Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation while
Promoting Sustainable Development
South American Regional Infrastructure Development,
Forests and REDD: Implications for Guyana
Conservation International
Climate Focus
Terracarbon LLC
SarVision
Development and Policy Management Consultants
JULY 2009
1 This document presents the key results of a study undertaken for the Inter‐American Development Bank (IDB) under a Technical Cooperation Agreement (ATN/NP‐10749‐GY – ATN/SF‐10750‐GY) between the IDB and the Government of Guyana. The study has produced six comprehensive technical papers titled: •
•
•
•
•
Site description and analysis of biodiversity, socio‐economic factors, and carbon stocks Modeling Reference Scenarios of Future Emissions Methodology development recommendations Analysis of the institutional and policy framework Analysis of financial flows The Report contains information, assessment, analysis and recommendations that represents the work and views of the Authors of the Reports and not necessarily that of the Government of Guyana. These papers are available online at www.conservation.org.gy 2 CONTRIBUTORS Eustace Alexander
David Singh
Conservation International, Guyana
94 Laluni & Oronoque Streets
Queenstown, Georgetown
Guyana
Neils Wielaand
Sarvision
Agro Business Park 10
6708 PW Wageningen
The Netherlands
Marciano Glasgow
Mark Bynoe
Development Policy and Management
Consultants
271 Forshaw Street
Queenstown, Georgetown
Guyana
Tim Killeen
Marc Steininger
Lisa Famolare
Agustin Silvani
Fabiano Godoy
Benjamin Vitale
Conservation International
2100 Crystal Drive, Suite 500
Arlington, VA 22202
David James
Attorney-at-Law
47 Fourth St
Cummings Lodge
East Coast Demerara
Guyana
Robert O'Sullivan
Charlotte Streck
Climate Focus
888 16th St. NW, Suite 800
Washington D.C. 20006
USA
David Shoch
TerraCarbon LLC
5901 N. Sheridan Rd.
Peoria, IL 61614
USA 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been supported by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). We wish to thank
Mr Marco Nicola, Ms Sybille Nuenninghoff, Eirivelthon Lima and Ricardo Quiroga (IDB) for their
guidance, support and assistance over the period of this work. We also wish to acknowledge the
support of Commissioner James Singh (GFC), and Ms Pradeepa Bholanath, who served as the
official representative of the GFC on this project, and to thank her for her active participation and
guidance. We also wish to thank the Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and
Development and in particular Mr Ken Rodney for sharing its data. We also wish to acknowledge
the support and insights received from the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC),
Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC), Mazda Mining Company (MMC) and the Ministry
of Public Works and Communication. Finally we wish to thank all those who contributed in one way
or the other to the preparation of these reports.
4 PREFACE
The Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) represents a
vision set out by governments of South America to physically integrate their countries that will help
overcome geographic impediments of development, strengthen markets and open new economic
opportunities. With the upgrade of the Georgetown-Lethem Transport Corridor (GLTC), a key
component of IIRSA, traditional agriculture and natural resource extraction sectors of Guyana’s
economy will be expected to expand as forest resources and lands become more accessible. This
expansion is also driven in part by the decreasing transportation distance for products from
northern Brazil by as much as 500km to the Atlantic Ocean. Using observations from similar
conditions in the region, the increasing accessibility to areas in proximity to the road infrastructure
will cause an increase in deforestation and forest degradation. These real-life threats to the forests of
Guyana have global climate implications, when it is considered that forest loss contributes as much
as 18% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to global warming and other spin-off
climate change effects. Measures are therefore needed to ameliorate this scenario.
It is in this context that the GLTC serves as an excellent study site to predict rates of deforestation
and to develop and test mitigating measures and enabling frameworks under the Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) Framework which is the subject of intense
negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These
negotiations have been ongoing for several years, with a number of issues expected to be resolved at
the Copenhagen round of negotiations in December 2009.
The implementation, management and expected benefits of activities that support REDD and the
role that countries like Guyana will play are still to be determined and will form part of these
negotiations. This means that there is only a narrow window of opportunity to assist the
international community in shaping a suitable Climate Agreement that includes HFLD countries.
Partly in response to this, Guyana launched a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) in June
2009 that proposes to maintain its forests in return for revenues that will be used to invest in low
carbon development initiatives. It is expected that these revenues will be realised from a suitable
REDD framework.
In the absence of REDD revenues, the country will be faced with little alternative but to continue
along a traditional development path which will have enormous impacts on forests. As with other
poor developing countries, it is not possible to ask that the country forego the economic
development opportunity provided by projects such as the GLTC for the sake of forest protection
that serves the interests of the global climate but with no tangible benefit to the country, especially if
there is an alternative route that can be presented by a well-defined REDD framework.
It is in response to this situation, that the Inter-American Development Bank contracted
Conservation International to provide assistance to the Government of Guyana (GoG) in providing
a conceptual and analytical framework for assessing the needs, challenges and opportunities for
Guyana in the context of REDD and its impacts on national development and biodiversity
conservation, with specific focus on the GLTC. 1
To conduct the study CI partnered with Climate Focus, SarVision, Terracarbon LLC, Development
& Policy Management Consultants (DPMC), and the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) to
prepare the six technical papers.
• Site description and analysis of biodiversity, socio-economic factors, and carbon stocks
• Modeling Reference Scenarios of Future Emissions
• Methodology development recommendations
• Analysis of the institutional and policy framework
• Analysis of financial flows
• Recommendations
This document presents a consolidated summary of these papers. The reader will find much greater
detail in each of the papers that was prepared.
CI hopes that these papers and recommendations provide additional guidance to policy decisions
towards a path of low carbon economic development under the globally proposed REDD
framework.
1
Inter‐American Development Bank technical assistance Biodiversity Mainstreaming through Avoided Deforestation –
Guyana case study, GY‐T1058. 6 1. MAKING REDD WORK FOR GUYANA: INSTITUTIONAL AND POLICY ENABLING ENVIR ONMENT FOR REDD IN GUYANA 2
1.1 INTRODUCTION With up to 25 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions coming from tropical
deforestation, forest loss is a significant source of GHG emissions and one of the underlying drivers
of climate change. 3 If these emissions are not reduced, they have the potential to undercut
reductions in energy-related and industrial GHG emissions and frustrate the objectives of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Over the last four years
discussions under the UNFCCC have focused on the creation of incentives to reduce emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. The discussions were initiated by
a proposal put forward in 2005 at the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the
UNFCCC by the governments of Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica that advocated for incentives
to be provided to countries to reduce deforestation rates in order to reduce GHG emissions. 4 The
formation of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations 5 of which Guyana is now a member, created
additional momentum to address the issue, and deforestation has since become a highly visible topic
discussed at all levels including the UN Security Council. In December 2007, the Bali COP
considered the topic further and adopted a decision that expanded the scope to include forest
degradation. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is now a
critical aspect of the UNFCCC discussions and is one of the key agenda items that will be discussed
at the Congress of Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen (December 2009).
Deforestation is not just about climate change - there are additional reasons why curbing
deforestation is critical. Forest loss has significant negative effects on soil quality, biodiversity, local
livelihoods, and indigenous communities. It destabilizes local climate and weather by disrupting
historical hydrological cycles, albedo, and large-scale circulation patterns. This should be compared
to forest conservation, sustainable management, planting, and rehabilitation of forests that not only
2
This chapter was prepared through a combination of desk reviews and interviews. The desk review included a review
of relevant domestic legislation and policy documents, UNFCCC decisions, submissions and additional
documentation, and literature on deforestation policy. The reader is referred to Chapter X of [ ] for a detailed
presentation on this subject. 3
The figure of 25 percent was derived by using 1990 as the baseline and taking into account emissions of carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other chemically reactive gases that result from deforestation and subsequent
uses of the land. See R. A. Houghton, “Tropical Deforestation as a Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” in
Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change, edited by P. Moutinho and S. Schwartzman (Amazon Institute for
Environmental Research, Brazil, and Environmental Defense, Washington D.C. 2005), p 13. 4
See UNFCCC, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action,
FCCC/CP/2005/MISC.1 (Hhttp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/misc01.pdfH). Official
support for including the issue on the COP’s agenda was sent by Bolivia, the Central African Republic, Chile,
Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. 5
The Coalition for Rainforest Nations is a loosely knit group of developing countries with forests. Some of its members
participate in joint submissions of views to the UNFCCC. 7 mitigates CO2 emissions through carbon sequestration, but also protects biodiversity, and delivers a
range of socioeconomic benefits. Investing in forests to help mitigate climate change therefore has
premium value because of these additional benefits that are critical elements of a sustainable future
for human society.
1.2 KEY GLOBAL POLICY ISSUES FOR AN EFFECTIVE REDD AGREEMENT There are a number of key policy issues that have to be addressed within an effective REDD
agreement under the UNFCCC. These include; i) funding options; ii) setting reference levels; iii)
monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV); iv) scale; v) effective participation of indigenous
peoples and local communities; and vi) the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests
and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
1.2.1 Funding Options Parties’ positions on funding REDD can be broken into two broad groups. One group supports the
use of both market and non-market funding, and the other advocates for non-market funding only.
Both groups advocate for initial non-market funding to support developing countries developing the
capacity to address REDD. Non-market approaches that have been proposed focus on establishing
one or more international funds to pay for REDD. To overcome the likely shortfall in public sector
funding from developed countries, a number of options for financing these funds have been
proposed including i) through donations from developed countries; ii) a tax or auction proceeds
from developed countries’ assigned amount units (AAUs); 6 and/or iii) proceeds from auctioning off
emission allowances under domestic emissions trading schemes. Funding would be used to help
countries develop the capacity to monitor and account for REDD, and then also compensate them
for any emissions reductions they achieve.
Market approaches focus on integrating emission offset credits generated under a REDD trading
mechanism into the carbon market. While creating a robust REDD credit trading market has been
raised in the international discussions, advocates of market approaches also recognize that
additional, non-market based funds will need to be mobilized as part of the broader REDD policy. 7
This traditional fund-based financing would help develop the capacity developing countries need to
engage the market. Market advocates recognize that funding will be needed to implement this
capacity building to set the foundation for market activities as investors will refrain from investing in
jurisdictions that do not have adequate legal, technical and political frameworks in place.
6
AAUs are the units issued by Parties who agreed to cap their emissions under Kyoto. The amount of AAUs each Party
issues is equal to the number of emissions they agreed to release during the period 2008 – 2012. 7
See the summary from the AWG-LCA Accra meeting; FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/CRP.5 “Report of the workshop on
policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries” at para 16. 8 1.2.2 Setting Reference Levels
The term “reference level” and “baseline” can cover three different concepts, each of which has
different implications for Guyana. It can either refer to i) the historical baseline (i.e. the historic rate
of
Setting an Appropriate Reference Level Establishing an appropriate reference level could ensure that appropriate incentives are available for all forested countries.
A good reference level methodology makes the REDD-plus mechanism fair, efficient, effective and sustainable. In order
to develop accurate reference levels, a country’s positioning on the forest transition curve should be considered. A
historical baseline tends to underestimate future BAU deforestation for countries at the early stages in the transition, while
it tends to overestimate BAU deforestation for countries at the later stages.1, 2
A variety of design options can be used to adjust historic baselines. While these options are being considered, this must
not slow down early action to ensure implementation of REDD-PLUS.
Economic research shows that design options which provide HFLD countries with higher reference levels, and therefore
positive incentives to avoid increases in deforestation, can result in a REDD-PLUS mechanism which provides greater
global emissions reductions overall, at lower total cost per emissions reduction3. Such adjustments incentivize
participation in countries where emissions would otherwise increase, rather than creating “hot air.”
(1) Mather, A.S. (1992). The forest transition. Area, 24(4):367-379. (2) Angelsen, A., S. Brown, C. Loisel, L. Peskett, C. Streck, and D. Zarin (2009). Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): An Options Assessment Report. Prepared for the Government
of Norway. Meridian Institute, Washington, DC. (3) Busch, J., B. Strassburg, A. Cattaneo, R. Lubowski, F. Boltz, R. Ashton, A. Bruner, D. Rice. Comparing REDD
mechanism design options with an open source economic model (in review). deforestation); ii) the business as usual baseline (BAU) (i.e. the likely evolution of emissions without
intervention); or iii) the crediting baseline (i.e. the reference scenario “REDD units” 8 are awarded
against). 9 The discussion under the UNFCCC is focused around option iii) – the crediting baseline
or more commonly the “reference scenario” or “reference level”. How the reference level is set will
have profound implications on climate effectiveness of REDD, the amount of funds needed for
REDD, the cost effectiveness of those funds, and the distribution of funds between countries.
8
The REDD negotiations refer to REDD “units” rather than REDD “credits” being the subject of incentive payments.
This is because credits can imply their use in a cap and trade scheme as offset credits whereas units is a benign term
that could apply to market and non-market approaches. 9
Angelsen A., “How do we set the reference levels for REDD payments?” in Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and
Implications, Angelsen A. (ed), CIFOR, Indonesia, 2008 at 54. 9 Factors that may affect setting reference levels include i) historic rates of national deforestation; ii)
forest cover; iii) future development pathways (which may overlap/interact with forest cover); iv)
GDP per capita; v) global additionality.
1.2.3 Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) REDD needs to be monitored, reported, and verifiable, with the value of incentives proportionate to
the level of transparency and accountability in monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV). MRV
contains two separate issues that are relevant for Guyana – the subject of MRV, and carrying out
MRV. Eligible activities that are subject to MRV need to be agreed. The UNFCCC contains only
vague definitions for the land use sector. The Kyoto Protocol contains more precise definitions of a
forest, setting parameters whereby a country chooses minimum area (0.05 – 1.0 ha), minimum tree
height (2 – 5 m), and minimum crown cover (20 – 30%).10 Developing countries choose parameters
within these ranges as the minimum criteria for a forest for the purposes of defining eligible forest
and land under the CDM for afforestation/reforestation projects. Although Guyana has defined
“forest” in the new Forestry Act, it is not as precise as the above, and the country has not yet
submitted a definition for forest under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the
UNFCCC. It is still to be determined if the Kyoto CDM definitions of forest may be transferred
over to REDD, or whether a different definition will be adopted. Alternative definitions include the
FAO definition (which fits within the Kyoto parameters), or a new definition. Degradation, forest
conservation, sustainable forest management, and enhancement of carbon stocks are not defined
under UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol. Approaches to understanding these terms are still to be
agreed. One likely option is to use the existing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Good Practice Guidelines (GPG) framework that can take these categories into account.
Irrespective of the final definitions agreed in REDD, Guyana will need to build substantial capacity
and improve its existing technology in order to carry out MRV. This may include continuously
obtaining and processing satellite data and undertaking on the ground surveys. Options for securing
these funds are discussed above.
10
The complete definition of “Forest” under the CDM is “a minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 hectares with tree crown
cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30 per cent with trees with the potential to reach a minimum
height of 2-5 meters at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations where trees of
various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or open forest. Young natural stands and
all plantations which have yet to reach a crown density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 meters are included
under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of
human intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest”. 10 1.2.4 Scale Most parties recognize that REDD will need to be addressed at the national level. However, there is
some recognition that national level implementation will require significant capacity, and that
implementation may also include sub-national activities occurring within a country. 11 Sub-national
activities are therefore being discussed as i) an option for engaging in REDD before national level
implementation can be achieved; and ii) an option within a national scheme. To date this reference
to sub-national activities is limited to demonstration activities and methodological issues, and is
being considered “without prejudice” to any future COP decision on REDD. The scale at which
REDD is addressed has important implications for capacity and governance requirements for
REDD implementation to be successful in any country. Guyana has expressed its intention to
pursue a national scheme which may include specific REDD activities.
1.2.5 Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities REDD will affect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples (IPs) and local communities (LCs).
As a result, IPs groups around the world have started to become very active in REDD. In addition
to REDD having a direct affect on IPs and LCs, the participation of IPs and LCs will also be tied to
the effectiveness of any REDD initiatives a country engages in. The recent Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) meetings in Poznan on REDD noted – in the context
of future work on its agenda – the importance of “recognizing the need to promote the full and
effective participation of indigenous people and local communities, taking into account national
circumstances and noting relevant international agreements.” 12
1.2.6 The Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks
Conservation, sustainable management of forests, and the enhancement of carbon stocks was
included late in the Bali negotiations by India, which has already gone through a period of
deforestation and is now increasing its total forest cover. It can also apply to countries with high
forest cover such as Guyana. When first introduced this expansion threatened to derail the entire
REDD negotiations as a number of countries did not want to create an emissions trading system
based on standing carbon stocks not under threat of deforestation. This was overcome by last
minute compromises and agreement by the US and other countries. India pushed the issue further in
Poznan, replacing with a comma the semicolon that divided the text between deforestation and
degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of
forest carbon stocks. 13
11
“Subnational” is seen by many as a euphemism for “projects”, a term that historically generated significant opposition
in REDD due to concerns over the potential for leakage. 12
FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23, Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action, Draft
conclusions proposed by the Chair, Annex, para 1(c) 13
The text therefore changed from “policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions
from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable
management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks” to “policy approaches and positive incentives on
issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role
of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks”. See
FCCC/SBSTA/2008/L.23, Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action, para 4. 11 REDD that includes forest conservation is known as REDD-plus (or REDD+). The term used in
this report is REDD, unless there is need to distinguish between the two.
1.3 APPLYING REDD TO GUYANA 1.3.1 International Perspective
Guyana has very low rates of deforestation 14 and is characterized as one of less than 10 developing
countries with high forest cover and low rates of deforestation (HFLD). These HFLD countries are
estimated to store 18% of the world’s tropical forest carbon. 15 While HFLD countries may have
historically low rates of deforestation, this does not mean these rates will remain low in the future.
Deforestation rates may expect to rise in these countries as the domestic economy and population
grow, or if countries with higher rates of deforestation start to cut emissions and the drivers of
deforestation in these countries shifts across borders.
At this stage in the UNFCCC
negotiations, it is yet unclear how
HFLD countries such as Guyana may
benefit from a future REDD regime.
The need to include HFLD countries
within a future REDD regime has been
raised within the UNFCCC negotiations
and there is momentum growing
internationally for inclusion of HFLD
countries in the REDD financial
mechanisms. As noted above the
REDD agenda has expanded beyond
reducing emissions from deforestation
and degradation to now include “the
role of conservation, sustainable
management
of
forests
and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks in
developing countries”. This expansion
is clearly beneficial to Guyana as it
opens up the possibility for financial
Deforestation in Guyana In Guyana’s Readiness Plan that was submitted to the World Bank’s
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Guyana noted its rates of
deforestation are expected to increase due to the following:
1. Much of Guyana’s forest is suitable for logging and conversion to
agriculture;
2. There is a growing national and regional demand for agricultural
products;
3. There is a growing international demand for tropical timber and a
strong presence of international logging companies in Guyana;
4. Access to Guyana’s forests will be significantly increased during this
decade. Most notably, a major international highway from Brazil
through southern Guyana to the north coast will be built [the
Georgetown-Lethem road];
5. Brazil has a very large and dynamic human population that could rapidly
move into Guyana for both logging and agricultural activities; and
6. Implementation of REDD and other conservation measures in Brazil
leads to a high potential for international leakage of deforestation and
degradation into Guyana, via the highway.
14
Guyana had no net deforestation recorded from 2000 – 2005 under the FAO Forest Resource Assessment for 2005.
See Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress towards
Sustainable Forest Management,” Forestry Paper 147 (Rome: FAO, 2006). 15
Fonseca GABd, Rodriguez CM, Midgley G, Busch J, Hannah L, et al. (2007) “No forest left behind”, PLoS Biol 5(8):
e216. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050216 12 incentives to i) protect those areas of forest not under historic or imminent threat; ii) promote
sustainable forest practices; and iii) restore forest areas that have been degraded and are able to be
restored.
It is therefore critical for HFLD countries to work together and with their respective negotiating
partners under the UNFCCC framework to seek an outcome at Copenhagen that at best creates
financial incentive to protect their forests, or at least ensures that the door is not closed on this
matter.
A second outcome of the Bali REDD decision that Guyana needs to consider is the call for
demonstration activities. The scale for demonstration projects includes national as well as subnational activities where sub-national activities “constitute a step towards the development of
national approaches, reference levels and estimates". 16
There are a number of different interpretations of what national and sub-national approaches means
in practice. Guyana will need to determine i) how to interpret national and international approaches
to REDD within the UNFCCC negotiations, and ii) how to engage in demonstration activities
within Guyana.
1.3.2 Domestic Engagement
A solid institutional and policy framework is critical to creating a successful enabling environment
for forest conservation activities. Without an effective forest policy that is correlated with other
national policies, any effort to monitor and account for emissions from deforestation as it progresses
over time is meaningless. The elements of an effective policy framework include, inter alia:
• a REDD strategy supported by all relevant authorities and stakeholders;
• adoption of policies that ensure continuous forest protection and address potential future
drivers of deforestation;
• effective policy and institutional governance and capacity for monitoring forests and forest
activities and for enforcing forest-related policies, laws and contracts for the sale and
purchase of carbon credits;
• elimination of any policy or program that undermines the ability of forest conservation
projects or programs to compete economically with alternative activities;
• robust legal instruments that allow the long term protection of forests and the recognition of
alienable carbon rights;
• mechanisms to ensure stakeholder consultation and benefit sharing with local communities
living in or around a forest conservation project; and
• transparent procedures and criteria for the approval of forest conservation projects in
Guyana if projects form part of the national policy decision.
16
See Decision 2/CP 13 “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate
action”, Annex, para 7. 13 1.3.3 Implications for Existing Policy and Institutional Frameworks
Most if not all countries will need to address institutional problems in order to effectively reduce
deforestation and degradation. Guyana is no exception, although it has made more advances than
the majority of developing countries. Guyana has been proactive domestically through it creation of
a REDD Secretariat and submitting its Readiness Plan to the FCPF. More recently this proactive
approach has also extended to the preparation of a low-carbon development strategy that includes
REDD as a central element. This places Guyana ahead of most other countries seeking to
participate in the emerging REDD regime. However, as Guyana is aware, significant work is still yet
to be done to successfully implement a national REDD strategy.
That said, while the elements that go into a REDD framework may be complex, the resulting
management requirement follows a straightforward integrated natural resource management
approach in which ecosystem services (carbon) feature alongside the more traditional forest-based
industries.
While it can be expected that the REDD Secretariat 17 will play a significant role in implementing a
national REDD-plus strategy 18 that is supported by all relevant authorities and stakeholders, a
number of challenges exist within Guyana’s Ministries and Agencies.
Despite the efforts of the government to promote forest conservation, there is currently inadequate
financial and human resources and appropriate technology, all of which will significantly constrain
government’s conservation attempts. The large group of institutions created by legislation governing
land and natural resources tend to operate independently and with limited coordination, except at
the very highest level of decision making. This is reflected in efforts made to enhance coordination
through the work of the Natural Resources and Environment Advisory Committee (NREAC) that
comprises the heads of agencies 19 While this high level interaction may provide some macro-level
coordination, there is overlap in many regulations which is reflected in their implementation. This is
particularly evident in mining.
Participation in REDD-plus policy formation and initiatives also needs to include a more
representative cross-section of society which involves additional government and public agencies,
trade unions, indigenous peoples’ representatives, civil society organizations, private sector
representatives, and other stakeholders.
17
Located under the GFC 18
i.e. a REDD strategy that includes forest conservation 19.
An example of the overlap mentioned is that it is possible for a tract of forest area to be simultaneously regulated for
differing activities by the GFC, GGMC, and GLSC. Other bodies with similar or overlapping mandates are the
National Parks Commission, the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. 14 1.3.3.1 Legislative Implications
Four main pieces of domestic legislation have direct implications for REDD implementation. These
are the Forest Bill 2009, Mining Law, Amerindian Act 2006, and the Environmental Protection Act
2006. Additionally the Land Law, the Iwokrama Act, National Infrastructure Policy, and
international law all have a relationship to REDD implementation.
The range of pieces of legislation that govern land and forest resource use in Guyana result in the
sector being regulated in a compartmentalized manner, with distinct regulatory and monitoring
institutions that result in varying levels of conflict and overlap. Forestry is regulated by the GFC,
mining in forests by the GGMC and agriculture within State Forests by the GLSC. It is appropriate
that these bodies regulate their own industries, but there is room for better coordination between
them where there is overlap. Other bodies with similar or overlapping mandates are the National
Parks Commission, the Wildlife Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Guyana Natural
Resources Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency.
There would be clear advantages in harmonizing forestry and mining laws, especially regarding the
administration of concessions, as well as more integrated land use planning, an integrated hinterland
road network, and rehabilitation of a publicly accessible integrated geographic information system
such as GINRIS. The legislation also lacks provisions for dealing with the resolution of conflicts and
disputes among competing concessionaires. This situation needs attention.
The rights of indigenous peoples and local communities feature as a key issue within the
international negotiations. There is now need to build on the commendable steps that the
government has already taken to address land ownership through land titling. Efforts of Amerindian
communities to engage in conservation activities should be further supported, and their rights in
areas that involve REDD should also be given further careful consideration. This should apply in
particular to the rights of Amerindian communities situated along the GLTC. The Amerindian
Village Councils should also be give technical and legal support to formulate regulations under the
Act to conserve Village lands and resources, particularly forest resources in accordance with Section
14(1) of the Amerindian Act
The government plans to implement a “comprehensive process” to engage and educate Amerindian
communities on REDD-plus. This process should follow clearly established procedures regarding
how indigenous rights issues should be addressed in the national REDD-plus processes. The
procedures should meet applicable international and domestic standards, including free, prior and
informed consent requirements. 20
1.3.3.2 Negotiating an International REDD Policy that Favours Guyana
The most important element dictating the scale of any REDD opportunity for Guyana and the
macro-level design of its national REDD policy is the international negotiations of REDD. To
ensure its interests are included in any future climate change agreement Guyana needs to play a more
prominent role in the technical UNFCCC negotiations. This needs to be done through making
20
Since the writing of this technical paper, the GoG has published the draft Low Carbon Development Strategy under
which the REDD Readiness Plan falls. The LCDS sets forth a process of consultation and outreach to satisfy
national and international obligations and requirements.
15 formal submissions to the UNFCCC negotiating process and sending a technically skilled and
focused negotiating team to every round of formal and informal REDD negotiations until an
agreement is reached and the detailed rules decided. This could take several more years.
Guyana should also continue to actively support and lead the formation of a negotiating block of
HFLD countries to develop common negotiating positions within the UNFCCC negotiations.
As the international negotiations progress, there are a number of elements of domestic legislation
that can be addressed that go towards the heart of REDD. This will need to be accompanied by
reform within a number of institutions principally aimed at better coordination and enforcement.
The REDD Secretariat will likely play a key role in this process of getting Guyana ready for REDD
1.3.3.3 Domestic REDD policy
As Guyana continues to develop and implement its national REDD policy it will inevitably need to
grapple with the tension between treating forest conservation and REDD as a public good that
accrues to society at large, and a rights based approach that emphasizes community or individual
claims to forests and forest based assets. Precedent for addressing this tension can be found in
Guyana’s recent past. Shortly after independence Guyana nationalized its main source of fiscal
revenue, which was subsequently followed by a period of economic liberalization. With this
philosophy of economic liberalization in mind Guyana should consider the full spectrum of national
and subnational approaches to addressing REDD when deciding its national policy. This includes
using sub-national approaches as a less demanding step towards national approaches. National
approaches can be centralized but can also include bottom-up identification and implementation of
sub-national activities that have their accounting linked into a national accounting framework.
Rather than being paid the opportunity cost by the government, stakeholders could be allowed to
sell REDD credits on the market directly. This type of bottom up approach that allowed direct
participation in the international carbon market would also be more likely to stimulate the domestic
private sector within Guyana and attract foreign investment in preserving Guyana’s forests.
16 2. APPLYING REDD TO THE GEORGETOWN‐LETHEM TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR GUYANA 2.1 INTRODUCTION While Guyana has maintained a
high forest cover and low rates of
deforestation or degradation, this
situation is expected to undergo
some change with the upgrade of
the GLTC, a part of the IIRSA
Project, which passes through the
country’s hinterland (Figure 1). The
GLTC therefore serves as an
excellent “pilot study- site” to
predict future rates of deforestation
and to develop and test mitigating
measures that can be extrapolated
to other areas of the country. The
application of REDD within the
context of the GLTC will be
explored, including the implications
associated with the projected
change in forest cover driven by the
upgrade of the GLTC in the
absence of measures to mitigate the
impact of forest roads observed in
other parts of the Amazon Basin.
BRAZIL ATLANTIC, ROAD TRANSPORT ROUTES, A PART OF IIRSA Source Georgetown Lethem Road Pre‐Feasibility Study (2008)
17 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.2.1 Land Use Policy, Tenure Arrangement
Land tenure in Guyana can be classified into three broad categories – publicly held, privately held,
and collectively held by Amerindian communities. The latter comprises of approximately 13.9
percent of Guyana’s 214,988 square kilometres of land area. Of the remainder, more than 90
percent is publicly held, with most of the private holdings located along the narrow coastal strip.
Land tenure in a 16 km wide corridor centered on the existing road between Linden to Lethem is
distributed between Public Land (39%); Amerindian Land (27%); and reserved to the Iwokrama
International Centre (34%).
Approximately one third of the GTLC (i.e. from Georgetown to Linden) is gazetted as a public
road, while the other two thirds (Linden to Lethem) segment is not. Although there is no
comprehensive land use policy approved by the Government, some work has been done by the
GLSC in drafting such a policy. However, sector level policies do exist, such as a forest policy,
mining policy, agriculture policy and energy policy. The GLSC has also prepared several regional
level land use plans, including plans for the Linden to Lethem and Soesdyke to Linden road
corridors. Because these have not been formally approved by the cabinet, they are not yet publicly
distributed.
2.2.2 Current and Potential Land Use Activity
The country’s economy is primarily based on the production and export of its natural resources,
with agriculture, mining, and forestry accounting for most of the output of the productive sectors.
Within recent years the tourism sector has also been identified as a potential source of significant
revenue for Guyana. The principal land use activities along the GLTC are, forestry, mining,
agriculture,
settlement,
biodiversity
conservation and tourism. Silica and bauxite
mining, recreation and agriculture are the
primary land uses between Georgetown and
Linden; while forestry and to a lesser extent,
mining are the principal activities between
Mabura and Annai. Biodiversity conservation
and tourism dominates the segment between
Kurupukari and Lethem.
The construction of an all weather road would
improve accessibility to previously unattractive
terrain spurring the potential expansion in
economic activities and housing developments.
In the absence of effective mitigation measures,
the progression of economic activity and
settlements along the GLTC may also trigger an
increase in unregulated logging, mining, hunting
and land clearing activities by migrants or
settlers that would now dwell within close
Detailed map showing points of interest along GLTC 18 proximity to these resources. Additionally it can also be predicted that with an improved
transportation service, investments in the agricultural and recreational sectors along the road will
increase. Land clearance and the consequential degradation and loss of forest, habitats and
biodiversity will compromise current efforts to protect its intact forests, considered by Guyana’s
Office of the President to be the country’s most valuable asset, 21 and attendant biodiversity. While
acknowledging that actions such as effective land use planning and monitoring and enforcement can
curb excessive rates of deforestation/degradation the capacity of the existing institutional framework
and the availability of resources for the management of natural resources will be seriously put to the
test unless there is a game change such as a successful REDD framework.
2.2.3 Biophysical Setting
Guyana is located in the Guiana Shield Region (approximately 80N; 720W), which was formed during
the Precambrian era and is thus one of the most ancient geological landscapes in the world. Located
at approximately 56020’;61023’W and 1010’;8035’N on the northeastern coast of South America,
Guyana is bordered by Suriname to the east, Venezuela to the west, Brazil to the south and
southwest, and the Atlantic Ocean to the north.
Approximately 18,120 sq km or 8.4% of the total land area is made up waterways. The Essequibo
River is the major drainage system, supported by the Demerara and Berbice Rivers and many creeks
that dissect the landscape. The climate is seasonally tropical with an average annual rainfall ranging
between 4400 - 1200mm and a national average annual temperature of 25.90C.
Guyana consists of four major natural geomorphological regions - Flat Coastal Plain, the Hilly sand
and clay Region; the Central and South-western savannahs; and the Highland Region. The GLTC
originates at the coastal plain, passes through the hilly sand and clay region, and a narrow strip of the
highland areas before terminating in the south-southwestern savannah region. The route of the
existing road allows it to pass through the rainforest of central Guyana including the Programme
Site for the Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development
(Iwokrama) and many natural and man-made drainage channels and seasonally flooded areas such as
the North Rupununi Wetlands which lies between the Essequibo River and the Kanuku Mountains.
2.2.4 Overview of Biodiversity Resources
Guyana has a wealth of intact biodiversity resources resulting from a number of contributory
factors, including the country’s presence within the species rich Guiana Shield Region, proximity to
the biologically diverse Amazon Basin, the presence of intact tropical rainforests that occupies
approximately 75% of the total land area, and low national population density (approx. 4
persons/km2) that at present creates relatively little threat to biodiversity.
Although limited, current knowledge shows that the country has about 7,000 plant species, 800 bird
species, 225 mammalian species, approximately 320 species of amphibian and reptiles and about 700
21
Office of the President, Guyana, 2009 .Transforming Guyana’s Economy while Combating Climate Change: a Low
Carbon Development Strategy. 19 fish species. Many of the identified species are endemic to Guyana and/or threatened globally.
According to the IUCN Redlist (2008) there are 173 endemic plant species and 17 threatened faunal
species existing in Guyana. In the absence of effective mitigating measures, the recent bridging of
the Takutu River (on the border with Brazil) and the planned improvement of the GLTC are viewed
as impending threats to the country’s forest and biodiversity as the intact ecosystems in the
Rupununi Savannahs and forest ecosystems along the GLTC become increasingly accessible to
human activities.
The route of the GLTC from the Capital City to the Soesdyke Junction cuts through a fully
urbanized landscape with housing development projects, industrial sites and agricultural activities. A
far greater portion (Soesdyke to Lethem) of the road passes through the hinterland. Many of the
major forest types mapped for the country including pioneer and other light dependent species are
along the road. These plant communities combined with the biophysical ecosystems through which
the road passes provide a wide range of goods and services for a great proportion of Guyana’s wildlife,
surrounding communities and the world.
2.2.5 Socioeconomic Profile
The total population of Guyana is small in relation
to the country’s area, although the coastal zone is
densely populated by around 90 percent of
Guyana’s population. The GLTC passes through 3
of the nation’s 10 Administrative Regions i.e.
Region 4, Demerara/Mahaica; Region 9, Upper
Takatu/Upper Essequibo; and Region 10 Upper
Demerara/Berbice. Region 4 has a population of
149,204 individuals; Region 9, 10,062; and Region
10, 20,035; representing 20.1%, 1.3% and 2.7% of
the total population respectively. 22
Apart from the short Georgetown to Linden stretch
at the extreme northern end of the corridor, the
population density of the road influence area is
exceptionally low being dominated, almost
exclusively by Amerindian communities.
Amerindians number some 50,000 or approximately
7% of the national population. Most live in Regions
TAKUTU BRIDGE. LINKING BON FIN, BRAZIL (UPPER PORTION OF PICTURE) TO LETHEM, 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 covering the northwest and the
GUYANA (LOWER PORTION) interior districts of the country. Most are selfemployed conducting traditional subsistence agriculture, hunting and logging. Literacy among the
Amerindian populace is the lowest of the country’s ethnic groupings. The most prominent health
concerns for this ethnic group are: malaria; respiratory tract infections; abnormal ailments, worm
infestations; and acute diarrheal diseases.
22
Population and Housing Census 2002. 20 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF FOREST CARBON STOCK AND HISTORICAL GHG EMISSIONS FROM LAND USE AND FOREST DEGRADATION The purpose of assessing forest carbon stock and historical GHG emissions is to present a
description of the background situation for a REDD strategy in Guyana, providing guidance on the
selection of methodologies to account for reductions of emissions from deforestation and
degradation. For further details and recommendations on datasets suitable for the evaluation of
forest carbon stocks and biomass among forest types, and a suggested sampling intensity for the
measurement and monitoring plan, the reader is referred to the detailed technical paper on the
subject.
2.3.1 Methodology
The methodology applied to account for reductions of emissions from deforestation and
degradation (REDD) confirms to Tiers and approaches established in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-use)
sector. In measuring the current carbon sink levels for this effort a Tier 2 approach was applied
using national datasets to replace and improve on IPCC default values. We are of the opinion
however that a Tier 3 approach will be required by a market-based REDD framework. To estimate
loss in forest cover (area change), Approach 3 of the IPCC 2006 Guidelines was used because
specific quantification of deforestation is of interest in the REDD context. Approach 3 uses
spatially-explicit data sourced from classified remote imagery that further delivers improved accuracy
and credibility to accounting REDD performance.
The datasets which were compiled to evaluate forest carbon stocks, variation in biomass among
forest types, and required sampling intensity for a measurement and monitoring plan, were sourced
from prism sampling from 1990-93 Interim Forestry Project (IFP) (national coverage); the 2003
management level inventory at Iwokrama; and plot data from 2007/8 permanent sample plots
(PSP’s) at Iwokrama. Data compiled and analyzed totaled a sample size of 9,413 measurement plots
and 58,091 trees. Consistent calculations and assumptions were applied to estimate live tree biomass
carbon per unit area (t C ha-1).
Current available datasets allowed for the analysis of live tree biomass carbon densities but raw
datasets were not available for other forest carbon pools like dead wood, litter and soil carbon.
Published estimates from Guyana range from 10-19 t C ha-1, 1-4 t C ha-1 and 28-158 t C ha-1, for
dead wood, litter and soil carbon, respectively. Potential emissions from these pools, except in the
case of peat soils, are unlikely to qualify them as key categories per IPCC GL 2006 (i.e. that
constitute > 25-30% emissions/removals for the category).
2.3.2 Development of the Required Expansion and Conversion Factors
Diameter at breast height (dbh) data from individual trees can be used to estimate biomass using
allometric equations relating aboveground biomass to dbh and belowground biomass to
21 aboveground biomass. Since no biomass equations specific to Guyana are presently available,
existing biomass equations for Guyanese forests were adapted by applying a correction factor for
wood density as was used by Baker et al (2004). Specialized equations are required for palms and
pioneer species with exceptionally low density wood and unique crown architecture. Equations
developed by Delaney et al. (2000) can be used for trees in the Cecropiaceae family (Pourouma spp
and Cecropia spp) but palms do not have the minimum measurement criteria. Root biomass density
can be estimated at the plot level applying the equation developed by Cairns et al. (1997) and
biomass values can be converted to carbon fraction using the coefficient of 0.47, as recommended
by the Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006). It must be noted that the
value of carbon estimates for soil organic matter will vary greatly depending on soil types.
2.3.3 Baseline estimates of forest carbon stocks and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions
2.3.3.1 Live tree biomass
To estimate live tree biomass, forest carbon stocks and GHG emissions across forest types, the
forest of Guyana was broadly divided into mixed forests; white sand forests and swamp forests. An
analyses of datasets (for each of these three categories of forests) obtained from the Interim Forestry
Project (IFP) and Iwokrama Management Level Inventory (MLI) and Permanent Sample Plots
(PSP) showed that the average live tree biomass (t C ha-1) is highest in the mixed forest (211 t C ha-1)
followed by the swamp (197 t C ha-1) and white sand forests (189 t C ha-1).
These derived estimates were significantly higher (17 to 34%) than independent estimates calculated
by ter Steege (1998) from the 1970 Great Falls inventory. This difference in estimates is due to two
key factors: (1) the Lescure et al (1983) equation used by ter Steege produces biomass estimates that
are less than our estimates through 95 cm dbh, which comprises the majority of stems, and (2) real
differences in forest biomass stocks between the sites measured in the 1970 Great Falls inventory
and the 2003 Iwokrama MLI, that could result from edaphic or topographic factors or different
disturbance histories.
To provide additional perspective, we conducted a literature search of forest biomass data from
Guyana and other areas of the Guiana Shield region. The derived results showed that the mean live
tree biomass carbon estimate for central Guyana (Iwokrama) forests, 220 t C ha-1, closely coincides
with (i.e. within 10% of) Tjon’s (1998) estimate of 215-228 t C ha-1 for Suriname “high dry land
forest”, and with Chave et al’s (2008) estimate of 204-228 t C ha-1 from central French Guiana,
suggesting that this “biomass class” is widespread throughout the Guiana Shield Region.
2.3.3.2 Root Biomass and Dead Wood and Litter
At present no direct measurements of root biomass are available but its biomass value could be
estimated as a function of aboveground biomass by applying the equation developed by Cairns et al.
(1997) for upland forests. Though not proven to be accurate, the outcome is conservative and
acceptable for project accounting, but reveals an area worthy of further research.
Measurements of dead wood and litter from Guyana forests are also limited and/or absent. As such
data collected by several sources when garnered, assessed and summarized yielded a forest floor
litter carbon stocks in mixed forest that range between 0.7 to 3.8 t C ha-1, and did not surpass the
2% of live tree biomass carbon stocks.
22 2.3.3.3 Soil Carbon
Soil carbon data gleaned and summarised from several sources indicates that carbon on forest soils
in central Guyana ranges widely from 28-158 t C ha-1 in the top 20-30 cm.
2.3.3.4 Remarks on Methodology and Applications
For Guyana to regularly estimate changes in biomass and carbon emissions there is need for the
implementation of on-going national monitoring programme using the Tier 3 approach. Though this
approach will require a higher level of effort, its use will allow the GoG to target and achieve
acceptable levels of uncertainty, as well as deliver information that transcends REDD and climate
relevance, delivering data equally valuable to other important objectives like conservation and timber
production. To mitigate uncertainties representative sampling will be required at the scale to which
estimates will be applied, and while the calculated bounds presented in the technical paper accurately
estimate uncertainty for the IFP population of interest (national forest concessions), the uncertainty
bounds (and estimated means) are indicative only when applied beyond that population.
2.4 MODELING REFERENCE SCENARIOS OF FUTURE EMISSIONS The GoG has expressed its intention to pursue a development strategy predicated on the
conservation of the nation’s forest resources. This is based on the assumption that global carbon
markets will provide revenues for maintaining the carbon stocks in those forests. The potential
outcomes of that development strategy may be evaluated under different sets of conditions, one of
which is driven by the availability of resources that might flow from carbon markets. The scenarios
described in this study show how differences in the policy frameworks under discussion in
international forums may impact development in a country such as Guyana. The Government of
Guyana may wish to conserve its forests, but economic and social forces might transcend that wish
or cause the Government of Guyana to reconsider its policies, particularly if the promised revenues
from international carbon markets fail to materialize.
In this assessment the GHG emissions caused by land-use change are estimated from the upgrade of
the GLTC. Furthermore, the potential to reduce those emissions by implementation of a Social and
Environmental Action Plan (SEAP) is evaluated. The ability to implement an effective SEAP will be
determined by available financing, which may be from revenues from global carbon markets via the
proposed mechanism to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD).
2.4.1 Methodology
The potential outcomes from different land-use change scenarios along the GLTC may be
compared, in order to evaluate how carbon markets might finance an effective social and
environmental action plan (SEAP) 23 . Four contrasting scenarios may be developed in order to
23
The SEAP will include inter alia measures to assist forest dependent industries to reduce their impact on the forests
through benefit sharing mechanisms. 23 evaluate the impact of infrastructure investments and the adequacy of revenues from a potential
REDD mechanisms based on either a historical or most-probable future (modeled) land-use
reference scenario.
2.4.1.1 The Nostalgic Past Scenario (1)
Future development in Guyana will continue on a trajectory similar to the recent past and the rate of
land-use change is based on historical trends. This is not a very likely scenario since the decision to
upgrade the GLTC has already been made and financing has been considered.
2.4.1.2 Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario (2)
Guyana follows a trajectory similar to other Amazonian regions where new highways trigger
settlement and agricultural development. 24 In spite of the development of a SEAP, the lack of
financial resources limits its implementation leading to widespread deforestation.
2.4.1.3 The Insufficient REDD Scenario (3a)
The Government of Guyana implements policies to conserve its forest resources based on an
expanded SEAP that is linked to a REDD mechanism. However, REDD revenues are insufficient
to counteract the economic drivers that accompany a modern transportation corridor.
2.4.1.4 The Effective REDD Scenario (3b)
The Government of Guyana implements policies to conserve its forest resources based on an
expanded SEAP that is linked to a REDD mechanism. However, REDD revenues are based on
deforestation rates from a modeled “most likely future” scenario (Scenario 2), which are sufficient to
limit deforestation, which are greater than historical values, but less than what might be experienced
in a “business-as-usual scenario”. This scenario also includes a comparison between a forest
management regime of a 30-year timber harvest cycle and a 60-year harvest cycle that maintains
higher carbon stocks and, consequently, reduces green house gas emissions from forest degradation.
24
While true that the soils of the Guiana Shield are infertile, the use of technology can overcome the limitations of soil
chemistry. Tropical ecologists have long held that tropical soils are infertile and not economically viable for
agricultural development. However, use of modern technology is overcoming the limitations of tropical soils. By
using new varieties of cultivated forage grasses, rotational grazing to control weeds, and vitamins to compensate for
the lack of micronutrients, ranchers have increased profitability and enhanced sustainability. In the Cerrado
Hotspot, soya farmers apply chemical lime (CaCO3), which changes the pH of soils, resolves aluminum toxicity,
and mobilizes plant nutrients that were previously tightly bound to clay particles. In Bolivia, farmers rotate soya
with corn or sorghum to manage fungal pathogens. Similar solutions are likely to be discovered and implemented in
the Amazon to manage soil fertility and improve pest management. A report for the National Academy of Sciences
contends that continuous food crop production is feasible on most Oxisols and Ultisols in the humid tropics.
24 2.4.1.5 Remote Sensing
and GIS to Estimate,
Carbon Stocks, Land-Use
Change
and
GHG
Emissions
Using ALOS-PALSAR radar
satellite imagery a precise
cloud-free image mosaic for
the entire country was
obtained
to
create
a
prototype
radar-generated
spatially precise forest cover
map of Guyana This was the
first time that a country
forest cover map was ever
successfully
accomplished
using this technology. This
was combined with the
National Vegetation Map to
create a Carbon Density Map
with eight physiognomic
categories that could be
related to carbon stocks
values derived from forest
GUYANA NATIONAL BIOMASS MAP DERIVED FROM THE GUYANA inventory data. Carbon stock
NATIONAL VEGETATION MAP WHICH WAS SIMPLIFIED INTO values for each layer were
PHYSIOGNOMIC CATEGORIES AND THEN SUPERIMPOSED ON THE derived from published and SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE NATIONAL LAND COVER MAP OF GUYANA TO PRODUCE A HYBRID PRODUCT THAT INTEGRATES SPATIALLY unpublished forest inventory
PRECISE LAND COVER WITH INFORMATION ON VEGETATION data to provide estimates of
STRUCTURE
above and below ground
carbon stocks. Carbon pools
were
calculated
by
multiplying the carbon stock
(tonnes ha-1) by the surface
area for each biomass category.
All four scenarios were developed using the Idrisi-Andes ®LCM software module, which spatially
distributes land-use change using numerical models based on probability functions and spatially
explicit data upon which those probability functions operate.
2.4.1.6 Predicted Deforestation Rate Driven by the GLTC
The scenarios model spatially distribute future deforestation based on probability functions and
spatially explicit data derived from the physical, administrative, and infrastructure attributes of
Guyana. The rates of change were selected to reflect the pathway of development assumed for each
scenario, which ranged from: Scenario (1) 0.05% yr-1; Scenario (2) 0.5% yr-1; Scenario (3a) 0.1%
25 climbing to 0.5% yr-1 after ten years, and Scenario (3b) 0.1% yr-1. 25 The CO2 emissions were
calculated by comparing the forest cover model outputs for each scenario with the Carbon Density
Map. The emissions from forest degradation from logging were estimated by comparing biomass in
remnant forest in 30 yr traditional-certified and 60 year reformed-certified management regimes.
The rates incorporated into the scenarios model reflect the 30 year history of deforestation of the
Brazilian Amazon. The value of 0.5% is the approximate basin-wide average for the entire Amazon,
but is also characteristic of frontier states of Pará and Acre that have been transformed by the
construction of modern paved highways. The even higher rates of Mato Grosso and Rondônia were
not adopted, because land-use change in those States was the result of deliberate settlement schemes
and large government investments; policies that are not contemplated for Guyana. The moderate
rate selected for Scenario (3b) (and the first temporal period of Scenario (3a) is characteristic of
Amapá, which has adopted a policy of forest conservation. It must be noted nonetheless, that the
“moderate rate is still an order of magnitude greater than the historical deforestation of Guyana.
Modeling was not constrained to the GLTC, but was carried out over the entire country, given the
information that was available, and the fact that the GLTC represents only a part of the
infrastructural development across the country.
2.4.2 Model Output and Interpretation A comparison of the four scenarios demonstrates how relatively small changes in the deforestation
rate can lead to very large differences in the emissions of greenhouse gases and, in the process,
shows the potential for generating significant revenues for Guyana based on moderate projections
of deforestation.
The Nostalgic Past Scenario (1) is nominally representative of historical deforestation patterns. The
main difference between the recent past and the immediate future is the improvement of the GLTC.
Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that in an economic and social setting characterized by low
rates of deforestation, there will be some increase in future settlement along that transportation
corridor. Results show that if a historical baseline is used as a reference case for calculating reduced
emissions under a REDD system Guyana would not be eligible for compensation.
25
The rates incorporated into the scenarios model reflect the 30 year history of deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon.
The value of 0.5% is the approximate basin-wide average for the entire Amazon, but is also characteristic of frontier
states of Pará and Acre that have been transformed by the construction of modern paved highways. We chose not
to adopt the even higher rates of Mato Grosso and Rondônia, because land-use change in those States was the
result of deliberate settlement schemes and large government investments; policies that are not contemplated for
Guyana. Finally, the moderate rate selected for Scenario 3b (and the first temporal period of 3a) is characteristic of
Amapá, which has adopted a policy of forest conservation; nonetheless, that rate is still an order of magnitude
greater than the historical deforestation of Guyana.
26 The Business as Usual Scenario (2) provides a perspective of future deforestation and may actually
underestimate deforestation – at both the national and corridor scale – due to the moderate
assumptions incorporated into models. For example, it may be assumed that there will be an increase
in the national deforestation rate, which will reach 0.5% annually within a couple of years, but that
deforestation may be partitioned among the GLTC and all other existing or planned transportation
corridors. A national deforestation rate was chosen and partitioned among the different regions of the
country based on objective criteria. The model also recognizes that opportunities are also a driver of
deforestation and that increased access can itself lead to an increase in deforestation rates, at least
over the short term. While these choices and assumptions have been made it is recognized that no single
modeling approach is infallible and that by varying model inputs and assumptions, one can provide a
range of potential emissions scenarios and demonstrate how the improvement of infrastructure
might impact the country.
The third scenario (3b)
demonstrates
the
likely
outcome of an Insufficient
REDD mechanism that is
contingent on reducing
emissions in the context of
historical baselines. In this
scenario it is assumed that the
economic incentives available
via an overly conservative
REDD initiative will not
approximate the opportunity
costs
for
avoiding
deforestation.
A modern
transportation corridor will
dramatically increase the
capacity to create wealth
through the occupation of the
lands within the corridor and
conversion to some form of
agriculture.
The cost of
avoiding this deforestation
will be substantially greater
than in the past and is the
fundamental reason why a
modeled future deforestation
scenario case is more
appropriate than a historical
baseline when selecting a
reference case scenario for
Guyana.
The fourth scenario (3b)
provides an outcome similar
Scenario 2. Business as Usual
THE SCENARIO MODELS PROJECT DEFORESTATION OVER
THREE TEMPORAL PERIODS (RED AREAS) IN EACH OF THE FOUR
SCENARIO MODELS; THE TOTAL AREA DEFORESTED FOR EACH
SCENARIO IS DEPENDENT UPON THE UNDERLYING
DEFORESTATION RATE, WHILE THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION IS A
FUNCTION OF THE CONSTRAINS AND INCENTIVES THAT
DIFFERENTIATE THE SCENARIOS.
27 to what most objective observers hope
will be the future of Guyana and
demonstrates the advantages of an
Effective REDD mechanism based on a
reasonable expectation of what the
future deforestation rate will be in
Guyana (i.e., ~ 0.5% per annum) in the
Nostalgic Past
Business as Usual
Insufficient REDD
Effective REDD
absence of incentives to maintain a low
deforestation rate. The exact dimensions
of those potential revenues would be
determined in the future based on a
monitoring of forest cover and the
associated forest stocks in the country,
but they can be estimated by comparing
the linear models of CO2 emissions over
Nostalgic Past
Business as Usual
Insufficient REDD
Effective REDD
time for the different scenarios for the
GLTC and for the entire country.
REDD revenues could be calculated
based on either Scenario 2 or Scenario
3a, both of which provide slightly
different perspectives of what a future
might look like. What will be included in
a REDD reference will no doubt be
subject to negotiation and just as
protected areas may or may not be
included, the deforestation rate in the
reference scenario most likely will be
fixed using both technical and political
criteria.
THE CUMULATIVE CO2 EMISSIONS GENERATED FOR EACH
SCENARIO MODEL WITHIN THE GLTC (A) AND FOR THE
REPUBLIC OF GUYANA (B); THE DIFFERENCE IN SLOPE IN
THE LINE THAT DESCRIBES THE EMISSIONS FOR SCENARIOS
2 AND 3A IS A DUE TO THE DISPLACEMENT OF
DEFORESTATION TO A SECOND TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR (I.E.,., THE ACRONORTE IIRSA) WITHOUT
MODIFYING THE UNDERLYING RATE OF DEFORESTATION.
SINCE THE ABSOLUTE AMOUNT OF DEFORESTATION IS THE
SAME AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, THE RELATIVE AMOUNT
THAT OCCURS WITHIN THE GLTC IS REDUCED Finally, the Effective REDD scenario
was used to evaluate the potential impact of different forest management policies on forest
degradation (the second D in REDD). Most industry professionals have been recommending
management regimes based on 30-yr harvest cycles where concessions are subdivided into 30 blocks
and harvested for timber once within each cycle. Although current certification schemes accept
these standards as sustainable, most experienced forest ecologists recognize that 30 years is
insufficient to allow for the regeneration of canopy dominants and hard-wooded species (such as
Greenheart – Chlorocardium rodiei). Most of these high value timber species range between 100 to 200
years old - or greater where infertile soils and slow growing trees lead to even longer reproductive
cycles and growth histories, the case in Guyana.
REDD provides an opportunity to revisit this accepted regime, offering the possibility to transition
tropical forestry management to a truly sustainable management regime. To demonstrate that
potential, a simple linear model that compared the impact of 30-yr and 60-yr harvest cycles with a
complete moratorium on logging was applied.
28 This analysis revealed that
the
potential
REDD
revenues from avoided
degradation approximate the
avoided emissions from
avoided deforestation. In the
short term, however, REDD
revenues from improved
forest management surpass
those
from
avoided
deforestation, while accruing
the benefits from a 60-yr (or
longer) rotation cycle, which
truly
guarantees
that
conservation of the natural
forest ecosystem with its full
compliment of high-value
timber species.
THE ADOPTION OF A FOREST MANAGEMENT POLICY BASED ON A
COMPARISON BETWEEN A 60-YEAR AND A 30-YEAR HARVESTING CYCLE
FOR SFM WAS EXAMINED FOR THE EFFECTIVE REDD SCENARIO (3B).
IN THIS VERSION OF THE MODEL, WE ASSUME THAT THE CURRENT
CONCESSIONAIRE AREA AND THE REMNANT FOREST ESTATE
(INCLUDING ALL STATE LANDS OUTSIDE PROTECTED AREAS AND
INDIGENOUS LANDS) WOULD BE DIVIDED INTO MANAGEMENT UNITS
HARVESTED ON EITHER A 30 OR 60 YEAR CYCLE WHERE LOGGING
LEADS TO A ONE TIME LOSS OF 50% OF BIOMASS, WHICH THEN
RECOVERED BIOMASS AT A RATE OF 2% ANNUALLY WITHIN THAT
BLOCK AND A NO LOGGING REGIME IS ADDED FOR COMPARISON.
THESE THREE SCENARIOS WERE THEN COMPARED TO THE NOSTALGIC
PAST SCENARIO (SCENARIO 1) AND THE BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO
(SCENARIO 2). The projected activity of
forest management would
be approximately the same
or, perhaps even greater
than
Guyana
currently
experiences, because it
foresees a higher intensity
per unit under exploitation, that is combined with a larger total area under management (e.g., the
Southern forest
estate),
that
Emissions and avoided emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; the adoption of a 60 year
logging cycle compared to a 30 yr logging cycle would avoid approximately the same amount of CO2
offsets the longer
emissions as avoiding deforestation
exploitation
period.
It should be
stressed that the
selection of a 60
year logging cycle
is arbitrary and
the true level of
intensity must be
considerably less
than the net
primary
productivity of
the
forest
ecosystem, which
must
be
Emissions from
deforestation
Scenario 1
Emissions from
Degradation
Total Emissions
144,164,780
1,325,024,523
1,469,189,303
Scenario 2
1,489,163,324
2,923,724,169
4,412,887,493
Scenario 3a
1,307,443,153
3,121,371,986
4,428,815,139
Scenario 3b/30 yr
340,553,585
2,705,911,331
3,046,464,916
Scenario 3b/60 yr
340,553,585
1,218,173,555
1,558,727,139
1,148,609,739
217,812,838
1,366,422,577
1,148,609,739
1,705,550,614
2,854,160,353
Difference Scenario 2 Scenario 3b/30 yr
Difference Scenario 2 Scenario 3b/60 yr
Difference from Avoided Deforestation
1,148,609,739
Difference from Avoided Degradation
1,487,737,776
29 established via traditional studies of forest ecology.
There are still many areas where the refinement of the model or additional monitoring efforts might
lead to more accurate or precise estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. The models used in
this study only incorporate above and below ground biomass, and the below ground biomass
estimates are reliant on Tier I coefficients based on an extremely small sample size. It is assumed
that a converted landscape looses all of its biomass upon conversion, which is a methodological
convenience, while common sense indicates that the loss of biomass is attenuated over time and
might be replaced in party by the regeneration from second growth forest. Likewise, it is assumed
that forests will be replaced by low biomass pasture or crop cover. However, future trends in
tropical agroforestry will probably favour perennial tree plantations that could replace significant
amounts of the biomass lost via the conversion process. This modeling exercise has provided
valuable insight into the how land-use-change along transportation corridors might impact
greenhouse gas emissions and thus contribute to global warming.
30 3. ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL FLOWS FROM REDD ACTIVITIES IN GUYANA 3.1 INTRODUCTION In the absence of REDD revenues, Guyana will be faced with little alternative but to continue along
a traditional development path which will have enormous impacts on its standing forests. As with
other poor developing countries, it is not possible to ask that the country to forego the economic
development opportunity provided by projects such as the GLTC for the sake of forest protection
that serves the interests of the global climate but with no tangible benefit to the country and the
well-being of its citizens. This is especially apt if there is an alternative route that can be presented by
a well-defined REDD framework.
The purpose of this analysis is to determine what enabling financial conditions are required to bring
congruence to conservation of forests and economic development spurred by IIRSA, through the
application of a REDD framework.
Financial needs for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation and conserving forests
(REDD-plus) will change over time and differ for each actor engaging in REDD-plus. The timing of
financial needs has been described in three distinct phases that move from REDD strategy
development and capacity building, to REDD implementation, to compensation for emission
reductions against a reference scenario. In each of these phases the actors engaged in REDD
activities – such as the central government and its ministries and agencies, regional agencies, and
communities engaged in REDD activities on the ground – will have different financial needs.
3.2 REDD FINANCE: OVERVIEW OF ISSUES Costs for REDD will vary greatly from country to country depending on demographics, ecosystems,
geography, and other country-specific factors including current policy and existing government
capacity and governance. Average costs for readiness have been calculated at between $13.75
million and $91.61 million per country. 26 This figure should be considered, refined and included in
Guyana’s REDD Readiness Preparation, which currently estimates Readiness costs at $11.22
million 27 .
26
Hoare et al (2008) “Estimating the Cost of Building Capacity in Rainforest Nations to Allow them to Participate in a
Global REDD Mechanism” produced for the Eliasch Review by Chatham House and ProForest with input from
the Overseas Development Institute and EcoSecurities.
27
Guyana R PLAN submission to the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, 2009. 31 3.2.1 REDD Financial Flows Risks
There are two possible sources of funding for REDD – market and non-market sources. Market
risks centre on the price of REDD credits. The price of REDD credits may be affected by; i) the
market being flooded by REDD credits; ii) restrictions on the use of REDD credits by buyers
(government or private sector); and iii) general fluctuations in the market price for emission
reductions for other reasons. These market risks are important for anyone engaging in REDD
transactions, whether it is sovereign governments, local communities, or private investors. The main
risks with non-market funding are whether or not it will i) be of sufficient scale to address REDD;
ii) remain at sufficient scale for sufficient duration; and iii) be directed to the required purposes.
3.2.2 REDD Transaction risks
REDD policy in the UN and Guyana will affect how REDD transactions are structured, which will
in turn determine who bears what risks and how easy or difficult it will be for to Guyana attract
private investment in REDD - the most important source of finance to pay for emission reductions.
Options for structuring REDD transactions are analyzed in three different scenarios of REDD
policy: i) national level monitoring, accounting, implementation, and crediting; ii) project level
monitoring, accounting, implementation, and crediting; and iii) national level monitoring and
accounting and project level implementation and crediting. The risks associated with engaging in
REDD differ for the government and other stakeholders within each scenario, with higher
government risk seen in scenario i).
3.2.3 Potential for REDD in Guyana
Potential future REDD flows in Guyana are heavily dependent on the outcomes of the UN
negotiations, in particular the inclusion of forward-looking reference scenarios. The variability of
REDD funding is even more acute with the development of the Georgetown-Lethem
Transportation Corridor (GLTC), given that it is projected to be a significant source of future
deforestation and emissions. If only historical emissions are used to create reference scenarios,
Guyana would effectively be shut-out of any REDD market within a few years as its emissions will
inevitably increase. However, a reasonable forward-looking baseline could potentially see the
country average anywhere from $43m‐216m a year as compensation for its REDD activities to 2040 in a best‐case scenario. A functional REDD framework in Guyana is not only predicated on the outcome of international
negotiations, but to a large extent also depends on Guyana implementing a strong and transparent
benefit-sharing mechanism that would ensure REDD revenues flow to at-risk areas and
communities. This revenue allocation model could take the form of a National REDD Trust Fund,
envisioned as a permanent, independent fund established by the National Assembly to hold assets
related to REDD (credits and funds) for the public purpose of providing targeted, long-term,
consistent, and stable funding to the nation’s National REDD Plan. This could include funding for
climate mitigation and adaptation projects, forest conservation and enhancement initiatives, funding
of the national carbon accounting, monitoring and verification body, and poverty reduction
strategies.
32 3.2.4 REDD as Development Finance
The conflicting tugs between development and conservation seen in countries with high forest cover
such as Guyana can be mitigated to some extent by including REDD components in future
infrastructure projects that may have negative implications on forests. The benefits of incorporating
REDD into infrastructure project design are made clear by analyzing the payoffs resulting from
“greening” the GLTC project in order to minimize deforestation along the route. Funding the
estimated $2.6m needed to include a REDD component into the road project design would create
REDD credits that could potentially double the financial returns for the project while maintaining
Guyana firmly below its reference emissions scenario and international obligations, thus not putting
development goals at odds with conservation activities. Funding for the development of the
REDD component of the project could be accessed through various means: i) Bundling into
development loans; ii) Third-Party Sales of future carbon credits; iii) REDD-Toll; or iii) Grant
Financing. Each has its associated pros and cons that are discussed in the paper.
3.3 REDD FINANCE IN GUYANA 3.3.1 Valuing REDD in Guyana
As with any future expected revenue stream, there are several ways to value potential REDD
revenue for the Government of Guyana, and most approaches tend to revolve around either
compensating the opportunity costs of the land, or calculating the avoided emissions in tons of
CO2e and multiplying that by an estimated REDD credit price. On a stand alone basis, both of
these approaches fall short of determining whether a REDD system would actually work, and be
capable of reducing emissions from deforestation as predicted. Looking solely at opportunity costs
may give a reasonable estimate of the minimum payments needed to alter deforestation activities in
the affected areas, yet it is entirely unlikely that a REDD mechanism would work if credits would
have to be sold well above market prices in order to compensate for extremely high opportunity
costs. A simple opportunity costs assessment will also not capture additional issues associated with
successful REDD implementation such as governance and capacity requirements. Similarly, simply
calculating estimated emissions reductions may provide a rough figure of potential REDD income,
but if this income comes in significantly below the land’s opportunity cost then it is unlikely that
land owners will alter from their economically logical (yet ecologically detrimental) land use
practices. Thus, in order to calculate potential revenues of an Effective REDD scheme, one that has
the highest probability of functioning, this analysis sought to quantify the annual REDD flows that
would be both sufficient to stop future projected deforestation in Guyana, while at the same time be
financially feasible for the expected future REDD market to sustain.
Estimated Opportunity Cost of Land for Guyana
Low­End
High­End
USD / Ha
$829.23
$2,226.26
USD / tCO2e
$1.07
$2.87
Global Averages (Stern)
$2.76
$8.28
Brazil $3.90
$6.10
$1.65
$3.44
Indonesia THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF LAND IN GUYANA
COMPARES FAVORABLY TO OTHER TROPICAL REGIONS
THUS MAKING REDD A VIABLE
MITIGATION STRATEGY
33 FOR THE COUNTRY. SOURCES: OSIRIS CALCULATIONS,
BOUCHER 2008, OLSEN 2009
3.3.2 REDD Revenues
Because the GLTC has the potential to mark a major shift in
Guyana’s development path and
likely increase the
country’s historically low deforestation rate, any potential
REDD flows are to a large extent dependent upon properly
defining and gaining acceptance for Guyana’s baseline or
reference scenario in accordance with this future projected
path. The financial implications associated with these
decisions are key to the success of any REDD Plan, and may
be examined here by comparing the performance of
different national REDD design options under the two
scenarios modeled in the previous section (referred to as the
Insufficient REDD scenario, and Effective REDD scenario).
Based on the projected future deforestation rates for
Guyana presented in the two scenarios modeled, Effective
REDD and Insufficient REDD essentially contrast the
difference between a well-funded and functioning REDD
system versus a non-working REDD system that fails to
adequately incentivize or otherwise stop people from
carrying on deforestation activities. In order to better
understand what “adequate” levels of funding represent, the
potential REDD revenue may be compared to the estimated
opportunity cost of the land 28 to determine at what price ($
tCO2) a REDD scheme could potentially work, at both the
national level and project-level.
24%
GLTC
Project
Total Estimated
Cumulative
National
Emissions in
Guyana 20102040
~ 4.41 Gt CO2e
THE GLTC AREA IS PROJECTED TO ACCOUNT FOR ALMOST A QUARTER OF ALL FUTURE NATIONAL EMISSIONS IN GUYANA, AND CAN THEREFORE NOT BE OVERLOOKED IF GUYANA IS TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE IN ANY FUTURE REDD SCHEME. AN EFFECTIVE REDD PLAN AND TARGETED REDD PAYMENTS TOWARDS THIS HIGH‐RISK REGION WOULD MITIGATE THE RISK OF THE INSUFFICIENT REDD SCENARIO PLAYING OUT 3.3.2.1 The Insufficient REDD Scenario
The Insufficient REDD Scenario is one where REDD payments to Guyana are lower than what is
necessary to fully fund the country’s REDD Plan, leading to a breakdown of forest conservation
schemes and an eventual reversion to the BAU scenario. This scenario is envisioned as the
consequence of either a supply-side problem by the lack of REDD credits generated by the country,
or a demand-side problem caused by low credit prices or weak international markets for REDD
credits. REDD credit supply issues could stem from either i) international REDD negotiations not
favoring Guyana by agreeing to use historical deforestation rates as baselines , or ii) Guyana not
being able to stop future deforestation which would result in national emissions increasing beyond
an agreed-upon reference scenario.
28
The opportunity cost analysis used inputs from a map of global agro-ecological zones (detailing Guyana) produced by
Fischer et al 2000, determining the highest value crop type (soy, beef, etc), multiplying production value of that crop
type by average 1995-2005 market rate to obtain annual revenue. OSIRIS 34 Although the Insufficient REDD scenario stems from a lack of financing, it is not necessarily
predicated on a lack of supply associated with the use of a historical baselines or the GLTC
development, and could just as easily be the result of demand-side market imperfections. Should
REDD credits sell at extremely depressed market prices, regardless of the baseline used, the lack of
financial inflows to the country would also foresee an eventual return to the BAU scenario.
1
2
.
INSUFFICIENT REDD. Due to the GLTC upgrade, emissions in Guyana will increase above historical baselines (1) leading to
future REDD deficits and possibly no REDD payments (2). With a lack of incentives, emissions soon return to the BAU
scenario. This is referred to as the “insufficient REDD scenario” where Guyana does not have the funds to fully implement its
REDD strategy or funds are not targeted correctly towards high-risk areas (the GLTC). An effective REDD plan and targeted
REDD payments towards this high-risk region would mitigate the risk of the insufficient REDD scenario playing out.
35 Millions tCO2
Cumulative National Emissions (tons CO2)
BAU vs Effective REDD
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
Mean Annual
Emissions
Reductions =
87.72m tCO2
Business As Usual
2,000
1,500
1,000
Effective REDD
500
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
3.3.2.2 The Effective REDD
Scenario
Under an Effective REDD
Scenario, on the other
hand, Guyana would be
able to reduce projected
deforestation significantly
through the application of
a REDD scheme and
forward-looking baselines.
These credits would then
be sold forward to an
international market with
essentially
limitless
demand, at prices roughly
trading for what forest
carbon projects trade for in
today’s voluntary market.
Of course many of these
assumptions may not play
out in a future REDD
regime, but the Effective
REDD scenario conforms
to a “best-case” scenario
that would spur both
supply and demand for
REDD credits.
EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER AN EFFECTIVE REDD SCENARIO. NOTE: THE NUMBERS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS ARE ADJUSTED FROM THOSE PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION. ASSUMPTIONS INCLUDE LIMITLESS DEMAND FOR REDD CREDITS AND THAT GUYANA WILL BE ABLE TO SELL ALL CERTIFIED CREDITS, EX‐ANTE, EVERY YEAR FOR THE 30 YEAR CREDITING PERIOD (EXCLUDING A 2 YEAR MONITORING START‐UP PHASE) EITHER THROUGH FORWARD TRANSACTIONS OR IN THE SPOT MARKET AT INFLAT I ON ADJUSTED PRICES (NO DECLINE) 30yr Emissions Reductions Achieved under Effective REDD
Total Reductions (t CO2)
2,719,378,243
Mean Annual Reductions (t CO2)
Effective REDD 30yr Revenue Projections
Total Revenue Constant USD
Mean Annual Revenue
Mean Annual Revenue (disc)
NPV @ 10%
$2/ton CO2
$5/ton
$10/ton
$ 4,953,091,935 $ 12,382,729,837 $
24,765,459,675
$
159,777,159 $
399,442,898 $
798,885,796
$
43,194,540 $
107,986,351 $
215,972,702
$1,346,530,690
36 $3,366,326,726
$6,732,653,452
87,721,879
3.3.3 Implications on REDD Success
When taking into account the opportunity costs presented above, excluding transaction costs it
would not be unreasonable to assume that for REDD to function properly in Guyana annual
REDD revenues would have to be at least $93 million (avoided deforestation * opportunity cost of
land). Fortunately, the mean annual revenue projected under an Effective REDD Scenario which
takes into account possible emission reductions and current market prices comes in well above that
minimum threshold, meaning that Guyana could very well have a functioning REDD program. At
this level of funding, the income generated from the sales of REDD credits would enable the
country to implement a fully functioning REDD strategy that would cover the opportunity costs of
the land and account for the REDD Plan transaction and administrative costs 29 which are difficult
to predict but seem to be well below $1tCO2 given current available information
For this scenario to play out, the demand (price per tCO2) and supply of credits must both be
shored up if the best-case scenario is to be reached for Guyana. Any limits or caps placed on
REDD credits would curtail this demand and force up the price of tCO2 in order to reach the target
annual REDD payments of $100m ~ $200m (avoided emissions * opportunity cost of land +
transaction costs). Thus it is clearly in Guyana’s best interests to not only ensure that forwardlooking reference scenarios are included in the international REDD negotiations, but also that the
market is free of any impediments to REDD credit demand such a partial fungebility, expiration,
caps, or bankability, that have hindered the growth of the CDM forestry market thus far.
3.3.4 Alternatives to Finance the GLTC REDD Project
Establishment of the REDD project and funding for the various aspects of Project Design are
estimated around US$2.6m over a period of five years. This cost could theoretically be funded
through a variety of financial schemes.
3.3.4.1 Bundling into development loan
Perhaps the easiest option, up-front funding for the REDD project would be earmarked in the
initial development loan to be repaid over the project’s lifetime either in ER credits or currency.
The downside to this option is that the country ends up taking on all project risk.
29
Nepstad et al. 2007 estimate implementation costs including project level and national level costs. At full
implementation of a REDD programme in the Brazilian Amazon, implementation costs are $0.58/ton CO2.
Administration costs estimated by Grieg-Gran 2006 range from $4-15 per hectare ($0.01-0.04/ton CO2e). This
estimate is based on national level payments for environmental services schemes in Costa Rica Mexico and
Ecuador. Boucher 2008 sums Antinori and Sathaye’s estimate of transaction costs ($0.38/ton CO2), Nepstad et al.’s
implementation cost estimate ($0.51/ton CO2) and Grieg-Gran’s highest administrative cost estimate ($0.04/ton
CO2) to derive a total of $1/ton CO2. There is little empirical quantitative work on these costs and a number of
studies argue against estimating these costs prior to more resolution on UNFCCC decisions regarding REDD in a
post 2012 regime (Blaser and Robledo 2008). While there are likely to be economies of scale in implementation
costs, transaction costs are likely to be fixed at the project or national level (Pagiola and Bosquet 2009). This implies
that the share of transaction costs in the costs of REDD depends on the degree of success in emissions reduction; if
emissions reduction is large, the fixed amount of transaction cost, expressed in terms of cost per ton CO2e will be
low. (Olsen 2009) 37 3.3.4.2 Third-Party Sale
Up-front funding would be secured through the forward sale of ER credits to a third party (bank,
carbon fund, developer) at an agreed upon time and price. This option would involve selling the ER
credits at a steep discount, yet some of the risk would also lie with the third party financier.
REDD-Toll. A toll would be charged to road users to fund the REDD project start-up costs
consistent with a payment for ecosystem services (the ecosystems that were destroyed by the
creation of the road), and could be suspended once the REDD project was self-financed. Tolls
could only be collected once the road was mostly completed, however, possibly delaying the REDD
project for a number of years, and could significantly raise transportation costs depending on
volume of traffic 30 .
3.3.4.3 Grant Financing
REDD project start-up costs could apply for grant financing to a multilateral organization or
through a bi-lateral agreement. This is the cheapest and least risky option, and possibly the hardest
to secure.
3.3.4.4 Financial Results
Strictly treating the GLTC area and it’s 100km wide “green buffer” as a REDD project, the financial results
are extremely encouraging and make the clear case that the decision to “green” infrastructure investments can
be the result of a logical financial decision and not simply an ecologically-wise decision. The results of such
modeling can clearly indicate that a comparatively small initial investment in REDD planning and project
development (estimated at $2.6m) has the potential to turn the project into a successful tool in the
development of a low-carbon economy should the best-case scenario come about. Even at relatively low
levels of funding, by forward selling REDD credits at a fixed $5/ton over the lifetime of the project, the
inclusion of a REDD component still provides an economic advantage over traditional infrastructure
investments, and does not take into account the substantial ecosystem and community benefits that forest
conservation provides. Please refer to Annex 3 for a detailed analysis.
30
The IDB Prefeasibility Study projects a toll of around $70-100 to cover yearly maintenance costs. 38 30yr Emissions Reductions Achieved under the GLTC REDD Project
Total Reductions (t CO2)
538,557,282
Mean Annual Reductions (t CO2)
17,372,816
GLTC REDD 30yr Revenue Projections
Total Revenue Constant USD
Mean Annual Revenue
NPV @ 6%
NPV @ 10%
NPV @ 12%
NPV @ 25%
Opp Cost of Land
$2/ton CO2
$5/ton
$10/ton
$
1,037,434,434 $
2,593,586,085 $
5,187,172,169
$
33,465,627 $
83,664,067 $
167,328,134
$513,645,285
$359,478,650
$344,790,916
$221,878,592
$1,284,113,212
$898,696,625
$861,977,290
$554,696,479
$2,568,226,424
$1,797,393,250
$1,723,954,581
$1,109,392,959
Low End
High End
$408,340,330
$564,635,099
COMPARISON OF REDD PROJECT REVENUES. NPV RATES CORRESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING: 6%
GUYANA INFLATION RATE (6.4%, MAY 2009 GUYANA CENTRAL BANK), 10% ARBITRARY RATE, 12%
RATE USED IN IDB GLTC PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY, 25% REASONABLE MINIMUM RATE OF RETURN
NEEDED BY A PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTOR. GREEN SQUARES REPRESENT FEASIBLE OPTIONS TO
THE ALTERNATIVE LAND USE OF HIGH-END OPPORTUNITY COST VALUES (TOP 90% OF LAND
VALUE).
3.4 REDD‐PLUS POTENTIAL The move from REDD to REDD-plus by including the elements of forest conservation, sustainable
forest management, and carbon stock enhancement represents a major achievement for HFLD
countries. However, until the rules and modalities of REDD-plus are defined by the international
community it is impossible to evaluate what sort of positive incentives will be applied to conserve
standing carbon stocks. There should be more clarity emerging in the lead up to the Copenhagen
round of negotiations in December 2009. The problem with quantifying the opportunity for
Guyana is that the UNFCCC body was created to deal with carbon flux, that is, GHG emissions and
reductions, but it is not yet fully equipped to treat pristine (and stable) carbon stocks. It is highly
unlikely that stock based credits will be fungible with flux based credits traded in the global carbon
market.
Although arriving to any level of detail is meaningless at this “limbo” in international negotiations,
what is clear is that REDD-plus offers additional potential for funding to support tropical forest
conservation. Guyana’s forests, with a forest cover of roughly 85% containing over 5GtCO2 in
above ground biomass, estimated forest land between 18.416 million hectares and 18.695 million
hectares 31 with approximately 12% designated as protected areas, stands to benefit substantially
from a well funded REDD-plus scheme.
31
Guyana FCPF R‐PIN submission 39 Little analysis currently exists on the effectiveness of the REDD-plus elements, but studies have
started to emerge that conclude that intact forests do indeed sequester more CO2 than previously
thought 32 , and the Effective REDD analysis performed in this study takes into account a 60 year
sustainable forest management practice instead of the current 30 year standard. Needless to say,
much more study is needed on the subjects before any conclusions can be reached on the benefits of
REDD-plus, but Guyana promises to become a potential “case study” to demonstrate the benefits
of such an approach.
32
Lewis et al., Increasing Forest Carbon, Nature 09 40 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 APPLYING REDD TO GUYANA: INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Guyana’s best interests lie in examining the role of REDD in all potential large-scale development
projects given its low historical deforestation rate. The country should not have to choose between
development aspirations and conservation goals (and REDD revenue) but should instead focus on
implementing low-carbon development plans including the greening of possible infrastructure
projects. For Guyana, the best way to make their case at the international level is to develop a
robust and credible reference scenario that takes into account increased emissions due to the
country’s full development plans, with specific emphasis on planned mining, ranching, and timber
harvesting activities.
The large volumes of emissions reductions projected with GIS modeling and associated large flow
of funds presented in this report can be taken as a “high water mark” and a good starting point
towards defining a realistic reference scenario for Guyana. More fine-tuning is needed to better
incorporate other development scenarios. Reference scenarios based on spatial modeling or
economic projections are for the moment largely mutually exclusive and need to be fully integrated
to arrive at a robust national deforestation rate. Land-use change patterns need to be supplemented
by opportunity cost information and historical deforestation data to prevent overestimation of
deforestation rates which could have serious consequences on a future REDD market.
Additional financial analysis on potential funding associated with these improved reference scenarios
is warranted, including the addition of REDD-plus as an alternative REDD scenario. This analysis
should include a comparative assessment of potential income under four scenarios; i) low volumes
of carbon credits plus low payments for forest conservation; ii) low volumes of carbon credits plus
high payments for forest conservation; iii) high volume of carbon credits plus low payments for
forest conservation; and iv) high volume of carbon credits plus high payments for forest
conservation. This analysis would go hand in hand with more refined versions of the GIS modeling
methodologies that would seek to precisely predict future expected deforestation rates due to the
GLTC project.
A complete analysis of these four policy scenarios would help Guyana understand the complete
range of funding options under the UNFCCC associated with REDD. In the absence of this
analysis, it is clear that negotiating reference scenarios that recognize future deforestation pathways
is to Guyana’s benefit as is gaining the most number of additional payments under any forest
conservation mechanism. However, the suggested analysis would let Guyana assess any trade-offs
that may be required between forest conservation payments and generating higher volumes of
emission reductions, as maximizing both payment options would likely be difficult.
Furthermore, detailed studies on the opportunity costs for the nation and forest biomass studies are
needed to improve upon this cursory overview, combined with new research into the sequestration
potential of standing forests, SFM, and carbon stock enhancement programs for REDD-plus.
41 4.1 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following list of recommendations has originated from the detailed studies conducted, but are grouped
into political/legislative, socio-economic/cultural, technical/intellectual and ecological categories. A number
of these recommendations are already being addressed, and many will require further discussion with the
GFC, and therefore do not necessarily represent a consensus position that has been arrived at. The list is as
follows:
Policy/legislative.
•
An effective SEAP for the GLTC should be carefully developed and implemented. This
SEAP may be seen as one of the early REDD projects developed under a REDD
Framework, where the costs of implementation may be covered by REDD revenues.
•
Natural resource management including the present concessionaire granting system should
be strengthen and addressed. In particular, concessionaires along the GLTC should be
invited to participate in the preparation and implementation of the proposed SEAP, given
the potential impact of their operations on deforestation and forest degradation.
•
Forest resource management may be strengthened and improved to address carbon stocking
through consideration of a longer harvesting cycle greater than 60 years. This approach may
also be considered as a REDD project, where REDD revenues may be used to support
refinement in forest resource and overall natural resources management.
•
A revision of the existing institutional framework should be carried out to allow for
improved coordination in land lease arrangements for the extraction and/or utilization of
natural resources under the jurisdiction of State Sector Agencies such as the GFC, GGMC
and GLSC. This type of coordination should be facilitated by the REDD Secretariat or the
GOG proposed Low Carbon Project Management Office in order to ensure that the
resulting reforms support Low Carbon Development.
•
A number of elements of the mining law need to be revised to improve environmental
management within the context of REDD. For instance, in order to ensure that some
concessions go unregulated because of size, limits should be placed on the quantity of
adjacent small-scale parcels that miners may claim to avoid cumulative significant impacts.
Additionally, provision could be made in the mining laws for the cancellation of leases due
to environmental damage. Other recommendations for a revised mining law include the
enforcing the requirement for environmental bonds and demanding compliance with
environmental permits.
•
Within the context of an effective REDD Framework implementation, there will be need to
provide additional authority to the responsible REDD implementation agency (the GFC).
This is especially the case where the GFC may observe illegal mining activities within its
monitoring and enforcement programme in forests.
•
Conflicts and overlaps on “exclusive rights” to natural resources in existing legislation
should be reviewed and a process for resolution should be developed. This has already been
highlighted in some of the feedback obtained from the LCDS consultations held recently
•
The participation of some key government and non-governmental agencies in the REDD
policy development appears to be insufficient. There should be greater participation and
42 involvement of institutions such as the Ministry of Finance (which should have a formal
position within NCC), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, GO-INVEST, and the Private Sector
Commission in the REDD Secretariat.
•
As clearly articulated in the Low Carbon Development Strategy which enshrines the
principles of engagement that meet applicable international and domestic standards,
including free, prior and informed consent, the engagement of Amerindians and other
forest-dependent peoples should follow clearly established procedures regarding how
indigenous rights issues in the national REDD processes. This should be particularly applied
to those forest-dependent people and Amerindian communities situated along the GLTC.
The implementation of these procedures should be supported by, for example, the provision
of technical and legal support to the Village Councils so that they have a comprehensive
understanding of REDD.
•
Efforts need to be made to ensure that the benefits of REDD are equitably distributed to
the appropriate stakeholders/beneficiaries. Achieving this will require the direct participation
in REDD by the local stakeholders.
•
The presence of yet to be completed land use policy process allows for gaps in terms of
planning with a landscape focus and this situation inhibits proper national zoning and land
allocation. Hence there is need for the development and implementation of a national landuse plan using a participatory process that is a central component of the national
development plan. One result of this will be the optimization of revenue flows and other
intangible economic and social benefits from REDD revenues, and the other traditional
sources of benefits such as timber, minerals, agriculture, and tourism.
•
Because protected areas are premium carbon reserves there is need for accelerated efforts
towards the enactment and implementation of a well designed National Protected Areas
System (NPAS) that will not only provide support to REDD framework, but will also
provide support to Amerindian communities that have expressed an interest in communitybased conservation projects.
•
In addition to the NPAS there is need to complete reviews and finalization of other
outstanding legislations and policies such as NCSAP implementation plan, the Roads Act,
the Agriculture Policy within the context of a Naitonal REDD Framework and the draft
Low Carbon Development Strategy.
•
REDD as a new concept to Guyana is expected to bring along many disputes and grievances
among stakeholders. Hence there is need to ensure that the current policies/legislations on
natural resources are reviewed and refined in a fair and transparent manner. This process has
commenced with the public dissemination and consultations being undertaken for the
LCDS.
•
Though Guyana has so far been very active and vocal at UNFCC meetings the country will
have to remain aggressive in future negotiations if it wants an international agreement on
REDD to be in its favour and interests.
43 Socio-economic/cultural
•
REDD revenue will have to be sufficient to avoid deforestation and forest degradation and
emissions by indigenous communities and other forest dependent people, many of whom are
now transitioning from traditional into cash-based economies. Hence it is imperative for the
GOG to seek alternative or additional sources of funding, through sub-national community
projects that benefit from carbon funding.
•
Implementation of an effective environmental action plan (to be developed out of the SEAP) is
necessary to avoid deforestation and carbon emissions that will also be increased through
migration of people from neighbouring countries in South America who will enter the country
(via an upgraded GLTC linking with IIRSA) to join into the national agricultural drive and/or
assist to achieve national annual targets for gold/diamond/timber.
•
Because of the current uncertainties associated with REDD funding there is need to elaborate
on economic and philosophical underpinnings for a HFLD mechanisms that receives a
differential compensation financed or subsidized by carbon markets – independently of REDD.
Technical/intellectual
•
Implement a national carbon inventory and MRV system that permits resolution of forest
carbon stocks at the project scale. The inventory and monitoring system should be based on
permanent plots and standardized sample protocols for vegetation and soil in each of the major
vegetation types (as detailed in this study and the REDD Secretariat proposal for forest
monitoring).
•
In order to ensure maximum value from this study, it is critical that the proposed methodologies
of this work be actively reviewed and considered by the national REDD Secretariat (particularly
regarding selection of forest carbon pools for monitoring and the size and configuration of
sample plots since precise and accurate estimates of forest carbon increases its market value as a
natural asset. Other activities that are necessary for enhanced estimates of forest carbon stocks
include:
o An upscale research programme to either develop a new biomass equation or reparameterize an existing equation through limited destructive harvesting.
Coordination of field work with planned harvest can improve efficiency and reduce
costs.
o Conduct of soil carbon sampling in “native” conditions under mature forest (to be
implemented as a component of the national/demonstration project level forest
carbon inventory).
o Identification and sampling of proxy sites representing likely conversion land uses
from which to develop national stock change factors (per IPCC 2006GL) for
deforestation (especially post-mining).
o Conduct of research effort to either develop a new root: shoot ratio or reparameterize an existing ratio through limited excavation and destructive harvesting,
especially on white sand forest types that likely have high root: shoot ratios (and are
thus underestimated by available equations that average across forest types). For
efficiency and cost reduction field work should be coordinated with planned harvests
by forest concessionaires.
44 o Conduct of research effort to sample and determine dead wood density for
decomposition classes employed in the forest carbon inventory.
o Conduct of research effort to identify and measure representative sites to quantify
mean biomass stocks on post bauxite and gold mining sites, shifting agriculture, rice,
banana plantations, sugar cane, plantation forests, and any other important
conversion land use classes.
• In order for Guyana to demonstrate that it has reached and maintained a reduced level of
emissions there will be need for the country to quantity and regularly monitor deforestation and
drivers of deforestation (including logging and mining activities) and carbon emissions. This
should be done using both remote sensing technologies and field observations. The monitoring
requirement will present opportunities for the country to acquire and/or develop new and
relevant technologies and as well as train personnel for its use and interpretation
• Since ground measurement can be time consuming and costly, and high resolution cloud-free
optical imagery is expensive and difficult to obtain, the use of RADAR Technology should be
explored. It is also recommended that this technology be used for monitoring forest cover and
forest carbon density. The use of RADAR Technology will significantly reduce the costs of
REDD monitoring.
• In order to assist in use of technological innovation for forest monitoring, it will be helpful to
consider development of a partnership with international consortium testing new technologies
such as RADAR Technology.
• A comprehensive needs assessment should be undertaken at the national scale, and capacity
building programmes should be implemented and expanded for the REDD Secretariat and other
state agencies that would be involved in REDD. This includes government agencies involved in
policy development, monitoring, and enforcement, Amerindian Communities and Village
Councils, and NGOs. In order to build sustainability these programmes should be conducted in
close collaboration with the training institutions in Guyana such as the University of Guyana.
• The University of Guyana and other institutions including NGOs should become more involved
in the development of training courses on REDD and integrated natural resource management
and in the establishment and maintenance of data bases.
• Consideration should be given for the establishment of a dedicated management unit that will
ensure long-term oversight of national forest carbon inventory and REDD monitoring.
• A database for collecting, analyzing and archiving measurement records from
national/demonstration project level forest carbon inventories should be considered as a critical
and important part of the design of a National REDD Framework.
• The pro’s and con’s of adopting potential definitions for forest and forest degradation under
REDD in Guyana should be considered, since these could potentially differ from the national
definition of forest in the Forest Act. It is imperative that a definition of forest for the purposes
of the CDM should also be determined if Guyana wants to engage in CDM A/R projects.
• Given the presently available technology and the growing interest in commercial production and
export of non-traditional crops such as soya bean, the agricultural capacity of Guyana’s soils
45 should be re-assessed, to gain a better understanding of the suitability and productivity of the
various soil types.
Ecological
•
Guyana’s historical rates of deforestation are too low to maximize compensation under the
proposed REDD framework if historic reference levels are used. There is therefore urgent need
to continue to aggressively participate and lobby at UNFCC negotiations to ensure reference
scenarios are able take in account future rates of deforestation and/or compensation is made
available for forest conservation activities. It is also critical to find partnerships and build a
network of consensus around this matter.
46 ANN E X 1 METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS MONITORING OF FOREST CARBON ALONG THE GEORGETOWN-LETHEM
TRANSPORT CORRIDOR
INTRODUCTION The Georgetown Lethem Transport Corridor (GLTC) crosses a vast forested region of Guyana’s
interior. Planned improvements to the GLTC will benefit commerce and serve as a conduit for
immigration both from within and outside Guyana, increasing access to the previously remote
forests traversed by the highway. Application of a REDD framework will require rigorous forest
carbon measurement and monitoring to track and report REDD performance within an eventual
incentives-based mechanism.
The reader is directed to the technical paper, Monitoring Of Forest Carbon Along The Georgetown-Lethem
Transport Corridor, which contains the full plan.
DESCRIPTION OF MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PLAN Detailed protocols have been developed for sampling and measuring forest carbon pools in the
field, for analyzing field data to produce estimates of forest carbon, and for ensuring quality results
and sufficient documentation to allow for third party auditing. A forest carbon measurement and
monitoring plan has been prepared using stratified, random sampling with nested permanent plots,
sufficient to produce estimates of forest carbon with a precision target of +/-10% of the mean with
90% or 95% confidence. Estimates of forest carbon produced using these guidelines will meet the
highest (Tier 3) standards set by the International Panel on Climate Change. UNFCCC definitions
of deforestation, degradation and forests were taken from the Guyana 2008 Forest Bill.
The monitoring objective and area of interest is first stated. Monitoring is focused on forest carbon
pools accounting for the most significant emissions from deforestation and degradation, namely
above- and below-ground live tree biomass, standing and lying deadwood, and soil carbon. Minor
pools including understory vegetation and leaf litter are unlikely to qualify as key categories per
IPCC GL 2006 and are not cost-effective to measure, and are conservatively excluded.
A road impact buffer is designated 50 km on either side of the GLTC (100 km width), where change
is expected to occur, reflecting the focus of REDD accounting on emissions and changes in stocks.
Forest vegetation classes and their respective areas within the road impact buffer zone were
identified using the 2001 National Vegetation Map of Guyana.
47 Available recent (1990) forest measurement datasets from Guyana were then compiled and analyzed
to assess trends in carbon stocks across forest types. Sources of raw tree measurement data analyzed
included the following:
• Data from prism sampling from 1990-93 Interim Forestry Project (IFP) (national
coverage)
• Plot data from 2003 management level inventory at Iwokrama
• Plot data from 2007/8 permanent sample plots (PSP’s) at Iwokrama
Effort were made to use the most recently-collected data available, and focused on datasets postdating those used by ter Steege to produce earlier estimates using FIDS and Great Falls Inventory
data collected in the 1970’s (ter Steege 1998). To our knowledge no new work at a comparable scale
has been produced since the referenced report, and we set out to produce new information relevant
to present day emissions accounting. In total, data were compiled and analyzed from 9,407
measurement plots and 58,091 trees. The results of the analysis were used to optimize the design of
the forest carbon monitoring plan.
KEY ELEMENTS TO THE MONITORING PLAN DESIGN Key elements of the monitoring plan are summarized below:
• Approach: stratified, random sampling with permanent plots
• Pools of interest: above and belowground live tree biomass, standing and lying dead
wood, mineral soil carbon
• precision target: +/-10% of the mean with 95% confidence
• Plot size and configuration: nested plots, adapted from Iwokrama 2003 Management
Level Inventory, with a circular plot of 8 m radius within which all stems > 10 cm
dbh are measured and a circular plot of 18 m radius within which all stems > 40 cm
dbh are measured (~0.1 ha)
• Sampling intensity and plot allocation: 107 or 154 sample plots (to produce estimates
with precision of +/-10% of the mean with 90% and 95% confidence, respectively)
with optimum allocation among 5 forest classes (detailed in Summary table below)
48 SUMMARY TABLE. AREA OF FOREST VEGETATION CLASSES WITHIN THE
GEORGETOWN-LETHEM ROAD POTENTIAL IMPACT CORRIDOR AND
NUMBER OF SAMPLE PLOTS ALLOCATED IN THE FOREST CARBON
MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING PLAN
GFC Forest vegetation class Area (ha)
Preliminary estimate Number
of Number
of
#
mean t C/ha (above sample
plots sample
plots
and
belowground (95%
(90%
live tree biomass)
confidence**)
confidence***)
1
Mixed Rain Forest
2,058,363
212
88
60
2
Vegetation on White 928,201
189
36
25
Sand
3
Swamp Forest
354,321
197
14
10
4
Mangrove
237
84
1
1
7
Pakaraimas
347,636
212
15
11
Montane/Submontane
Forest
Total
3,688,758
205*
154
107
*weighted average
**to achieve precision of +/-10% of the mean with 95% confidence (employing 0.1 ha sample
plots)
**to achieve precision of +/-10% of the mean with 90% confidence (employing 0.1 ha sample plots
Based on resource needs of analogous forest inventory efforts recently conducted in Guyana,
implementation of the field measurement component (not including analysis and report preparation)
of the forest carbon measurement and monitoring plan within the GLTC road impact corridor is
estimated to take ~2 months to complete and cost < US$10,000; difference in cost between the two
sampling intensities is considered minimal due to the importance of fixed costs.
The monitoring plan design provides detailed protocols guiding data collection in the field, data
analysis and quality control. Estimated field measurement costs and a literature review of biomass
carbon estimates for forest and conversion land-use types are also presented.
The measurement and monitoring plan is designed to meet the anticipated rigorous expectations of
an eventual formal REDD accounting mechanism. As such a mechanism is likely to operate at
multiple scales (i.e. project scale and national), and it will be important to ensure that there is synergy
in the proposed methodologies of this plan and that of the national REDD Secretariat of Guyana.
49 ALLOCATION OF SAMPLE PLOTS FOR APPLICATION OF REDD TO THE GEORGETOWN LETHEM TRANSPORT
CORR I DOR
50 ANNEX 2 LIST OF ACRONYMS AAU
Assigned Amount Unit
AFOLU
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-use
ALOS
Advanced Land Observing Satellite
A/R
Afforestation/reforestation
ASL
Above Sea Level
AWG-LCA
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention
BAU
Business as Usual
BHI
Bina Hill Institute
CC
Climate Change
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol
CEMCO
Caribbean Engineering and Management Consultants Inc
CHW
Community Health Workers
CI
Conservation International
CIG
Conservation International Guyana
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
CMP
Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties (to the Kyoto Protocol)
COP
Conference of the Parties (to the UNFCCC)
CV
Coefficient of Variation
DBH
Diameter at Breast Height (measured at 1.3 m height)
DTL
Demerara Timbers Limited
EFDB
Emission Factor Data Base
FCPF
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
FMP
Fisheries Management Plan
DTL
Demerara Timbers Limited
EFDB
Emission factor database
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EU ETS
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FCPF
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
FIDS
Forest Industries Development Survey
51 FIP
Forest Investment Program
FRIU
Forest Resources Information Unit
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GFC
Guyana Forestry Commission
GFI
Great Falls Inventory
GGMC
Guyana Geology and Mines Commission
GIS
Geographic Information System
GLSC
Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission
GLTC
Georgetown Lethem Transport Corridor
GoG
Government of Guyana
GSECI
Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc
GTA
Guyana Tourism Authority
GuySuCo
Guyana Sugar Cooperation
HIES
Household Income and Expenditure Survey
HFCLD
High Forest Cover Low Deforestation
IDB
Inter-American Development Bank
IFP
Interim Forestry Project
IISRA
Initiative for Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Iwokrama
Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development
IISRA
Initiative for Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America
JAX
Japanese Space Agency
LOE
Level of effort
LULULCF
Landuse, Landuse Change and Forestry
MoA
Ministry of Agriculture
MOAA
Ministry of Amerindian Affairs
MoF
Ministry of Finance
MLI
Management level inventory
MMA
Mahaica Mahaicony and Abary
MMC
Mekdeci Machinery and Construction Company
MRU
Makushi Research Unit
MRV
Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification
52 MTIC
Ministry of Tourism, Industry and Commerce
NCS
National Competitiveness Strategy
NCSAP
National Capacity Self Assessment Project
NDCs
Neighbourhood Democratic Councils
NDS
National Development Strategy
NFP
National Forest Plan
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
NLUP
National Land Use Plan
NMMAP
National Mangrove Management Action Plan
NRCDT
North Rupununi Credit and Development Trust
NRDDB
North Rupununi District Development Board
NRMMNR
Natural Resource Management and Monitoring in the North Rupununi
NTSP
National Transport Sector Policy
OP
Office of the President
P&HC
Population and Housing Census
PALSAR
Phased Array L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar
PRS
Poverty Reduction Strategy (World Bank)
PRSP
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSP
Permanent sample plot
RDCs
Regional Democratic Councils
REDD
Reduced Emissions from Avoided Deforestation
SBSTA
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice
SEAP
Social and Environmental Action Plan
SLM
Sustainable Land Management
SBSTA
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice
tCER
temporary Certified Emission Reduction
THAG
Tourism and Hospitality Association of Guyana
ToR
Terms of Reference
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WB
World Bank
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VCS
Voluntary Carbon Standard
WWF
World Wildlife Fund
53 ANNEX 3 NATIONAL REDD FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Emissions Reductions and REDD Payments under Effective REDD scenario
Source: modified from Tech Paper B National Level Emissions
Year
BAU Emissions Tons CO2
Annual
Cum
Effective
REDD
Annual
Difference
(Emissions
Reductions)
Annual
2010
141,150,465
141,150,465
64,093,248
77,057,217
2011
143,604,338
284,754,803
64,004,538
79,599,800
2012
151,286,015
436,040,817
65,110,757
2013
169,423,301
605,464,118
2014
177,104,978
2015
Cum
77,057,217
Annual Value
$5/ton
$2/ton CO2
$
-
156,657,017
$
-
86,175,258
242,832,275
$
-
68,606,835
100,816,466
343,648,741
$
201,632,932
782,569,096
69,713,054
107,391,924
451,040,665
$
214,783,848
174,331,046
956,900,142
68,429,415
105,901,631
556,942,296
$
211,803,262
2016
171,557,060
1,128,457,201
67,145,714
104,411,346
661,353,642
$
208,822,692
2017
168,783,128
1,297,240,329
65,862,074
102,921,053
764,274,696
$
205,842,107
2018
166,009,196
1,463,249,525
64,578,435
101,430,761
865,705,456
$
202,861,521
2019
163,235,264
1,626,484,789
63,294,796
99,940,468
965,645,924
$
199,880,936
2020
2021
160,461,332
157,687,400
1,786,946,122
1,944,633,522
62,011,157
60,727,518
98,450,175
96,959,883
1,064,096,100
1,161,055,982
$
$
196,900,351
193,919,765
$
$
$
$
504,082,330
$
536,959,619
$
529,508,155
$
522,056,731
$
514,605,267
$
507,153,804
$
499,702,340
$
492,250,877
$
$10/ton
$
-
$
-
$
$
1,008,164,660
$
1,073,919,238
$
1,059,016,311
$
1,044,113,461
$
1,029,210,534
$
1,014,307,607
$
999,404,680
$
984,501,753
$
-
2022
154,913,469
2,099,546,991
59,443,879
95,469,590
1,256,525,572
$
2023
152,139,537
2,251,686,528
58,160,240
93,979,297
1,350,504,869
2024
149,365,605
2,401,052,133
56,876,600
92,489,005
1,442,993,874
$ 187,958,594
$
184,978,009
2025
146,591,673
2,547,643,806
55,592,961
90,998,712
1,533,992,586
$
181,997,424
2026
143,767,102
2,691,410,908
54,309,343
89,457,759
1,623,450,345
$
178,915,519
2027
140,993,170
2,832,404,078
53,025,704
87,967,467
1,711,417,812
$
175,934,933
2028
138,219,238
2,970,623,316
51,742,064
86,477,174
1,797,894,986
$
172,954,348
2029
135,445,307
3,106,068,623
50,458,425
84,986,881
1,882,881,867
$
169,973,762
2030
132,671,375
3,238,739,998
49,174,786
83,496,589
1,966,378,456
$
166,993,177
2031
129,897,443
3,368,637,440
47,891,147
82,006,296
2,048,384,751
$
164,012,592
2032
127,123,511
3,495,760,951
46,607,508
80,516,003
2,128,900,755
$
161,032,006
2033
124,349,579
3,620,110,531
45,323,869
79,025,710
2,207,926,465
$
158,051,421
2034
121,575,647
3,741,686,178
44,040,230
77,535,418
2,285,461,883
$
155,070,836
2035
118,801,715
3,860,487,893
42,756,590
76,045,125
2,361,507,008
$
152,090,250
2036
116,027,784
3,976,515,677
41,472,951
74,554,832
2,436,061,840
$
149,109,665
2037
113,253,852
4,089,769,529
40,189,312
73,064,540
2,509,126,380
$
146,129,079
2038
110,479,920
4,200,249,449
38,905,673
71,574,247
2,580,700,627
$
143,148,494
2039
107,705,988
4,307,955,437
37,622,034
70,083,954
2,650,784,581
$
140,167,909
2040
104,932,056
4,412,887,493
36,338,395
68,593,662
2,719,378,243
Totals 2012-
55 190,939,180
$ 137,187,323
$ 4,953,091,935
484,799,413
$
477,347,950
$
469,896,486
$
462,445,023
$
454,993,559
$
447,288,797
$
439,837,333
$
432,385,870
$
424,934,406
$
417,482,943
$
410,031,479
$
402,580,016
$
395,128,552
$
387,677,089
$
380,225,625
$
372,774,162
$
365,322,698
$
357,871,235
$
350,419,771
$
342,968,308
$
969,598,826
$
954,695,899
$
939,792,972
$
924,890,045
$
909,987,118
$
894,577,593
$
879,674,666
$
864,771,739
$
849,868,812
$
834,965,885
$
820,062,958
$
805,160,031
$
790,257,105
$
775,354,178
$
760,451,251
$
745,548,324
$
730,645,397
$
715,742,470
$
700,839,543
$
685,936,616
$
2040
NPV @10%
Mean Annual
Rev
56 $1,346,530,690
$
159,777,159
12,382,729,837
$3,366,326,726
$
399,442,898
24,765,459,675
$6,732,653,452
$
798,885,796
ANNEX 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY AEK-Gibb. 2000. Study for Upgrading and Competition
of the Guyana Brazil Road (Project no
7.ACP.GUA.13). Ministry of Finance, Georgetown
Angelsen A., 2008. “How do we set the reference levels
for REDD payments?” in Moving ahead with REDD:
Issues, Options and Implications, Angelsen A. (ed),
CIFOR, Indonesia.
Avery, T.E. and H.E. Burkhart. 1994. Forest
Measurements. Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA. 408 pp.
Baker, T.R., Phillips, O.L., Malhi, Y., Almeida, S.,
Arroyo, L., Di Fiore, A., Killeen, T., Laurance, S.G.,
Laurance, W.F., Lewis, S.L., Lloyd, J., Monteagudo, A.,
Neill, D.A., Patiño, S., Pitman, N.C.A., Silva, N.,
Vásquez Martínez, R. (2004) Variation in Wood
Density Determines Spatial Patterns in Amazonian
Forest Biomass. Global Change Biology 10:545-562.
Bernard, Deryck M., .1999. A New Geography of
Guyana, London.
Bourne, G (pers. comm.)
Brouwer, L. 1996. Nutrient cycling in pristine and logged
tropical rain forest: a study in Guyana. PhD Thesis,
Utrecht University. Tropenbos-Guyana Series 1,
Georgetown, Guyana.
Brown D., Seymour F., and Peskett L., 2008. How do we
achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm? in
Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and
Implications, Angelsen A. (ed), CIFOR, Indonesia,
2008 at 115.
Brown, S. 1997. Estimating Biomass and Biomass
Change of Tropical Forests: A Primer. FAO Forestry
Paper 134, Rome, Italy
Brown, S. and M. Delaney. 2000. Preliminary CarbonOffset Report for the Guaraqueçaba Climate Action
Project. Winrock International. Available from the
Nature Conservancy.
Bynoe, M. 2008. The Development of a National
Agriculture Sector Adaptation Strategy to Address
Climate Change in Guyana: Appendix 1: Economic
Review of Guyana’s Agricultural Sector To Climate
Change. (Draft Report Prepared for the Mainstreaming
Adaptation for Climate Change (MACC) Project).
MoA. Georgetown.
Cairns, M. A., S. Brown, E. H. Helmer, and G. A.
Baumgardner. 1997. Root Biomass Allocation in the
World’s Upland Forests. Oecologia 111, 1-11.
Central Housing and Planning Authority, 2005. Lethem
Development Plan: Planning Scheme 2005-2010,
Georgetown.
Chase, J. 2008. Carbon storage in the white and brown
sands of central Guyana. Project submitted for BSc in
Environmental Studies, University of Guyana.
Chave, J., Olivier, J., Bongers, F.J.J.M., Chatelet, P.,
Forget, P.M., Meer, P.J. van der, Norden, N., Riera, B.
and P. Charles-Dominique. 2008. Above-ground
biomass and productivity in a rain forest of eastern
South America. Journal of Tropical Ecology 24:355 366.
Comiskey, J.A., Aymard, G. and F. Dallmeier. 1994.
Structure and composition of lowland mixed forest in
the Kwakwani region of Guyana. Biottonia 10:13-28.
Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana,
Article 142(1)(2)
Darwin Initiative. 2006. State of the North Rupununi
Wetlands Report. Darwin Initiative Guyana Partnership
Davis H. 2008. Head of the Research Department
GuySuCo: Personal Communication.
Decision 10/CP.7 Funding under the Kyoto Protocol
para 2 and 3, for an example of how the Adaptation
Fund was created and financed under the Clean
Development Mechanism.
Delaney, M., Brown, S. and M. Powell. 2000. 1999
Carbon-Offset Report for the Noel Kempff Climate
Action Project, Bolivia. The Nature Conservancy.
Eliash, J. 2008. Climate Change: Financing Global
Forests, The Eliash Review, United Kingdom.
Engstrom, M. and Lim, B. 2008. Checklist of mammals
of Guyana. Online
www.mnh.si.edu/biodiversity/bdg/guymammals.html
Ernst, R. 2004. Herpetological Diversity of the Mabura
Hill Forest Reserve: with recommendations for the
Guyana Protected Area System Strategy. Guyana
Forestry Commission Planning and Research Division.
Estrada M., Corbera E., and Brown K., 2007 Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Deforestation In
Developing Countries: Revisiting The Assumptions,
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working
Paper 115.
European Union .2005. Guyana Transport Sector Study,
Working Paper #4, Georgetown
Fanshawe, D.B. 1952. The vegetation of British Guiana:
a preliminary review. Institute Paper 29. Imperial
Forest Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
FAO 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.
Guyana Country Report 2005. Rome. 36 pp.
FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment.
Fearnside, P. M. 2005a. Deforestation in Brazilian
Amazonia: History, Rates, and Consequences.
Conservation Biology 19, 680-688.
Fonseca G.A. B. d, Rodriguez C. M. , Midgley G, Busch
J, Hannah L, et al. 2007. No forest left behind, PLoS
Biol 5(8): e216. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050216
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2006. Global
Forest Resources Assessment 2005: Progress towards
Sustainable Forest Management, Forestry Paper 147
Rome.
Freese, F. 1962. Elementary Forest Sampling. USDA
Handbook 232. GPO Washington, DC. 91 pp.
Freestone D., and Streck C., 2005. Legal Aspects of
Implementing the Kyoto Protocol, Making Kyoto
Work, (eds) Oxford.
Funk, V.; T. Hollowell, P. Berry, C. Kelloff and S.N.
Alexander. 2007. Checklist of the plants of the Guiana
Shield. Contributions from the United States National
Herbarium, Vol. 55
Grieg-Gran, M., 2006. The Cost of Avoiding
Deforestation: Report prepared for the Stern Review of
the Economics of Climate Change. London:
International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc. 2008.
Groundstar Resources Petroleum Exploration Program
North Rupununi, Guyana: Environmental and Social
Management Plan
Guyana Amerindian Act 2006
Guyana Bureau of Statistics. 2007. 2002 Population and
Housing Census, National Report. Georgetown
Guyana Central Housing & Planning Authority
(CH&PA). 2005. Lethem Development Plan: Planning
Scheme 2005-2010.Georgetown.
Guyana Draft Fisheries Management Plan 2006.
Guyana Environmental Protection Act 2006
Guyana Forest Bill 2009
Guyana Forestry Commission (2008) Forestry in Guyana:
2007, Georgetown
Guyana Forestry Commission Act, 1979)
Guyana Forestry Commission Quick Assessment Paper,
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Guyana,
2009.
Guyana Forestry Commission. 2001. Vegetation of
Guyana map. Forest Resource Information Unit.
Guyana Georgetown-Lethem Road, IDB Pre-Feasibility
Study. 2008
Guyana Initial National Communication (2002) at 3
Guyana Mining Act, 1989
Guyana National Development Strategy 2001 – 2010,
Overview, at ii
Guyana National Parks Commission Act, 1977
Guyana R-Plan 2009. Submission to the World Bank’s
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), p.66
Guyana R-Plan Component 4: REDD Implementation
Framework
Guyana The Iwokrama International Centre for Rain
Forest Conservation and Development Act, Cap 20:04,
L.R.O. 3/1998]
Guyana The State Lands Act 1953
Hammond, D. 2005. Biophysical Features of the Guiana
Shield. In: “Tropical Forests of the Guiana Shield:
ancient forest of the modern world” edited by
D.Hammond
Hammond, D. and Forget, P. M. 2005. Rainforest
Vertebrates and Plant Food Diversity in the Guianan
Shield. In: “Tropical Forests of the Guiana Shield:
ancient forest of the modern world” edited by
D.Hammond.
Hammond, D. S., editor. 2005. Tropical forests of the
Guiana shield: ancient forests in a modern world. CABI
International, Wallington, UK.
Hammond, D.S., Gond, V., de Thoisy, B., Forget, P-M
and B.P.E. DeDijn. 2007. Causes and consequences of
a tropical forest gold rush in the Guiana Shield, South
America. Ambio 36(8):661-670.
Harmon, M. E. and J. Sexton. 1996. Guidelines for
Measurements of Woody Detritus in Forest
Ecosystems. US LTER Publication No. 20. US LTER
Network Office, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA, USA.
Hoare et al 2008. Estimating the Cost of Building
Capacity in Rainforest Nations to Allow them to
Participate in a Global REDD Mechanism. produced
for the Eliasch Review by Chatham House and
ProForest with input from the Overseas Development
Institute and EcoSecurities.
Hollowell, T. and Reynolds, R.P. 2005. Checklist of the
Terrestrial Vertebrates of the Guiana Shield. Bulletin of
the Biological Society of Washington. No. 13.
Houghton, R. A. 2005. Tropical Deforestation as a
Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in Tropical
Deforestation and Climate Change, edited by P.
Moutinho and S. Schwartzman. Amazon Institute for
Environmental Research, Brazil, and Environmental
Defense, Washington D.C.
http://glcf.umiacs.umd.edu/aboutUs/
2009. – News Bulletin
http://opnew.op.gov.gy
Compensation for forests can bring hundreds of
millions for Development Projects.
http://unfccc.int/methods_and_science/lulucf/items/4
123.php
Inter-American Development Bank (2008) Support for a
Second Low Income Settlement Program: Plan of
Operations, Washington, D.C.
Inter-American Development Bank, 2002 Country
Strategy with Guyana.
Inter-American Development Bank, Country Strategy
with Guyana, 2008 – 2012
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture
(IICA) (1991) Guyana Agricultural Sector Assessment,
Georgetown
International Human Rights Clinic, Human Rights
Program, Harvard Law School, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, March 2007 - All That Glitters: Gold
Mining in Guyana: The Failure of Government
Oversight and the Human Rights of Amerindian
Communities.
International Offset Credits; Sec. 754 (d)(6)
Requirements
for
International
Deforestation
Reduction Program
58 IPCC , 2007. Summary for Policymakers, in Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by S.
Solomon et al.
IPCC 2003. Supplementary Methods and Good Practice
Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol: Methods
for Estimation, Measurement, Monitoring and
Reporting of Land-use, Land-use Change and Forestry
(LULUCF) Activities under Article 3.3 and 3.4 Chapter
4.
IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. Chapter 4 AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land-use).
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change edited by B. Metz, O.R. Davidson,
P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer, (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.).
IUCN 2008. Redlist of Threatened Species.
Iwokrama Centre for Rainforest Research and
Conservation. 2002. Annual Report 2002.
Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest
Conservation and Development, 2007. Procedures for
Establishing Permanent Sample Plots for Forest
Monitoring in the Iwokrama Forest. Georgetown:
Iwokrama.
Johnston, M. and M. Gillman. 1995. Tree population
studies I. Low diversity forests, Guyana. I. Floristic
composition and stand structure. Biodiversity and
Conservation 4: 339-362.
Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Mastruzzi M., 2008.
Governance Matters VII: Aggregate and Individual
Governance Indicators 1996-2007, The World Bank
Development Research Group Macroeconomics and
Growth Team & World Bank Institute Global
Governance Program, Policy Research Working Paper
4654.
Khan S. M. 2006. The National Capacity Self Assessment
Project (NCSAP), Stock-Taking and Thematic
Assessment, United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, (prepared for the Guyana EPA)
Killeen T.J. 2007. A Perfect Storm in the Amazon
Wilderness, Development and Conservation in the
Context of the Initiative for Integration of the Regional
Infrastructure of South America (IIRSA), Applications
in Applied Biodiversity Science, Center for Applied
Biodiversity Science, Washing ton, DC
Killeen, T.J., Guerra, A.., Calderon, V., Calzada M.,
Correa, L., Soria, L., Quezada, B, Steininger, M.. 2007.
Total historical land-use change in Bolivia, who, where,
why and how much. Ecology & Society 3, #36.
Lescure, J.P., Puig, H., Riera, B., Leclerc, D., Beekman,
A. and A. Beneteau. 1983. La phytomassa epigee d’une
forest dense en Guyana francaise. Acta Oecologia 4:
237-251.
Lewis et al., Increasing Forest Carbon, Nature 09
Lic. Lilian Soria, Departamento de Geografía, Museo de
Historia Natural Noel Kempff Mercado, Universidad
Gabriel René Moreno, Santa Cruz, Bolivia
MacDicken, K.G. 1997. A Guide to Monitoring Carbon
Storage in Forestry and Agroforestry Projects. Winrock
International Institute for Agricultural Development.
Marland, G et al, 2003. “The Climatic Impacts of Land
Surface Change and Carbon Management, and the
Implications for Climate-Change Mitigation Policy,”
Climate Policy 3.
Meridian Institute, 2009. Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation: An Options
Assessment Report,
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems
and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press,
Washington D.C.
Ministry of Agriculture. 2005. Agricultural Export
Diversification
Program:
Agricultural
Export
Diversification Programme. IDB/GoG, Georgetown.
17 pp.
Ministry of Public Works and Communications, Guyana:
Transport Sector Study, December 2005
Ministry of Public Works and Communications, Guyana:
Transport Sector Study, December 2005 at XIII
Ministry of Tourism, Industry & Commerce (Official
Website). 2005.Tourism: Tourism Trends. Web source:
http://www.mintic.gov.gy/tourism_trends.html,
Accessed: October 8, 2008.
Ministry of Tourism, Industry & Commerce (Official
Website). 2005. Industry Legislation: Overview of
Tourism in Guyana 1986-2005. Web source:
http://www.mintic.gov.gy/legislation.html#industry,
Accessed: October 8, 2008.
Montambault, J. R. and Missa, O. (Eds.) 2002. A
biodiversity Assessment of the Eastern Kanuku
Mountains, lower Kwitao River Guyana. RAP Bulletin
of
Biological
Assessment
26.
Conservation
International, Washington DC.
Mott MacDonald and CEMCO Inc. 2008. GeorgetownLethem Road Pre-Feasibility Study (Technical
Cooperation ATN/OC-10165-GY). Government of
Guyana
Inter-American
Development
Bank,
Georgetown
Moura Costa, P. And Ebeling J., 2008.
Ecosecurities Position Statement Reducing
Emissions From Deforestation And Degradation,
Ecosecurities.
National
Vegetation
map
of
Guyana,
http://www.forestry.gov.gy/vegmap.htm
Nelson, D.W., and L.E. Sommers. 1982. Total carbon,
organic carbon, and organic matter. p. 539–580. In A.L.
Page et al. (ed.) Methods of soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd
ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
North Rupununi District Development Board
(NRDDB). 2002. Natural Resource Management and
Monitoring in the North Rupununi: Briefing Note for
59 Director of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Tuesday, October 22, 2002
NRDDB. 2006. Guidelines for Community-Based
Natural Resource Management North Rupununi
O’Sullivan, R. 2008.
Reducing Emissions From
Deforestation: an Introduction” in Climate Change and
Forests, Emerging Policy and Market Opportunities,
ed. Streck, O’Sullivan, Janson-Smith, and Tarasofsky,
Brookings/Chatham House.
Office of the President, Republic of Guyana, Saving the
World’s Forests Today; Creating Incentives to Avoid
Deforestation, December 2008
Ogonowski, M., 2008. et al Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation: The Dual Markets
Approach, Centre for Clean Air Policy, (2007); and
Hare B., Macey K., Tropical Deforestation Emission
Reduction Mechanism A Discussion Paper,
Greenpeace International.
Olson, J.S., Watts, J.A., and L.J. Allison. 1983. Carbon in
Live Vegetation of Major World Ecosystems. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy
Conract No. W-7405-ENG-26. 152 pp.
Osborne, T. and C. Kiker. 2005. Carbon offsets as an
economic alternative to large-scale logging: a case study
in Guyana. Ecological Economics 52: 481-496.
Pancel, L., ed. 1993. Tropical forestry handbook. Berlin,
Germany, Springer-Verlag. 1 738 pp. (Two volumes)
Parker, T.A. et al. 1993. A Biological Assessment of the
Kanuku Mountains Region of Southwestern Guyana.
Conservation International, RAP working Papers 5.
Parsram, K. 2002. Quantification of the short-term
carbon stock responses to reduced impact logging and
conventional logging practice in Guyana. MSc Thesis
University of the West Indies.
Pearson, T., Walker, S. and Brown, S. 2005. Sourcebook
for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Projects.
Winrock International and the World Bank Biocarbon
Fund.
57pp.
Available
at:
http://www.winrock.org/Ecosystems/files/WinrockBioCarbon_Fund_Sourcebook-compressed.pdf
Permaul D.., 2008. Permanent Secretary Ministry of
Agriculture: Personal Communication.
Peterson, G.D. and M. Heemskerk. 2001. Deforestation
and forest regeneration following small-scale gold
mining in the Amazon: the case of Suriname.
Environmental Conservation 28(2):117-126
Point Carbon 2008. Carbon 2008 - Post-2012 is now,
Røine, K., E. Tvinnereim and H. Hasselknippe (eds.).
Potter K.E.D. 1978. The Functions and Organizational
Structure of the Hydrometeorological Service’, HyMGAP.
Potvin, C., Guay, B., and Pedroni, L., 2008. “Is reducing
emissions from deforestation financially feasible? A
Panamanian case study”, Climate Policy, 8.
Proisy, C., Couteron, P., Fromard, F., 2007. Predicting
and mapping mangrove biomass from canopy grain
analysis using Fourier-based textural ordination
(FOTO) of IKONOS images. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 109 (3): 379-392.
Ramdin, N and Steele, J.G. 1966. Soil Survey Of The
Atkinson-Mckenzie Area. Minitry of Agriculture,
British Guiana.
Rodney, K.P. 2003. SUA Management Level Inventory
Report. Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest
Conservation and Development.
Saatchi, S. S., Houghton, R. A., Dos Santos Alvalá, R. C.,
Soares, J. V. and Y. Yu. 2007. Distribution of
aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin. Global
Change Biology 13: 816 – 837.
Saunders J., and Nussbaum R., 2007. Forest Governance
and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation (REDD), Chatham House Briefing Paper,
Energy Environment and Development Programme,
EEDP LOG BP 07/03.
Sayer J., et al., 2008. Local Rights and Tenure for Forests;
Opportunity or Threat for Conservation, Rights and
Resources Initiative, Washington D.C.
Scholtz S., and Noble I., 2005. Generation of
Sequestration Credits under the CDM and Bosquet B.,
“Specific Features of Land Use, Land-Use Change, and
Forestry Transactions”, both in Freestone D., and
Streck C. (eds) Legal Aspects of Implementing the
Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms, Making Kyoto Work,
Oxford.
Shutt, Harry, Moore, David and Bynoe, Mark (2007)
Social Impact Assessment of the Guyana National
Action Plan on Sugar (Final Report), Georgetown.
Spetich, M., S. Shifley, and G. Parker. 1999. Regional
distribution and dynamics of coarse woody debris in
Midwestern old-growth forests. Forest Science 45: 302313.
Srivastava, P. 1994: Progress Report from Iwokrama.
The Iwokrama Rainforest Programme, Guyana.
ter Steege, et al 1996.
Ecology and Logging in a
Rainforest in Guyana: with Recommendations for
Forest Management. Tropenbos Series 14. The
Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen. Netherlands.
ter Steege, H. 1998. Biomass Estimates for Forests in
Guyana and their Use in Carbon Offsets. Iwokrama
International Centre, Georgetown, Guyana.
ter Steege, H., Jetten, V., Polak, M. and M. Werger. 1993.
The tropical rain forest types and soils of a watershed
in Guyana, South America. Journal of Vegetation
Science 4:705-716.
ter Steege, Hans, Lilwah, Ramesh, Ek, Renske, van der
Hout, Peter, Thomas, Raquel, van Essen, Jessica and
Jetten, Victor, 1999. Composition and diversity of the
rain forest in Central Guyana: An addendum to ‘Soils
of the rainforest in Central Guyana’. Tropenbos
Guyana Reports 99-2. Tropenbos-Guyana Programme.
Utrecht University.
ter Steege, Ivan Welch and Roderick Zagt 2002. Longterm effect of timber harvesting in the Bartica Triangle,
60 Central Guyana. Forest Ecology and Management 170:
127-144.
Thomas, R. 2001. Forest productivity and resource
availability in lowland tropical forests in Guyana.
Tropenbos-Guyana Series 7. Tropenbos-Guyana
Programme, Georgetown, Guyana.
Tjon, K. 1998. Monitoring tropical rainforest in
Suriname: Internal Memorandum NARENA/CELOS
Tomaselli, I 2006. Brief Study on Funding and Finance
for Forestry and Forest-Based Sector, report prepared
for the United Nations Forum on Forests.
Trines, E. et al, 2006. Integrating Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land Use in Future Climate Regimes:
Methodological Issues and Policy Options, Climate
Change Scientific Assessment and Policy Analysis
report
500102002
(Netherlands,
Netherlands
Environmental Protection Agency, 2006); UN Doc
Distr General A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1, 15 May
1992.
Tropenbos. Timber Trees of Guiana.
UNDP Guyana. March 2008. Project name: Capacity
Development and Mainstreaming for Sustainable Land
Management.
Web
Source:
http://www.undp.org.gy/project00047476.html,
Accessed: October 1, 2008.
UNFCCC
AWG-LCA
Accra
meeting;
FCCC/AWGLCA/2008/CRP.5 Report of the
workshop on policy approaches and positive incentives
on issues relating to reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in developing
countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable
management of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks in developing countries.
UNFCCC AWGLCA/2009/MISC.4 (Part I) Ideas and
proposals on the elements contained in paragraph 1 of
the Bali Action Plan (Guyana submission);
FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/MISC.1/Add.4 Ideas and
proposals on the elements contained in paragraph 1 of
the Bali Action Plan (Coalition for Rainforest Nations
Submission)
UNFCCC SBSTA/2008/13
UNFCCC SBSTA/2008/L.23, Reducing emissions from
deforestation in developing countries: approaches to
stimulate action, Draft conclusions proposed by the
Chair.
UNFCCC SBSTA/2008/L.23, Reducing emissions from
deforestation in developing countries: approaches to
stimulate action.
UNFCCC, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in
Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate
Action,
FCCC/CP/2005/MISC.1
(http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/m
isc01.pdf). Official support for including the issue on
the COP’s agenda was sent by Bolivia, the Central
African Republic, Chile, Congo, the Democratic
Republic of Congo, the Dominican Republic, and
Nicaragua.
van Andel, T. 2001. Floristic composition and diversity
of mixed primary and secondary forest in northwest
Guyana. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1645-1682.
Van Kekem, A.J., Pulles, J.H.M. and Z. Khan. 1996. Soils
of the Rainforest in Central Guyana. Tropenbos
Guyana Series 2. Tropenbos Guyana Programme.
Georgetown.
Van kekem, A.J.; Pulles, J.H.M. and Khan, Z. 1996. Soils
of the Rainforest of Central Guyana. TropenbosGuyana, Georgetown.
Van Wagner, C.E. (1968). The line-intersect method in
forest fuel sampling. Forest Science 14: 20-26.
Voluntary Carbon Standard. 2008. VCS Guidance for
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects.
Available at http://www.v-cs.org/docs/Guidance%20for%20AFOLU%20Projects.
pdf
Warren, W.G. and Olsen, P.F. (1964) A line intersect
technique for assessing logging waste. Forest Science
10: 267-276.
Watson C, Stewart, D (pers. comm.).
Wemaere M., and Streck C., 2005. Legal Ownership and
Nature of Kyoto Units and EU Allowances in Legal
Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol, Making
Kyoto Work, Freestone D., and Streck C., (eds)
Oxford.
Wilder, M., Crittenden, J. 2008. Bringing the Forests to
Market: Structuring Avoided Deforestation Projects
Climate Change and Forests, Emerging Policy and
Market Opportunities, ed. Streck, O’Sullivan, JansonSmith, and Tarasofsky, Brookings/Chatham House.
Williams, M., Shimabukuro, Y. E., Herbert, D. A., Pardi
Lacruz, S., Renno, C. and E. B. Rastetter. 2002.
Heterogeneity of Soils and Vegetation in an Eastern
Amazonian Rain Forest: Implications for Scaling Up
Biomass and Production. Ecosystems 5:0692-0704.
World Bank, 2006. Guyana poverty reduction strategy
paper second annual progress report and joint
IDA/IMF staff assessment, (Report No. 35759-GY)
World Bank. 2003. Guyana Development Policy
Review.World Bank, Washington
Yadvinder, M et al. 2006. The regional variation of
aboveground live biomass in old-growth Amazonian
forests. Global Change Biology 12(7): 1107-1138.
61