4.7 Article

REDD plus measurement, reporting and verification - A cost trap? Implications for financing REDD plus MRV costs by result-based payments

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106513

关键词

REDD; Measurement, reporting, verification; Result-based payments; Transaction cost; Carbon price; Emissions reduction

资金

  1. German Ministry for Food and Agriculture (BMEL) through the project Sustainable Forest Management Approaches to foster Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Interactions (SAFARI)
  2. University of Hamburg, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The REDD+ initiative applies a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The difference between the carbon stock of forests under historical deforestation and forest degradation rates and the actual C-stock achieved by forest conservation measures will be compensated financially. The difference in C-stocks is provided by a system of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). We investigated trade-offs between costs and revenue of a REDD+ MRV system by applying a simulation study focusing on varying forest degradation intensities in natural forests. We showed the decisive influence of cost on the efficiency of REDD+. Resulting payments could be too low or even negative, especially in high forest low deforestation countries. Under current carbon process countries implementing REDD+ activities need additional financial support for the development and implementation of MRV systems. We recommend that the optimization of the MRV design must meet accuracy and cost requirements. The optimization criterion for MRV systems should not be the highest possible accuracy, but the highest possible carbon credits. This contradicts the requirements for the greatest possible accuracy, as stipulated in the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility's (FCPF) recommendations for action.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据