There is a new international policy focus on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), as well as promoting forest conservation, the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD-plus). The recent Conference of Parties meeting of 196 countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Cancun, Mexico (December 2010) was able to advance initiatives on REDD-plus even while there was limited progress on fossil fuel related aspects of an international climate change agreement. The Cancun meeting recognised that there was strong and broad support for REDD-plus and was able to agree to the development of a formal Mechanism under the UNFCCC for incentivizing REDD-plus activities. Implementing the Mechanism is another matter, and will require the development and coordination of country REDD-plus readiness and financing, including detailed consideration of country reference levels, measurement, reporting and verification methodologies, and sub-national and national program coordination.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry sector are estimated to be 8.4 GtCO2-eq./year or about 17% of the global emissions. We estimate that the cost for reducing deforestation is low in Africa and several times higher in Latin America and Southeast Asia. These cost estimates are sensitive to the uncertainties of how much unsustainable high-revenue logging occurs, little understood transaction and program implementation costs, and barriers to implementation including governance issues. Due to lack of capacity in the affected countries, achieving reduction or avoidance of carbon emissions will require extensive REDD-plus programs. Preliminary REDD-plus Readiness cost estimates and program descriptions for Indonesia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Guyana and Mexico show that roughly one-third of potential REDD-plus mitigation benefits might come from avoided deforestation and the rest from avoided forest degradation and other REDD-plus activities.

Deforestation and forest degradation represent an important part of global CO2 emissions. The identification of the multiple drivers of land-use change, past and present forest cover change and associated carbon budget, and the presence of locally adapted systems to allow for proper monitoring are particularly lacking in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Any incentive system to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) will have to overcome those limits. This paper reviews the main challenges to implementing effective REDD+ mitigation activities in SSA. We estimate that SSA is currently a net carbon sink of approximately 319 TgCO2 yr−1. Forest degradation and deforestation put the forest carbon stock at risk (mean forest carbon stock is 57,679 TgC). Our results highlight the importance of looking beyond the forest sector to ensure that REDD+ efforts are aligned with agricultural and land-use policies.

After reviewing the Kyoto Protocol rules for carbon sequestration accounting and the different carbon accounting methods proposed in the literature for forest management, for reforestation and, more recently, for avoided deforestation or degradation, we discuss possible carbon accounting rules for a post-Kyoto world. We then apply the results of this discussion to micro-applications in an Annex I country (Spain) and in a non-Annex I country (Tunisia), comparing avoided degradation with reforestation alternatives. In both areas we focus on Mediterranean forest, one of the world's hotspots of biodiversity. We calculate CO2 break-even prices, including in the analysis not only commercial values, but also, where these are relevant, existing subsidies. We also investigate social preferences for avoided degradation and reforestation using stated preference methods. Our results support the convenience of a change in focus for European Union subsidies from reforestation to avoided degradation.

Global forests could play an important role in mitigating climate change. However, there are significant implementation obstacles to accessing the world's forest carbon sequestration potential. The timing of regional participation and eligibility of sequestration activities are issues. The existing forest carbon supply estimates have made optimistic assumptions about immediate, comprehensive, and global access. They have also assumed no interactions between activities and regions, and over time. We use a global forest and land use model to evaluate these assumptions with more realistic forest carbon policy pathways. We find that an afforestation only policy is fundamentally flawed, accelerated deforestation may be unavoidable, and a delayed comprehensive program could reduce, but not eliminate, near-term accelerated deforestation and eventually produce sequestration equivalent to idealized policies – but with a different sequestration mix than previously estimated by others and thereby different forests. We also find that afforestation and avoided deforestation increase the cost of one another.

A framework is provided for structuring programs aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Crediting reference levels and the coordination among different implementing entities at multiple geographic scales are discussed. A crediting reference level has an error component if it differs from the business-as-usual (BAU) without REDD. Both the BAU emissions and the impact of REDD actions are uncertain, implying that participating in REDD entails stakeholder risk, the distribution of which depends on REDD program design. To categorize REDD architectures we define scale-neutrality whereby, for a given REDD design, crediting relative to the reference level at a given scale is not affected by errors in reference levels at scales below it. Sufficient conditions are derived for scale-neutrality to hold. A Brazilian Amazon example is provided, comparing potential REDD architectures, and highlighting how a cap-and-trade approach may match the environmental outcome obtainable with perfect foresight of the BAU emissions.

This study uses a global climate-energy-economy model to investigate potential implications of linking credits from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries to a global carbon market, focusing on reducing emissions from deforestation (RED) and effects on energy technology innovation. Integrating RED into a global carbon market lowers the estimated total costs of a policy to achieve 535 ppmv of CO2-equivalent concentrations in 2100 by up to 25 per cent. Alternatively, a global RED program could enable additional reductions of about 20 ppmv by 2100 with no added costs compared with an energy-sector-only policy. The results indicate that market linkage of RED induces modest reductions in clean energy innovation overall but slightly enhances development of particular technologies, including carbon capture and storage. We also find that RED in combination with credit banking encourages greater mitigation in the near term, enhancing flexibility to potentially tighten emission targets at lower cost in response to future information.

Deforestation is one of the major sources of carbon emissions, but the Kyoto Protocol presently excludes avoiding these emissions to fulfill stabilization targets. Since the need for policy incentives for the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) was officially recognized in 2007, the focus of this debate has shifted to issues of implementation. Concerns about the effects that the availability of low-cost REDD credits might have on energy investments, and the development of clean technology constitute the main motivation of this paper. We analyze the production side of the problem with the help of a real options model with an option to invest in less carbon-intensive energy technology and an option to purchase credits on REDD, which will (or will not) be exercised in the future. Unresolved questions can thus still be addressed later, while producers and investors hold REDD options to maintain flexibility for later decisions.