This post was written by Akane Hanai, a UN Volunteer working in Viet Nam on the UN-REDD Programme as a Programme Specialist with a Master of Arts in Environmental and Resource Policy from George Washington University. 

It’s been almost eight months since I got  involved in the UN-REDD programme in Viet Nam.  For my first post, I introduced the definition of REDD+. In this posting, I’d like to explore the components of REDD+ in general. I will talk about actual implementation in Viet Nam in the next posting.

Reducing GHG emissions through afforestation and reforestation projects is being implemented under the scheme of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM; 日本語はこちら), which was defined in the Kyoto Protocol. REDD+ is also aiming for developing countries to generate carbon credits and invest this revenue in a low carbon economy with green growth at the end. However, while CDM projects are limited to using public funding and being deployed at the project level, the process of implementing REDD+ involves assistance from not only the private sector but also bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors to help developing countries build carbon offset mechanisms at the national level.

Moreover, REDD+ implementation would be beneficial not only for raising carbon credits and reducing emissions but also for improving sustainable forest management and solving various social issues rooted within the forest community such as poverty, land rights of ethnic minorities and gender equality among forest dependent people. The REDD+ concept needs to be understood by forest dependent people so as to get them to participate in forest protection activities. In order to acquire such peoples’ commitment, a robust Benefit Distribution System (BDS) should be designed with considerations of transparency, mechanisms for recourse, and equity.

Having a good Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system is also necessary for REDD+ to be successful. Once REL (Reference Emission Level; the predicted emissions level in the future without REDD+) is established, the project has to keep track of how much emissions could be reserved. Both satellite images and detailed information about land uses through ground activities would be combined to generate forest maps. Advanced technology for data accuracy and institutional capacity building to utilize these data are required at the same time.

The challenging thing for REDD+ is that negotiations and discussions about concrete guidelines for safeguards and methodology of BDS and MRV are still under development at the international level. Successful REDD+ implementation depends on countries’ willingness to establish a comprehensive network including relevant fields related to REDD+ nationwide, while maintaining some flexibility to adopt ongoing international agreements.

私がベトナムの国連REDD+プログラムに従事し始めてから、早８ヶ月が過ぎようとしている。本プログラムに関わる前に投稿した記事ではREDD+に関する定義を紹介したが、本投稿ではREDD+の概要、次回はベトナムでの実際の取り組み状況について紹介したい。

植林、再植林を通じた温暖化ガス削減は、京都議定書で定められているCDMプロジェクトスキームによって既に実施されている。REDD+も、最終的に炭素クレジットを生み出し、途上国の低炭素社会の実現を目指すという点ではCDMと共通している。しかし、CDMプロジェクトはODA(政府開発援助)といった公的資金の使用が制限され、プロジェクトレベルで実施されているのに対し、REDD+は民間資金に加え、二国間、多国間支援の下、途上国が国レベルで森林保護対策を実施し、排出権取引に向けた制度構築を目指している。

さらにREDD+の実施には、単に炭素クレジットを生み出し温暖化ガス排出を抑制するだけではなく、持続可能な森林保護、また多くの途上国の森林エリアにおいて課題となっている貧困、先住民の土地所有、ジェンダー等の社会問題解決に取り組むことが期待されている。REDD+の目的が正しく森林エリアの住民に理解され、森林保護の活動に参加してもらうこと、また継続的な活動を支えるための、透明性および公正性を保った利益分配システムの構築が必要不可欠である。

測定・報告・検証システムの確立も重要である。参照排出レベル(REDD+が実施されなかった場合の、想定される未来の排出量)を算出後、プロジェクトがどれだけ排出量を抑制できたかを測定する必要がある。その測定方法として、衛星からの映像と地上での詳細な土地利用のデータを統合して森林マップを作成する方法があるが、データの正確性を実現する最新の技術、データを扱う機関と人の能力強化が欠かせない。

REDD+を実施していく中で、MRV、BDS等に関する最終的な方法論がまだ国際的な合意に至っていないのも大きな課題である。今後REDD+実施を成功させていくためには、これから決定していく国際的な取り決めを取り入れつつ、REDD+に関わる様々な分野を巻き込んだ、国レベルでの包括的な組織作りが鍵となるであろう。

Whether this will actually make a difference when it comes to politics and crafting legislation to move toward a more sustainable society is unknown. However, it seems that even Americans are realizing the effects that 7 billion people and our modern, fossil-fuel based society can have on the planet.

In this most detailed survey to date on the public response to weather extremes, the public says – by a 2-to-1 margin – that the weather has been getting worse in recent years.

Poll results below.

[Image, Chart]

However, this was the first ever survey of green goods and services jobs, so we don’t yet have something with which to compare the results. Out of the total 3.1 million jobs categorized as green, the private sector provided the most green employment opportunities. The public sector contributed 860,000 jobs.
It is still hard to define and measure green jobs, as this Washington Post article points out:

In the past, employment in this field has been hard to measure because there’s been no consensus on what constitutes a green job. For its assessment, the Labor Department counted certain jobs in manufacturing, construction, utility and other sectors in which the primary function was to contribute to a green product or service. That includes the manufacture of hybrid vehicles, the production of solar power and construction projects such as weatherization. It did not include, for example, jobs in grocery stores or restaurants that primarily sell organic food.

President Obama has been championing green jobs as a growth area for post recession recovery. These numbers should not be used to tout his policies or refute them as the report does not include any growth figures and does not show how the numbers changed over time.

Among the private sector, manufacturing accounted for the greatest number of green jobs. Construction also contributed significantly with 372,100 jobs and professional, scientific and technical services added 349,000 jobs.
Perhaps not surprisingly, California had 340,000 green jobs in 2010, more than in any other state and the District of Columbia, equalling 2.3 percent of total employment.

[Image]

Funding for the stations will come from a $120 million settlement with NRG Energy Inc. The charging network will include “at least 200 public fast-charging stations and another 10,000 plug-in units at 1,000 locations across the state. The settlement stems from California’s energy crisis.”

According to the Governor’s office, the settlement dates back to claims from 10 years ago. The Los Angeles Times reports the “accusations of inflated costs on long-term power contracts involving plants co-owned by NRG” led to the payout. A majority of the settlement, $100 million, will be used to fund the network at no cost to taxpayers. The network, which will be fee-based, “will be installed in the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Los Angeles Basin and San Diego County.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that “the station can add 50 miles of range in less than 15 minutes of charging.” Electric vehicle owners will be able to sign up for a monthly subscription to use the stations or pay per individual charge, which according to the story will be in the $10-15 range. As a further testament to California’s leading position on ZEVs, the story cites a figure from Nissan indicating that more than 40% of the 11,000 Leafs sold thus far are registered in California.

Governor Brown’s executive order comes on the heels of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) decision, which “voted to require the largest automakers to derive 15 percent, or about 1.4 million, of their annual California sales from electric vehicles and other zero or near-zero emissions vehicles by 2025.” For more on the decision, read this article from last month.

The Executive Order issued today by the Governor sets the following targets:

• By 2015, all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “zero-emission vehicle ready”;
• By 2020, the state will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million zero-emission vehicles in California;
• By 2025, there will be 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road in California; and
• By 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the State will be based on zero-emission vehicles, and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

[Image source]

I find it kind of curious to think about our current energy economy. More than 90% of the energy consumed in this country comes from extracted sources – coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. These require lots of resources and cause a fair bit of damage to extract. Just consider mountain top removal (coal), fracking, which has been linked to earthquakes in Ohio (natural gas), and issues associated with ocean contamination (oil spills, including the Exxon Valdez and Deep Water Horizon incidents). That leaves nuclear, which may not be in the news much, but also suffers from environmentally degrading extraction. Obviously there are trade offs when it comes to energy policy. Domestic vs imported energy is a key one right now; just consider our two takes on the debate surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline. One view is of the project as a backward looking, misguided approach, the other sees it as a strategic bridge to the future of energy.

Hundreds of years ago wood was the primary source of energy fueling economic growth. Depletion of forests quickly led to its downfall. However, it was possible to see this coming. Forests around cities were shrinking and not being sustainably harvested. Now our energy supply is underground. Technology allows us to “see” it, but we don’t have a sense of what’s left. We can’t actually go and see for ourselves. This gets to the other part of my point. Strong sustainability is defined by using resources that can replenish themselves and in the strictest sense only those that are overly abundant. We don’t know exactly how much oil or natural gas, nuclear or coal remains, not that it matters, since they are finite. With all of this in mind, it is vital that we move toward an economy that uses the sun and wind, resources that are virtually free and – more to the point – unending. For centuries humankind relied on them. While those societies do not resemble the “advanced” society of today, they far surpassed our extractive energy economy in terms of their long term sustainability.

Now consider this, “Every hour, enough sunlight reaches the Earth to meet human’s energy needs for a year; yet solar energy accounts for just 0.015 percent of world electricity production.” Obviously there are major barriers to converting this energy into a usable form for transportation (among other needs). Consider the examples of photosynthesis and passive solar heating, nature already does the job.

We’ve written about the regenerative economy on several occasions in the past. Relying on the sun (which generates wind and ultimately powers photosynthesis) represents a significant move in that direction. The barriers are immense, but a future bereft of coal, oil, and natural gas – not to mention nuclear fuel – is inevitable. Does it really matter what the time frame is for exhausting those fuel sources?

[Image source: Michael Faherty]