Climate Change, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation, and Protected Areas Brasilia, October 8th, 2009
Participants in the workshop "The Role of Protected Areas in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation" concluded that the creation and effective management of protected areas, together with the indigenous people and forest-dependent communities (extractive communities) have a crucial role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation in Brazil. They also provide a range of other services and benefits to society. They represent economic advantages and should be part of any policies, projects, and mechanisms to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, they should also benefit from related investments and economic compensations, especially economic compensations (i.e. voluntary, cooperation funds, or market) for reducing the emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation.1 It is important to place the role of protected areas in the Amazon and throughout Brazil within the overall global context of the efforts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases: •
this environmental climate crisis is unprecedented because of its severity, worldwide effects, intensity, relative speed, and its effects on society, the economy, and the conservation of nature. While acknowledging the historical differentiated responsibilities, and recognizing the greater responsibility of those who historically have been emitting more, every country should contribute to minimize climate change;
•
emissions from deforestation, ecosystem degradation, and land use represent a significant portion of the emissions of greenhouse gases (about 20% worldwide) and are currently the main source of emissions in the case of Brazil (around 70%);
•
Brazil, through several institutions and activities at various levels, has made great efforts and achieved significant results in reducing deforestation in the Amazon; However, it is crucial to seek sustainability for these efforts and results and extend them to other regions of the country;
•
Recent studies indicate that 40% of the reductions in deforestation achieved in the recent past (2004-2007) can be explained by the creation of protected areas (conservation units and indigenous lands). Estimating their ecological services by 2050, the protected areas of the Brazilian Amazon could represent 8 billion tons of CO2 equivalents not emitted;
•
This has also been possible because of the significant efforts made by Brazil in terms of complex and difficult actions to reduce deforestation, including the creation or declaration of protected areas (conservation units and indigenous lands), which have local as well as worldwide importance2. However, the budgets allocated to these and other protected areas across Brazil are insufficient for their effective implementation and management3; and
•
The potential for a continuous and increased role of protected areas in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change in the Amazon
and across Brazil4 is great, provided there is a clear definition of the appropriate policies and sufficient allocation of resources. Below we point out some of the advantages of including protected areas (creation or declaration, implementation, consolidation, and maintenance) and traditional communities (recognition and strengthening) in the policies to combat deforestation and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases: •
•
•
•
•
•
proven and significant results in terms of the contribution of protected areas to reduce emissions (additionality) of CO2 from deforestation, without representing, in the overall balance, a displacement of deforestation (no “leakage”, creating instead a positive “shadow effect”, protecting the areas surrounding the conservation units and indigenous lands)5; existence of institutional arrangements, as well as social arrangements in some cases, dedicated to the protected areas systems, at the national, state, and local levels, facilitating the timely allocation of resources and allowing the effective management of the conservation units and indigenous lands and later the monitoring of the results. In some cases there are particular mechanisms proven to be effective for capturing and allocating resources; these mechanisms are stable and have significant experience and independent accounting, for example, the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA); the creation or declaration of new conservation units or indigenous lands, or their strengthening and effective management represent strategies with faster results to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Other positive results are the promotion of greater clarity and effectiveness of land tenure in the protected areas, helping to focus the attention on the solution of land tenure problems in other areas; the investment or cost per hectare of the effective creation (or declaration) and management (implementation or strengthening and maintenance) of protected areas is relatively lower than other initiatives to reduce emissions, including other initiatives to reduce emissions from deforestation, as well as those to reduce emissions associated with energy production, transportation, agriculture, industry, among others; protected areas also provide other benefits that might be more durable – therefore the protected areas should be complementary to other initiatives that are also necessary; investing in protected areas can be economically advantageous, especially (but not only) when considering the financial flows that can be injected through economic compensation mechanisms to reduce CO2 emissions, such as those being discussed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and at other levels both in and outside the country; economic compensation can be either mandatory or voluntary, through funding mechanisms or markets, among others6; the probability that the existing forests in the protected areas will be maintained in the long-term is high, including an appropriate solution to the potential problems related to "permanence" of the carbon. Therefore, along with other services
•
•
•
•
provided by the conservation units and indigenous lands, the benefits, including economic benefits of this strategy will be perceived now and in the future; the recognition and strengthening of the role of forest-dependent peoples and indigenous peoples in the conservation of the ecosystems and the management of protected areas, even the potential for sharing in some cases, facilitates the implementation of the policies mentioned here, making the investment more economically favorable and strengthening the resilience of society and the ecosystems to climate change; in addition to helping minimize climate change, reducing deforestation and ecosystem degradation allows the maintenance of a number of other values that society obtains from the protected ecosystems, including the necessary adaptation to climate change. Protected areas and traditional communities are historically proven and highly effective tools for these purposes; their organization as protected areas systems, the strengthening of the solidarity between traditional communities and their integration into the landscape and the goals of sustainable development serve to reduce the risk of deforestation, ecosystem degradation, and associated emissions now and in the future; and the elimination of deforestation in the Amazon and across Brazil by 2015 is in line with the national interests and those of the local communities who live in areas with natural ecosystems.
Protected areas represent good business and provide multiple benefits for the Brazilian society, deserving the required investments. Therefore we request the Brazilian federal government, the state and municipal governments, and the different entities and segments of society to consider and include the following points in their public policies to combat deforestation and the emission of greenhouse gases: •
•
•
•
recognition of the role of the different categories of conservation units, indigenous lands and forest-dependent peoples and indigenous peoples in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other services provided to society, including our adaptation to climate change; provide support, including economic support, to the protected areas and traditional communities for the preparation of our adaptation to climate change, the defense and strengthening of local and indigenous communities and the protection of the different values provided by nature that have social interest; recognition and inclusion of the protected areas and traditional communities in the development of public policies, programs and projects of the federal, state and municipal governments to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and provide economic compensation for their efforts in this regard, as well as the participation of the forest-dependent communities, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, and scientists in the development of those instruments; recognition of the importance of considering the conservation units and indigenous lands organized in their own systems (and sub-systems), with the solidary nature of the people and their integration into the landscape and the goals
•
•
• • •
•
of sustainable development, strengthening them instead of considering the protected areas as isolated elements; development of policies and markets associated with the sustainable use of natural resources, such as forest and extractive economic chains, as well as products and services associated with the protected areas such as tourism, environmental services, research etc.; fair sharing of the benefits from the efforts to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from deforestation in Brazil, giving priority to local forest-dependent communities and indigenous peoples, and the protected areas because of their historical and continuous participation in this effort to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases; recognition and economic compensation across Brazil, in all areas or biomes, for contributions to reduce the emissions from deforestation and for biodiversity protection; elimination of deforestation and ecosystem degradation across Brazil by 2015; strengthening of the National System of Conservation Units and the Forest Act and including in the National Climate Change Policy the valuing and support for the protected areas because of their strategic role in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and helping our adaptation to climate change, in the Amazon and across Brazil; and effective use of the Amazon Fund as a financial tool to support the reduction of emissions through testing and validation of mechanisms to help reduce emissions and the sharing of economic compensations for those efforts, including strengthening the capacity of the traditional communities, civil society, and government and private agencies; the economic compensations for the additional efforts to reduce emissions should not replace the normal responsibilities of the public institutions and the annual public allocations from the governments to the protected areas.
Therefore, the recognition of the contribution and respective allocation of readiness resources and economic compensation for emission reduction and other environmental services should consider: i) the immediate and future need to reduce deforestation, ecosystem degradation, and the emission of greenhouse gases, as well as to help maintain the ecological services; ii) the reduction of current and future risks, and therefore the strengthening of the protected areas systems and the solidarity among traditional communities; iii) the strengthening of the protected areas systems (not considering them as isolated units but as a whole, with integrated management and interactions) and their integration into the landscape; iv) the strengthening of the social systems, particularly through the strengthening of the economic and cultural strategies of the traditional communities and the provision of social services; and v) other values and ecological and social services provided by the protected areas and the traditional communities.
In the context of international negotiations to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases we request the commitment of the Brazilian government and at the same time demand from other countries: • • • •
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, from all their sources, significantly, and as timely and efficiently as possible; the recognition of Brazil's efforts in reducing emissions from deforestation in the Amazon; to ensure the sustainability of these efforts and their expansion to the rest of the country, to other areas or biomes, including the elimination of degradation in all ecosystems; and the creation, development, or strengthening of public policies and financial mechanisms to provide economic compensation for past, present and future efforts, to reduce deforestation and ecosystem degradation and associated emissions; the economic compensation may be mandatory or voluntary, through funding or market mechanisms or by other means.
1
“The Role of Protected Areas in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation” workshop was sponsored by WWF-Brazil (on behalf of the WWF global network), with support from the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) and the Linden Trust for Conservation, and had more than 60 participants, including protected areas managers, representatives of civil society organizations, local communities, forest-dependent peoples and indigenous peoples, environmentalists, scientists, all involved in sustainable development and the protection of the quality of human life. (For information and to download the presentations and other documents go to WWF-Brazil website at www.wwf.org.br, or more specifically at http://www.wwf.org.br/?22140/Governo-recebe-documento-sobre-reas-protegidas-e-clima and related links, especially for IPAM and WWF-Brazil.) This workshop is a continuation of the effort to discuss and defend the role of protected areas (conservation units and indigenous lands) and traditional communities (local communities, forestdependent communities, and indigenous peoples), preferably in synergy, to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, it complements the event "Demystifying REDD: strengthening the participation of the indigenous and traditional peoples in the discussions about climate change," carried out by IPAM, on May 11-12, 2009 in Brasilia, Brazil, in collaboration with CND, COIAB, COICA, and GTA, with support from the Packard Foundation, Linden Trust, and GTZ, and with the participation of WWF-Brazil, among others. (For information and to download documents visit the IPAM website at www.ipam.org.br, or more specifically at http://www.ipam.org.br/mais/agendaevento/id/19 and related links). Clearly it is also related to several other national and international debates on the subject, but particularly with the workshop “Connecting Amazon Protected Areas and Indigenous Lands to REDD Frameworks”, held on February 11-12, 2009 at Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA, and organized by WWF, the Gordon and Betty More Foundation, and the Linden Trust for Conservation. (To access some of the materials prepared for this workshop go to http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/stanfordgroup.html.) See some references and data in this and other notes. Soares-Filho, B.; Moutinho, P.; Nepstad, D.; Anderson, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Garcia, R.; Dietzsch, L.; Merry, F.; Bowman, M.; Maretti, C.C. & Hissa, L. (unpublished). The role of protected areas in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Soares-Filho, B.S.; Dietzsch, L.; Moutinho, P.; Falieri, A.; Rodrigues, H.; Pinto, E.; Maretti, C.C.; Scaramuzza, C.A.M.; Anderson, A.; Suassuna, K.; Lanna, M. & Araújo, F.V. de. 2009. Redução das emissões de carbono do desmatamento no Brasil: o papel do Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia (ARPA). Brasilia, UFMG, IPAM, WHRC and WWF-Brazil. 21 p. (http://assets.wwfbr.panda.org/downloads/arpa_relatorio_port_1_.pdf) Brazil, Ministry of the Environment. 2008 and 2009. Financial Sustainability Plan for the National System of Conservation Units, I and II. Brasília, MMA. FUNBIO & ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation). 2009. Quanto Custa Uma Unidade de Conservação Federal?: uma visão estratégica para o financiamento do Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (Snuc). /M.M. Muanis, M. Serrão, L. Geluda, C.B.A. Fonseca, P.E.C. Melo, R.C. Santos, F. Leite & D. Leite/. Rio de Janeiro, FUNBIO (Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity). 52 p. McKinsey. s/d [2009] Caminhos para uma economia de baixa emissão de carbono no Brasil. McKinsey & Company, São Paulo. 45 p. Soares-Fº, B.S.; Nepstad, D.C.; Curran, L.M.; Cerqueira, G.C.; Garcia, R.A.; Ramos, C.A.; Vol, E.; Macdonald, A.; Lefebvre, P. & Schlesinger, P. 2006. Modeling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520-523.
Jenkins, C.N. & Joppa, L. 2009. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biological Conservation (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.016). 2 Some figures from the Ministry of the Environment (Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests, Department of Protected Areas) give credit to the National System of Conservation Units (SNUC) in Brazil: 1,641 federal and state conservation units; of which 304 are federal, 532 are state, and 494 are private natural heritage reserves (RPPNs) linked at the federal level, and 311 at the state level; for a total of 16.75% of the mainland territory and 1.46% of the marine area; covering approximately 1.5 million km2. 3
Studies such as "Pillars for the Financial Sustainability Plan for the National System of Conservation Units," I and II, led by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA-SBF-DAP) or "How much does a Federal Conservation Unit costs?" by FUNBIO and ICMBio, studies by TNC in Brazil with these and other partners, including some state conservation unit systems, among others, show the need for financial resources. They were based on the need for annual resources to cover the costs (personnel, fuel, maintenance, bills, etc.) and general investment needs (infrastructure, acquisition of equipment, planning, etc.). Some were based on the current National System of Conservation Units (SNUC), and others used estimates of the needs or proposed disbursement schedules. Regardless of the need to expand as a whole and improve the functioning of the system (and subsystems) – even to achieve the goals set by Brazil as part of a joint global effort to reduce the loss of biodiversity and establish a representative protected areas system, and in addition to the roles presented here in terms of emission reduction and support for the adaptation to climate change and other ecological services – and even if only to maintain current trends, all the studies show the need to greatly multiply the investments and efforts to maintain the conservation units throughout Brazil. 4
According to the first official monitoring exercise for Cerrado by the Federal Government, the amount of deforestation in the Cerrado area was 127.6 thousand km2 between 2002 and 2008, with an average deforestation of 21,260 km2 per year. The Ministry of the Environment estimates that it already represents a volume of carbon emissions comparable to the Amazon. (See also the MMA website). 5
The probability of deforestation occurring within the protected areas is nine times lower than outside these areas and this probability increases with distance from the protected areas. The analysis of the buffer zones around the protected areas shows the positive “shadow effect”, that is, they also help reduce deforestation in the surrounding areas. When the analysis is done with larger buffer zones, tending towards infinity, it shows no displacement of deforestation, and therefore no leakage. 6
The volume of resources required may seem elevated when considered in isolation; however it is considered a good investment when compared to the value of the areas and associated ecological services, even if considering only the potential value for reducing carbon emissions. Some estimates show that approximately 40% of the maximum value of carbon (not emitted by 2050) would equal the cost of creating, implementing, and managing the conservation units, representing therefore an economic advantage in the order of tens of billions of U.S. dollars (by 2050) for Brazil, again just based on the ecological service of reducing the emission of carbon equivalents, not mentioning the potentials associated with the protection of water sources, the landscape and tourism, research on biological diversity, the benefits to the local and traditional communities, including the indigenous peoples, etc.