Implementing conservativeness in REDD+ is realistic and useful to address the most uncertain estimates

Abstract

One of the main challenges in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation(REDD+), either within a future UNFCCC approach or as part of other voluntary initiatives,is to design a system which is credible and broadly implementable by developing countries.To ensure credibility of REDD+ high quality monitoring systems are needed, i.e. capable ofproducing accurate estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals. However, apossible trade-off exists between the high quality system requirement and broad participa-tion: if a significant number of countries will not fully access REDD+ because of not beingable to produce accurate estimates, the consequent risk of leakage (i.e. emissions displace-ment to these countries) could undermine the ultimate scope of REDD+.Plugge et al. (2012) analyzed the implications of applying the principle of conserva-tiveness in the context of uncertainties of carbon stock change estimates in REDD+. Whilethis principle is included in several UNFCCC documents (e.g., UNFCCC2006), itsapplication to REDD+ was proposed by Grassi et al. (2008) “to address the potentialincompleteness and high uncertainties of REDD+ estimates”;i.e.“when completeness oraccuracy of estimates cannot be achieved the reduction of emissions should not beoverestimated,oratleastthe riskofoverestimationshouldbereduced”.Wide interest hasbeenshown in this proposal (e.g., GOFC-GOLD 2012;HeroldS MeridianInstitute 2011).A key message from Plugge et al. (2012) is that, despite its attractiveness, the conserva-tiveness principle does not appear to be implementable in many cases, because it drasticallyreduces the amount of emission reductions that can be claimed (e.g. “for countries with lowdeforestation rates REDD is obviously not an option for generating benefits, as they wouldneed to implement monitoring systems that are able to estimate carbon stock changes with atotal error well below 1 %”). Similar conclusions, using a similar approach, were alsopresented in Kohl et al. (2009).We believe that this conclusion: on the impossibility for countries with low deforestationrates to generate REDD+ benefits under a conservative approach, is the consequence of theassumptions taken by these authors. In particular, some elements appear to have beenoverlooked by Plugge et al. (2012).