Agriculture

In this section, we discuss the linkage between agriculture, forestry and REDD+, and the
status of MRV related to these sectors.

2.1

Drivers and mitigation opportunities

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 significant 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 specified land uses).8

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 />
5.

See Butler, R., “62% of deforested Amazon ends up as cattle pasture,” September 4, 2011. Available at gabay.
com/2011/0904-amazon_deforestation_causes.html. Brazil has made significant 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 />
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 />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/files/methods_science/redd/application/pdf/incentives_to_reduce_ghg_emissions_from_deforestation_lesson_learned_
from_costa_rica_and_mexico.pdf.

3 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


2

•

Intensification 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 certification 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 intensification programs could reduce pressures on forests in
some cases, in others they may simply increase profits 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 crosscutting, 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.

4 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


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; fires; 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 flooded 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 first
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 The 2006 IPCC
Guidelines are available at />
5 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


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 offices 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 five 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 />forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Vietnam_FCPF_R-PIN_0.pdf.

6 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


REDD+, Energy and GHG Mitigation

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 significant 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 difficult. 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 significant advantage is that this measure can lead to
a substantial net sequestration of carbon when implemented on a broad scale. The use of
higher efficiency 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 beneficial.
Restricting harvesting to levels adequate for natural regeneration is often difficult 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 insufficient.

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 difficult to obtain, which in theory
will encourage energy efficiency 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.

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 />
7 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


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 benefits 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 significant 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-fired
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-fired 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 flooded. Large dams also emit significant
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 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 />14. For additional discussion see for example Graham-Rowe, G., February 24, 2005, “Hydroelectric
Power’s Dirty Secret Revealed,” available at />
8 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


To maintain the capacity of existing dams and avoid creating perverse feedbacks with
fossil-fired 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
benefiting from the services.15

Deforestation from constructing new dams presents a more difficult 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 benefits 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 inefficient smaller or older thermal generation units with larger
or newer designs, addressing transmission and distribution losses) and end-use energy
efficiency 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-fired boilers that
power steam turbines can be co-fired with biomass. In the pulp and paper and palm oil
industries biomass is widely used for cogeneration, avoiding the need to purchase fossilfired 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 />PaymentForForestEnvironmentalServicesARBCPCaseStudy.pdf.

9 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


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 flow 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, fires 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 benefit 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 fires 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 />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 />21%202006).pdf.

10 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


3.4

Industry

Development and expansion of the pulp and paper industry is another economic activity
which has had significant impact on tropical forests. In Indonesia, unsustainable logging of
natural forests and insufficient 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 significant deposits of valuable minerals such as coal, copper, gold, silver,
nickel, tin, iron and natural gas have been identified 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 profits 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 identifies 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 firms 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 />19. For more information see />
11 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd

could then be invested to support REDD+ projects and policies. An alternative would be an
incentive program in which international or national funds are used to reward companies
that agree to limit operations in primary forest areas, and instead focus on areas outside of
forests or degraded areas with lower carbon density and/or ecosystem services.

12 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


REDD+ and Adaptation

The discussion above demonstrates the substantial overlap between forest conservation
and activities in other sectors in the context of GHG emissions mitigation. There are also
analogous and important linkages with adaptation. Tropical forest landscapes are highly
vulnerable to changes in climate, and their maintenance also serves to protect and maintain
vital livelihood activities and ecosystem services. This section provides a short overview of
the role in forests in adaptation, and explores policy options for REDD+ which also provide
adaptation benefits.

4.1

The impact of global climate change on forests

As is well known, tropical forests provide a range of valuable benefits and services. Globally,
these include carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection. Benefits at the local, national
and regional levels include fuel wood, timber, non-timber forest products (NTFPs), food, fish
and game, biodiversity protection, and a range of other ecosystem services (water quality
maintenance and purification, erosion/flooding control, temperature and weather regulation).
Global climate change will put many of these benefits at risk from increased temperatures,

droughts, fires and changes and declines in rainfall.
The impacts of global climate change on tropical forests will be very site-dependent.
While the vulnerability of forests depends on a range of factors, some forests will be
particularly at risk. For example, cloud forests are typically located in higher altitude areas
with steep gradients, while tropical dry forests are particularly vulnerable to changes in
rainfall, increased fires, land degradation and other factors.20 In addition, forests that have
experienced significant deforestation, degradation or fires will become even more vulnerable
to climate change. In general, many forests will experience increased tree mortality, more
frequent insect attacks, greater intensity and frequency of fires, genetic variation in tree
species, expanded rates of species mortality and changes in wildlife migration patterns.
In coastal areas, mangrove forests will experience increased saline intrusion and erosion.
Some studies indicate the potential for an increase in net ecosystem productivity in some
forests (due to CO2 fertilization, temperature increases and other factors).21 The net result in
many tropical forests, however, will be a substantial release of carbon into the atmosphere,
along with a decline in the many benefits and services upon which local communities,
indigenous peoples and national economies all rely.

20. See REDD-net, 2010, REDD+ and Adaptation to Climate Change, REDD-net, London. Available at />and%20adaptation.pdf.
21. For discussion of the impacts see Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., and Hanson, C.E., eds., 2007,
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, pp. 227-230,
329. Available at />
13 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


4

4.2

REDD+ and adaptation policies and measures

As a climate change policy tool intended to protect and reduce impacts on
tropical forests, REDD+ can mitigate GHG emissions and at the same time
help forest-dependent communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Furthermore, well-designed REDD+ projects and programs tailored to the
specific adaptation needs of individual forest areas can provide more “bang for
the buck” to LEDP planners in several ways. First, they can achieve multiple
near- and medium-term climate change goals with the same level of funding.
Second, by enhancing the resilience of forests over the long term they prevent
future releases of carbon from die-off of forest stands, in turn providing a
higher level of emission reductions than would be achieved from measures
that focus solely on addressing immediate human-caused deforestation and
degradation. Such REDD+ designs can also enhance the appeal to potential
funders and investors, providing additional resources for combined forest
mitigation and adaptation projects.
To take advantage of the adaptation opportunities offered by REDD+,
LED planners in tropical forest countries should begin by utilizing existing
information (e.g., National Adaptation Programmes of Action, or NAPAs) and
new analyses and data to identify forest areas likely to be vulnerable to climate
change. This should include evaluation of the potential impacts on areas
adjacent to forests and biodiversity migration patterns as well. This information
can then be used to design integrated REDD+ and forest adaptation plans.
Examples of the many potential measures include:
•

Agroforestry with multiple crops, which allows for switching between
crops based on climatic changes over time.

•

Education of local community forestry managers on climate change
impact monitoring and design and implementation of adaptation
measures.

•

Improved management and design of Protected Areas. For existing
Protected Areas this can include increased connectivity and
development of biodiversity corridors, while new reserves can be
designed to account for climate-induced changes in wildlife migration
patterns (e.g., siting along North-South routes, include areas with
higher elevations).22

22. In general, the same conditions that enhance the protection of biodiversity in reserves and protected areas
(i.e. those that are larger, less fragmented, interconnected with other nearby ecosystems through corridors,
harbor more diverse habitats, and are rounder in shape with fewer edge effects will be more effective)
will also make forests more climate resilient. For a basic overview of these factors in the design of nature
reserves see Primack, R.B., 2010, Essentials of Conservation Biology, Fifth Edition, Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA .

14 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


•

Integration of adaptation into the “Plus” elements (conservation, sustainable

management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks). For example:
MRV for conservation actions can include monitoring of changes in tree mortality,
and incorporate tree-planting and enhancement actions to account for any long-term
increases; sustainable management can be conducted to minimize fragmentation
and edge effects; enhancement activities can account for variations in carbon density
based on projected increases in fire risk; etc.

•

Mangrove forests offer a major opportunity for integrating mitigation and adaptation.
Mangroves in countries such as Indonesia, Mexico, Papua New Guinea and
Vietnam provide livelihoods for local communities through fishing and NTFPs, play
a significant role in reducing flooding and controlling erosion and saltwater intrusion,
and store large amounts of carbon. A 2011 study of 25 mangrove forests estimated
the average carbon content to be over 1,000 metric tons per hectare – much higher
than that found in tropical forests.23 These areas have, however, declined significantly
in many countries; a study by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO) found that Asia alone lost over 60,000 hectares from 2000-2005, most of it
in Indonesia, and the annual rate of loss accelerated after 2000. Some countries,
such as Vietnam, have, however, succeeded in slowing the rate of loss through
reforestation and other actions.24 Protecting mangrove forests therefore represents
a true “win-win” REDD+ option that can reduce emissions and provide substantial
adaptation benefits.

With respect to financing, it is important to note that in the decision reached at the UNFCCC
COP 17 meeting in Durban, South Africa in 2011, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term
Cooperative Action under the Convention noted that measures “such as joint mitigation and
adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests as a nonmarket alternative that supports and strengthens governance, the application of safeguards
… and the multiple functions of forests, could be developed.” In addition, the Green Climate
Fund established under the UNFCCC at COP 16 the previous year explicitly mentioned

REDD+ as a potential activity included under mitigation, while the Report of the Transitional
Committee for the Design of the Green Climate Fund submitted at COP 17 further notes
that “an integrated approach to funding mitigation and adaptation will be used to allow for
cross-cutting projects and programmes.”25 This recognition of the importance of integrated
mitigation and adaptation approaches could offer a promising pathway for well-crafted
REDD+ proposals to obtain funding.

23. Donato, D., et al., April 3, 2011, Mangroves among the most Carbon-rich Forests in the Tropics,” Nature Geoscience 4, 293–297
(2011), />24. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2007, The World’s Mangroves: 1980-2005, FAO Forestry Paper 153,
FAO, Rome, p. 24. Available at The rate of loss in Vietnam declined from 3%
annually from 1900-2000 to just 0.1% annually in the five years following.
25. Available at />of_the_tc_to_the_cop.pdf.

15 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


REDD+ and Low-Emission
Development Plans

5

As detailed here, a cross-cutting approach to GHG emissions mitigation
and national climate change policy offers a number of advantages and
opportunities that are often missed in the “sector-by-sector” approach that
has been employed to date, particularly with respect to forests and other
land use. As developing countries expand and diversify their economies the
network of interactions between activities, sectors and GHG emission sources
will increase and become even more complex, and both the opportunities

and risks associated with climate change policy will multiply in turn. The
sector-by-sector approach to climate policymaking is thus inadequate;
an integrated climate change approach embedded within a broader lowemission development framework is needed. In this section we build on the
discussion to suggest some general principles that should guide the design
and implementation of LEDPs. We then apply this to develop a proposal
for an integrated approach to forest management and REDD+ as a primary
component of a successful LEDP.

5.1

General principles and objectives of low-emission
development plan design

A number of initiatives are currently underway to train and work with
governments and other actors in developing countries to undertake LED
planning. While helpful, it appears that to date most have begun with a sectorby-sector approach to GHG mitigation as a basis for LEDP design. The
principles presented here are intended to complement existing efforts, fill in
gaps identified in this paper, and promote a broader and more comprehensive
approach to low-emission development.
In general, LEDPs should include and be guided by the following:26
•

Detailed evaluation of development objectives and needs, both current
and future, for each sector and for the country as a whole.

•

Sector-by-sector plans for achieving production goals and meeting
projected demand with the least-cost, lowest-emission options
that are available and feasible. This should incorporate a mix of

supply (e.g., forest plantations, relocation of agricultural operations,
renewable energy sources) and demand (e.g., reductions in fuel wood
consumption, end-use energy efficiency) measures, as appropriate.

•

Cross-sectoral measures that address interactive impacts between
sectors and harness opportunities for GHG reductions through
such interactions. This should include an estimation of the net GHG
emission impacts that includes the full range of Kyoto gases and their
associated GWPs.

•

Measures to estimate and minimize domestic leakage, both within and
between sectors.

26. Funding needs and financing sources will also be a fundamental component of LEDPs, but this is not
addressed here.

16 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


•

Horizontal coordination of the activities of ministries and agencies (environment,
energy, forestry, agriculture, industry, transportation, mining, rural development,
finance, etc.) involved in climate change and development policy, to achieve

synergies, reduce duplication and encourage collaboration. To include harmonization
of standards and formats for emissions accounting and other elements of MRV.

•

Vertical coordination between national programs and sub-national climate change
activities (individual projects, broader sub-national and sector-wide programs),
including reference levels, with a process for eventual integration into the national
LEDP.

•

Evaluation of environmental impacts not directly related to climate change including
both synergies and adverse effects.

•

Measures to ensure permanence of GHG emission reductions and low-emission
development over time, including staging and step-wise implementation and
accounting for changes in drivers, technologies, etc. In international discussions
of climate change, policy permanence has been discussed primarily in the context
of forest conservation. Over the short-term this may be justifiable given that many
energy-related measures (e.g., efficiency improvements in electric power generation
and industrial manufacturing) will also reduce costs and increase profits, providing
an incentive to maintain such measures even in the absence of GHG regulation. It
should be emphasized, however, that over the long term permanence is an issue in
all sectors, and that successfully combating global climate change will require lowemission policies and lifestyles to be maintained across the board. For example,
while energy efficiency measures are a crucial tool in GHG mitigation, they slow but
do not stop the combustion of fossil fuels. They are therefore best employed as shortand medium-term measures only.

•

Incorporation of adaptation programs, as appropriate. This should include, to
the extent possible, the use of joint mitigation and adaptation measures and the
integration of NAPAs and LEDPs into a combined national climate change framework.

•

Evaluation of the sectoral, geographic and economy-wide impacts on prices,
production, investment, wages, employment, etc.

This broad-based LEDP framework would offer many benefits; however, at the moment its
achievement remains an ideal that will face significant hurdles. Many of the above principles
are being followed and processes explored in current climate change and LEDP efforts, but
some have yet to be addressed in detail. For example, as noted above, the treatment of
sectors on an individual basis has largely continued despite the significant cross-sectoral
interactions, risks and opportunities detailed here. This is understandable given that lowemission development planning is still in the early stages, and that cross-sectoral impacts
can be difficult to predict. Addressing them will in any case require additional capacity
building and increases in financial and technical resources. Policies to address permanence
have been explored for REDD+ projects and programs, but these have largely been limited
to the near term. Detailed proposals to ensure the maintenance of LED frameworks for both
forests and energy over much a longer time period have yet to be developed.

17 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


With respect to institutions, coordination of implementing agencies has been frequently
discussed and efforts in this area are being undertaken in some countries. Their

success remains uncertain, however, as such actions often challenge ingrained patterns
of institutional behavior and can lead to competition and conflicts over authority and
responsibility. Encouraging ministries, agencies and individuals which have hitherto managed
sectors in isolation to work cooperatively and share information, will be one of the greatest
hurdles to be overcome.
The design and implementation of comprehensive LEDPs along lines presented here will
need to be adapted to country-specific conditions, but many of them will be essential for
long-term success. Integrated and cross-sectoral LEDP design will benefit from having robust
models that can offer useful lessons. Forestry and REDD+ offer an ideal opportunity to craft
such a model: the cross-sectoral impacts are significant, and REDD+ policies and pilots have
proceeded faster and farther than analogous mechanisms for energy-related GHG mitigation
(i.e. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, or NAMAs). A proposal for the key elements of
an LEDP design based on the above framework is presented below.

5.2

Comprehensive low-emission development planning based on
forestry/REDD+

We now look more specifically at each of the principles listed above with respect to forestry
and REDD+. The intention of this discussion is to present an LEDP proposal that can serve
as the starting point for designing a full-blown, integrated LEDP and climate change policy
network that expands from forestry to cover all sectors.
•

Policies and plans for achieving low-emission development in the forestry
sector have been well-developed through afforestation/reforestation and REDD+
programs. Significant progress has been made in capacity building and project and
policy development.

•

Cross-sectoral measures: LED programs in the forestry sector should pay close
attention to the interactions with agriculture and energy as discussed earlier. In
addition, a cross-sectoral approach offers opportunities for expanding GHG mitigation
opportunities that go beyond the protection of carbon stocks in natural forests
(the basis for compensation under REDD+ schemes). With this in mind, LEDPs
should explore the full net emissions impact of forestry measures, an approach that
accounts for changes in emissions of the different GHG types in all sectors affected.
For example, REDD+ actions that also prevent emissions of CO2 from farming
vehicles or higher GWP gases such as methane and N2O from avoided agricultural
operations (e.g., rice fields, livestock) can have a significantly larger net emissions
reduction benefit overall.27 At present, only the reductions resulting from protecting
or enhancing forest carbon stocks are eligible to receive REDD+ payments, but
reductions in other sectors catalyzed by forestry actions can present attractive
opportunities for mitigation that may be comparatively less expensive.

27. Debate exists as to whether REDD+ measures that preserve forests intended for development of livestock or food crops such as rice
actually reduce non-forest emissions overall. In the climate change literature it is often assumed that demand for beef, rice etc. is
fixed, and that the reductions in methane achieved will therefore be offset by emission increases elsewhere. This will however depend
on a number of factors, such as whether the food is consumed directly or sold for cash on domestic or international markets, whether
feedback effects from forest conservation affect prices, the extent to which consumers are likely to substitute other food sources and
their relative emissions profile, and the emissions intensity of farming methods in areas that experience increased production after
leakage. Additional country-specific and global analysis would help LEDP planners to address these issues.

18 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd

Another option to be considered is the potential conversion of existing agricultural
lands or settlements that have been abandoned or are otherwise no longer needed
into forest plantations. The potential net GHG benefit (including reductions in
methane or other gases) from converting such areas to forests can be significant.
Similarly, agroforestry options should account for potential changes in emissions
of CO2 from fossil fuels and other gases as well as the carbon stocks from avoided
deforestation. In cases where these and other REDD+ measures are projected to
increase net GHG emissions, this analysis will enable LED planners who elect to go
ahead with a REDD+ project to estimate the magnitude of reductions that would be
required in other sectors to offset the increase.
•

Measures to address domestic leakage in forestry currently focus on accounting
for geographic leakage, the potential relocation of logging, agricultural operations
and other activities from forests covered by sub-national REDD+ programs to other
vulnerable forest areas. LEDPs should endeavor to identify, track and prevent other
forms of leakage as well. Inter-activity leakage could occur as specific REDD+
activities change the behavior of players involved in forest-damaging actions. For
example, bans on clear-cutting or creation of new protected areas could lead actors
formally engaged in deforestation to shift to illegal logging, with a corresponding
increase in forest degradation. Enhanced monitoring coupled with measures to
provide alternative income/revenue sources will be helpful in such cases.
Inter-sectoral leakage could take two forms. One possibility is that forest conservation
and REDD+ measures could cause individuals or companies formerly utilizing
the forest to initiate other economic activities that have a higher emissions profile
(e.g., illegal loggers develop new agricultural activities to make a livelihood, with a
corresponding increase in methane and/or N2O emissions). A different risk is that
REDD+ actions could reduce the availability of certain inputs, increasing production
of other higher-emission ones. The example of geothermal power located within
Indonesia’s forests and the potential impact on coal-fired electricity generation has

already been discussed. Another possibility is that a reduction in the supply of wood
from natural forests leads to an increase in the use of fossil fuels for heat or cement
or metal as construction materials. In countries where inter-sectoral leakage appears
likely to occur on a significant scale, LED planners should conduct detailed analysis
with CGE modeling and other tools before undertaking REDD+ measures to evaluate
the net emissions and economic impacts.

•

19 SNV REDD +

Horizontal coordination should begin with efforts to coordinate the policies and
programs of the institutions directly responsible for forest management and REDD+.
One factor complicating the development of integrated national REDD+ programs
is that the management of national forests is often divided between different
agencies; in particular, in some countries (e.g., Cambodia) separate institutions are
responsible for management of state-owned and private forests (e.g., estate forest,
production forest) on the one hand, and protected areas and parks on the other.
In addition, general climate change policy and development of UNFCCC National
Communications are typically the responsibility of the environment ministry and other
bodies which may or may not be directly involved in forest management. In the short
term, horizontal coordination should begin with regular communication and sharing of

www.snvworld.org/redd


information to develop common policies, MRV standards and reporting formats. This
could be conducted through meetings of the agencies themselves, or through a new
agency or task force designed specifically for this purpose. Ideally responsibilities for
low-emission management of forests and REDD+ would eventually pass from the

individual agencies into a single body, though this will take time. While such efforts
have begun in a number of countries it is too soon to draw definitive conclusions on
this process. However, it appears likely that coordination efforts between national
ministries and agencies will be challenging, and are likely to encounter significant
resistance in some cases.
Looking beyond forestry, a higher-level institution for low-emission development
should be set up to coordinate the activities and policies undertaken by agencies
responsible for agriculture and other sectors involved in decisions on land use.
In cases where major decisions are sometimes undertaken by sub-national
governments, similar coordinating bodies can be set up at the provincial, state or
district level.28 In large countries this type of comprehensive framework for crosssectoral land-use management will take some time, and may require significant
resources. In the near-term countries should at a minimum be able to develop a
process for holding regular multi-agency meetings to share information, which will
assist LED planners with predicting and addressing the types of impacts discussed in
Part II and Part III. Development of common reporting formats for key activities and
land-use data should also be achievable in the immediate future, providing a sound
basis upon which to build an eventual integrated MRV system for AFOLU and other
sectors.
•

Vertical coordination: REDD+ pilot projects on the voluntary market, sub-national
programs and demonstration activities should be coordinated with the national
REDD+ plan and LEDP. Most existing sub-national REDD+ activities have been
undertaken independently of emerging national strategies and institutions. As a
result, a number of different standards for MRV and other basic components of
REDD+ have been used at the sub-national level. This inconsistency presents risks
of double counting, lack of cooperation and conflict between national and local
institutions, and increased costs related to integration of such efforts into national
plans later on. To the extent possible, sub-national REDD+ projects and programs
should therefore adopt MRV and other standards that are consistent with those used

in national REDD+ plans and emerging standards under the UNFCCC. They should
also include detailed and transparent methodologies for estimating, minimizing and
monitoring leakage. At the national level, REDD+ plans should include procedures
for coordination and eventual integration of sub-national actions. Coordination
between national and local institutions for forest governance (including cross-sectoral
provincial, state or district level bodies for REDD+ management) are an equally
important component, particularly in countries like Indonesia where policymaking is
significantly decentralized.

28. For an example of an effort to set up such a body in Indonesia see CER Indonesia and Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), 2011,
Establishing Integrated Forest Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation at the
District Level: The District of Musi Rawas, South Sumatra, Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), Washington, DC. Available at http://
www.ccap.org/docs/resources/1008/CCAP_CER_Indonesia_Report.pdf.

20 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


In the technical area, one element that should be given particular attention is
the integration of sub-national REDD+ reference levels and crediting baselines.
Developing procedures to match sub-national with national baselines and assisting
local REDD+ managers with such procedures can help to avoid future complications
and reduce the costs of integration. It will also be useful for LEDP managers to
conduct local training sessions and discussions in other areas important to rural lowemission development. Such knowledge-sharing sessions could be of great benefit to
the process of adapting the national LEDP to local areas.
•

Other environmental impacts include biodiversity protection, maintenance
of ecosystem services, and air and water pollution. To ensure the maximum

protection of biodiversity, forestry and REDD+ components of LEDPs should include
development and maintenance of wildlife migration corridors based on sound
biological analysis, as well as incorporation of procedures to track biodiversity
populations, migration patterns, etc. into REDD+ forest monitoring as an integral
component. This will be particularly needed in cases where the REDD+ activity
involves ongoing human involvement in or utilization of natural forests (sustainable
harvesting, reduced impact logging, enhancement of forest carbon stocks). LED
planners should also include the value of ecosystem services and the impact of their
potential loss in all evaluations conducted. Where such services cannot be quantified
they should nonetheless be explicitly detailed and considered in some manner
when evaluating different options. As noted in the adaptation discussion, forests
play an important role in maintaining water quality; some forest protection actions,
however, could lead to increases in water and air pollution. LEDPs should pay
particular attention to the effect of cross-sectoral impacts on pollution - for example, if
agroforestry actions lead to increased run-off, or activities to sustainably manage or
enhance carbon stocks in natural forests lead to an increase in criteria pollutants from
vehicles. Again a detailed analysis of the net environmental impacts considering both
forestry and all other affected sectors should be conducted.

•

Long-term permanence: Ensuring the protection of forests over the long term
is a vital component of successful LEDPs and national environmental protection
programs in general. This can be done through a two-stage approach. REDD+
payments will be crucial for providing incentives for countries and landholders to
conserve forests in the near and medium terms. Over the long term, however, carbon
payments from developed countries and private sector entities cannot be expected
to continue indefinitely; it will therefore be necessary to gradually phase out such
payments with measures that integrate forest conservation into human development
and do not depend upon carbon revenues. These include agroforestry, alternative

livelihoods, ecotourism, sustainable NTFP production and programs that harness
other ecosystem services.29 As part of this two-stage process LEDPs should include
detailed studies to identify and assess the values of NTFPs and forest ecosystem
services. Building on this, LED managers can develop local programs to educate
forest-dependent communities on the non-carbon benefits of conserving forests

29. While beyond the scope of this paper, it should be noted that a similar step-wise process can be used for low-emission
development in the energy sector. While energy-efficiency and fuel-switching measures only slow the rate of emissions from
fossil fuels, they can be utilized in the short term to buy time for the development and deployment of measures and technologies
that prevent the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, such as zero-emission renewable energy, end-of-pipe CO2 scrubbers, and
geologic carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

21 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd


and train them in the implementation of new, forest-friendly economic activities. This
effort can learn from existing community-based efforts that have already succeeded
in conserving tropical forest areas outside of a formal REDD+ framework, such as
the Conservation International shade-grown coffee project in the state of Chiapas,
Mexico, and the integrated coconut utilization and ecotourism projects in Musi Rawas
district, South Sumatra province, Indonesia.30
•

Incorporation of adaptation programs: As discussed in Part IV, LEDPs should
endeavor to design and adopt REDD+ measures that can also enhance the climate
resilience of forests, and should account for adaptation benefits when evaluating
alternative REDD+ proposals. They should also explore synergies with NAPAs with
respect to policies, costs and institutions, where appropriate.

•

Evaluation of the sectoral and economy-wide impacts: This analysis should
include the impacts of REDD+ measures on production, employment, incomes and
supplies of wood and agricultural commodities, as well as domestic leakage.

This list is by no means intended as exhaustive, but aims to capture some key principles to
guide development of successful, integrated LEDPs for forestry and REDD+. This integrated
design offers a number of advantages. By achieving synergies between sectors, expanding
the range of mitigation measures, emission sources and gases considered, and planning
ahead for coordination of REDD+ projects and institutions, the integrated approach can
reduce transaction and implementation costs and achieve more emissions reduction “bang
for the buck.” Consideration of cross-sectoral, non-climate environmental and adaptation
benefits can increase the appeal of forest conservation and REDD+ to the public. It can also
make it easier to “bundle” smaller or dissimilar projects to obtain financing, encourage private
sector investment by reducing risk, and enable better access to global climate funds (e.g.,
through access to joint mitigation and adaptation funding under the Green Climate Fund).
Perhaps most importantly, this LEDP proposal is based on the reality that carbon payments
will not continue forever, and therefore cannot ensure permanence. By taking a much longerterm perspective and incorporating procedures for using REDD+ as a temporary tool to
embed forest conservation into development, it can achieve the long-term preservation of
tropical forests in a way that REDD+, by itself, cannot.
Despite the advantages, the difficulties facing such an approach are indeed substantial.
One fundamental problem is that this will require a whole new framework of cooperation
and harmonization across diverse institutions, sectors and geographic regions involved
in forest and land management and use. In general, it would be expected that countries
with relatively larger forest areas or older or more complicated governance institutions will
face a greater challenge. In addition, this integrated framework will require changes in the
relationship between international donors and countries. The current donor framework is in
most cases, based on agreements with specific sector agencies (e.g., forestry, agriculture or

energy ministries). This would need to expand to align donor-funded programs with multiple
domestic institutions and coordinating bodies effectively.

30. For more on the project in Chiapas see />aspx. The Indonesia project is discussed in CER Indonesia and Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), Establishing Integrated
Forest Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation at the District Level: The District
of Musi Rawas, South Sumatra.

22 SNV REDD +

www.snvworld.org/redd