E-Letter responses to:

p-forum: Raymond E. Gullison, Peter C. Frumhoff, Josep G. Canadell, Christopher B. Field, Daniel C. Nepstad, Katharine Hayhoe, Roni Avissar, Lisa M. Curran, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, and Carlos Nobre Tropical Forests and Climate Policy Science 2007; 0: 1136163v1 [Abstract]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Will RED Work Where It Should?

Catherine Potvin, Oliver T. Coomes, Franque Grimard   (10 July 2007)

Will RED Work Where It Should? 10 July 2007
Catherine Potvin Department of Biology, McGill University, Oliver T. Coomes, Franque Grimard Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Will RED Work Where It Should?	In their Policy Forum “Tropical Forests and Climate Policy” (Policy Forum, 18 May 2007, p. 985), R. E. Gullison et al. rightly point out the potential of the climate policy option of reducing emissions from deforestation (RED). They claim that (i) a 50% reduction in deforestation by 2050 would avoid the release of 50 Gt C this century, (ii) the RED option may be among the least expensive mitigation options available, and (iii) it would yield substantial collateral benefits such as biodiversity conservation. We believe that an essential condition must be met -- beyond the prospect of global benefits -- if the hope expressed by these scientists is to be realized. That is, RED mechanisms -- to be widely adopted and sustained -- must deliver sufficient financial benefits to the people who live on the land. Whereas the global benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation are indubitable (1), the interest of forest-rich developing countries in RED is growing (2, 3), and international carbon market innovations are encouraging (4), the fate of the tropical forest ultimately lies in the hands of the farmers, ranchers, timber men, and indigenous people who live on the forest frontiers, often in conditions of relative and absolute poverty (5, 6). Climate policy discussions today are getting ahead of the reality faced by most tropical land users. Progress towards viable strategies to reduce emissions from deforestation requires closer attention to the conditions that they face (7-9). In their world of pressing need, incomplete markets, high risk without insurance or fall-back assets and fragile property rights, are the RED mechanisms currently being discussed in policy circles -- particularly market-mediated payments for environmental services -- likely to work? Helping “tropical countries protect their forests” without serious consideration of whether RED will actually work “out there on the land” and how it will affect peoples’ lives risks putting in jeopardy this proposal for reducing emissions from tropical deforestation. Yet, reducing emissions from deforestation is essential if a post-Kyoto regime is to yield real climate benefits (3). References 1. N. H. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007). 2. W.F. Laurance, Biotropica 39, 20 (2007). 3. C. Streck, S. M. Scholz, Int. Affairs 82, 861 (2006). 4. K. Capoor, P. Ambrosi, State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007 (World Bank Institute & International Emissions Trading Association, Washington, DC, 2007). 5. E. F. Lambin, H. J. Geist, Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 28, 205 (2003). 6. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (http://www.aweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf). 7. S. Wunder, Conserv. Biol. 21, 48 (2007). 8. A. Pfaff, S. Kerr, Land Use Policy 24, 600 (2007). 9. O. T. Coomes, F. Grimard, Ecol. Econom., in press. Catherine Potvin Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 1B1. Oliver T. Coomes Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 2K6. Franque Grimard Department of Economics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada H3A 2T7.