IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v76y2018icp414-421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

REDD+ implementation in a high forest low deforestation area: Constraints on monitoring forest carbon emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Guadalupe, Vicente
  • Sotta, Eleneide Doff
  • Santos, Valdenira Ferreira
  • Gonçalves Aguiar, Leonardo José
  • Vieira, Marta
  • de Oliveira, Cinthia Pereira
  • Nascimento Siqueira, João Vitor

Abstract

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+), is still a promising mechanism of the UNFCCC for many tropical countries that would like to receive a fair financial compensation for their historical and current efforts to avoid forest conversion at the expense of more economically land uses. Brazil has a great opportunity to successfully participate in REDD+ not only because of its huge Amazon forest area (ca. 4 million km2) but also because of its advanced forest monitoring system “PRODES”. However, this opportunity could be threatened due to the current differentiated monitoring capacities of most Brazilian Amazon states, markedly in High-Forest and Low-Deforestation (HFLD) regions. This is evident in the State of Amapá, which despite its political will to support actions towards the design of its REDD+ strategy, is still struggling with key technical aspects of forest monitoring. To address this issue and to strengthen the on-going REDD+ design process we assessed a) land use and land cover (LULC) changes for period of 23 years (1985–2008); b) estimated CO2 emissions associated to these LULC changes; c) identified the main drivers and agents of deforestation, and d) discussed policy implications for REDD+ implementation in a HFLD area. We applied a methodology, which is capable of reducing cloud cover using temporal filters on the classified images, detecting deforestation (and forest degradation) in areas as small as 1 ha, and used the decision tree method to identify different LULC types. This methodology was able to demonstrate that forest cover in northern Amapá has remained almost untouched during the observed period of 23-years. As many other HFLD areas, this region has a great potential to receive financial benefits from the REDD+ mechanism, especially from voluntary markets that are largely interested in the conservation value of these areas. However, the use of high accuracy LULC classification approaches, with appropriate Measuring, Reporting and Verification systems should be part of the REDD+ implementation strategy of HFLD areas towards having high standards for certified carbon, and therefore improved chances to receive better prices for carbon offsets. The potential of REDD+ to be a fair and efficient mechanism will also depend on the recognition of the historical efforts to avoid deforestation in HFLD areas, mainly by Federal Governments, as an incentive for low-carbon development.

Suggested Citation

  • Guadalupe, Vicente & Sotta, Eleneide Doff & Santos, Valdenira Ferreira & Gonçalves Aguiar, Leonardo José & Vieira, Marta & de Oliveira, Cinthia Pereira & Nascimento Siqueira, João Vitor, 2018. "REDD+ implementation in a high forest low deforestation area: Constraints on monitoring forest carbon emissions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 414-421.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:76:y:2018:i:c:p:414-421
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716306007
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delacote, Philippe & Palmer, Charles & Bakkegaard, Riyong Kim & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2014. "Unveiling information on opportunity costs in REDD: Who obtains the surplus when policy objectives differ?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 508-527.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12951 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Barua, Sepul K. & Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi & Kuuluvainen, Jari, 2014. "On the economics of tropical deforestation: Carbon credit markets and national policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 36-45.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Qing Liu & Dongdong Yang & Lei Cao & Bruce Anderson, 2022. "Assessment and Prediction of Carbon Storage Based on Land Use/Land Cover Dynamics in the Tropics: A Case Study of Hainan Island, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Jichuan Sheng & Weihai Zhou & Alex De Sherbinin, 2018. "Uncertainty in Estimates, Incentives, and Emission Reductions in REDD+ Projects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Jack Baynes & Geoff P. Lovell & John Herbohn, 2021. "Psychological outcomes of REDD + projects: evidence from country case studies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 1-27, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Huangling Gu & Yan Liu & Hao Xia & Zilong Li & Liyuan Huang & Yanjia Zeng, 2023. "Temporal and Spatial Differences in CO 2 Equivalent Emissions and Carbon Compensation Caused by Land Use Changes and Industrial Development in Hunan Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Laing, Timothy & Palmer, Charles, 2015. "Economy-wide impacts of REDD when there is political influence," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 107-126.
    3. Paula Cordero Salas & Brian E. Roe & Brent Sohngen, 2018. "Additionality When REDD Contracts Must be Self-Enforcing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(1), pages 195-215, January.
    4. Matthias Kalkuhl & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2017. "Ramsey meets Thünen: the impact of land taxes on economic development and land conservation," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 24(2), pages 350-380, April.
    5. Palmer, Charles & Taschini, Luca & Laing, Timothy, 2017. "Getting more ‘carbon bang’ for your ‘buck’ in Acre State, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 214-227.
    6. Philippe Delacote & Gwenolé Le Velly & Gabriela Simonet, 2020. "Distinguishing potential and effective additionality to revisit the location bias of REDD+ project," Working Papers hal-01954923, HAL.
    7. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Fernandez Milan, Blanca & Schwerhoff, Gregor & Jakob, Michael & Hahnen, Maren & Creutzig, Felix, 2017. "Fiscal Instruments for Sustainable Development: The Case of Land Taxes," MPRA Paper 78652, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    9. Koch, Nicolas & Reuter, Wolf Heinrich & Fuss, Sabine & Grosjean, Godefroy, 2017. "Permits vs. offsets under investment uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 33-47.
    10. Jichuan Sheng & Weihai Zhou & Alex De Sherbinin, 2018. "Uncertainty in Estimates, Incentives, and Emission Reductions in REDD+ Projects," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, July.
    11. Wolfersberger, Julien & Amacher, Gregory S. & Delacote, Philippe & Dragicevic, Arnaud, 2022. "The dynamics of deforestation and reforestation in a developing economy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 272-293, June.
    12. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    13. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.
    14. Nicola K Abram & Douglas C MacMillan & Panteleimon Xofis & Marc Ancrenaz & Joseph Tzanopoulos & Robert Ong & Benoit Goossens & Lian Pin Koh & Christian Del Valle & Lucy Peter & Alexandra C Morel & Isa, 2016. "Identifying Where REDD+ Financially Out-Competes Oil Palm in Floodplain Landscapes Using a Fine-Scale Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    15. Philippe Delacote & Gwenolé Le Velly & Gabriela Simonet, 2018. "A tale of REDD+ projects. How do location and certification impact additionality?," Working Papers 1808, Chaire Economie du climat.
    16. Cecilia Luttrell & Erin Sills & Riza Aryani & Andini Desita Ekaputri & Maria Febe Evinke, 2018. "Beyond opportunity costs: who bears the implementation costs of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 291-310, February.
    17. Guillaume Lestrelin & Jean-Christophe Castella & Qiaohong Li & Thoumthone Vongvisouk & Nguyen Dinh Tien & Ole Mertz, 2019. "A Nested Land Uses–Landscapes–Livelihoods Approach to Assess the Real Costs of Land-Use Transitions: Insights from Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, January.
    18. Delacote, Philippe & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Simonet, Gabriela, 2022. "Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: the role of project proponents status and certification," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Fernandez Milan, Blanca & Schwerhoff, Gregor & Jakob, Michael & Hahnen, Maren & Creutzig, Felix, 2018. "Can land taxes foster sustainable development? An assessment of fiscal, distributional and implementation issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 338-352.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:76:y:2018:i:c:p:414-421. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.