Questioning emissions-based approaches for the definition of REDD+ deforestation baselines in high forest cover/low deforestation countries
Fiche du document
novembre 2018
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.faeb72...
- hal: hal-01952492
- doi: 10.1186/s13021-018-0109-1
- PRODINRA: 482169
- PUBMED: 30377850
- WOS: 000449970000001
HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société - notices sans texte intégral
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1186/s13021-018-0109-1
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/30377850
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ , info:eu-repo/semantics/OpenAccess
Mots-clés
Deforestation HFLD countries Baseline Reference level Spatial modelling REDD+ Guiana ShieldSujets proches
Disforestation Depletion of forests Conversion, Forest Forest conversion Forest depletion Forest-land conversionCiter ce document
Camille Dezécache et al., « Questioning emissions-based approaches for the definition of REDD+ deforestation baselines in high forest cover/low deforestation countries », HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société - notices sans texte intégral, ID : 10.1186/s13021-018-0109-1
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Background: REDD+ is being questioned by the particular status of High Forest/Low Deforestation countries. Indeed, the formulation of reference levels is made difficult by the confrontation of low historical deforestation records with the forest transition theory on the one hand. On the other hand, those countries might formulate incred‑ibly high deforestation scenarios to ensure large payments even in case of inaction. Results: Using a wide range of scenarios within the Guiana Shield, from methods involving basic assumptions made from past deforestation, to explicit modelling of deforestation using relevant socio‑economic variables at the regional scale, we show that the most common methodologies predict huge increases in deforestation, unlikely to happen given the existing socio‑economic situation. More importantly, it is unlikely that funds provided under most of these scenarios could compensate for the total cost of avoided deforestation in the region, including social and economic costs. Conclusion: This study suggests that a useful and efficient international mechanism should really focus on removing the underlying political and socio‑economic forces of deforestation rather than on hypothetical result‑based pay‑ments estimated from very questionable reference levels.
