In a recently published article, ‘A Comparative Assessment of Alternative Approaches to Governing Forest Sector Climate Actions’ a group of authors led by Jianyun Ho have comparatively examined the jurisdictional and project-based approaches to forestry measures.
Key takeaways:
- Around 90 % of the nationally determined contributions (‘NDCs’) submitted under the UNFCCC by the end of 2020 include Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) actions. It is commonly accepted that most of the LULUCF actions are more cost efficient and rapid in comparison to alternative emission removal and reduction measures. Within this context, the forestry measures needed for the achievement of the Paris climate goals have exceeded those envisaged under the REDD+ initiative.
- The NDCs under the Paris Agreement adopt a jurisdictional approach to climate governance whereby pledges are made by state parties and the undertakings of subordinate authorities are incorporated into national pledges. On the contrary, carbon offsetting measures under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism relate to single projects implemented at the local level and therefore may not be associated with governmental pledges and management. Likewise, contemporary activities in relation to voluntary markets have been mostly shaped by local projects. As a result, this project-based approach has considerably influenced our comprehension and examination of the governance of forestry measures.
- Under the project-based approach, permanence and additionality are ensured through the introduction of buffer reserves whereby in cases of reversals or stock losses the credit amount corresponding to reversal or loss is cancelled. However, under this approach, obtaining additionality is challenging given that land users that have already been planning to transform practices make use of economic incentives. This issue can be resolved when small actors make up categories in larger states under the jurisdictional approach, enabling larger carbon stocks established at the state level to compensate for events of carbon reversal or loss at the project level.
- The jurisdictional approach also enables states to act as standard setters for the creation and verification of credits. In addition, the jurisdictional approach enables states to increase their funding of forestry measures.
- While REDD+ was portrayed as a country-level tool, most of the initial tasks that have been undertaken are associated with single projects. These projects have not succeeded in fulfilling accounting prerequisites, ensuring buyers’ trust and guaranteeing the rights of local communities. To overcome these shortcomings, countries must introduce generalized systems at the national level.
- The realization of projects can be too costly for local undertakings, necessitating state financing.
- The shortcomings of the jurisdictional approach include the presence of rigid and opaque governance schemes, susceptibility to the obtainment of private gains to the detriment of public interests, lack of general support and insufficient enforcement.
- Under the jurisdictional approach, carbon leakage can still occur in adjacent jurisdictions subject to inter-state cooperation. Commitments should be disaggregated for subnational tasks.
- Due to the politicized nature of land rights, it is difficult to achieve a fair division of costs and benefits regardless of the approach that is employed.
- Even though states may use the jurisdictional approach to centralize control or employ strategies with self-interest, there is an urgent need for governmental authorities to take action to fulfill their emission reduction and removal responsibilities. Therefore, national plans should ensure state-level coordination and policy consistency alongside the participation of local communities.
- Credit buyers in a carbon market can pressure the governments for the implementation of robust standards as well as rules on informed consent and equitable benefit distribution. Such rules and standards should be aligned with or complement the goals of national and international agreements and programs, support the efficient and transparent application of national forestry governance schemes, respect the rights of local communities and ensure their participation in decision-making.
Read the full paper here: A comparative assessment of alternative approaches to governing forest sector climate actions