Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
South Africa’s national REDD+ initiative: assessing thepotential of the forestry sector on climate change mitigation
Sebataolo Rahlao a,*, Brian Mantlana b, Harald Winkler a, Tony Knowles c
aEnergy, Environment and Climate Change Programme, Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701,
South AfricabClimate Change and Bio-Adaptation Division, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X7,
Claremont 7735, South AfricacCirrus Group, Postnet Suite #188, Private Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701 Cape Town, South Africa
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 2
a r t i c l e i n f o
Published on line 11 January 2012
Keywords:
Carbon stocks
Climate change
Forest policy
Indigenous forests
REDD+
Terrestrial carbon
a b s t r a c t
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries
(REDD+) is regarded by its proponents as one of the more efficient and cost effective ways
to mitigate climate change. There was further progress toward the implementation of this
mechanism at the 16th Conference of Parties (COP) in Cancun in December 2010. Many
countries in southern African, including South Africa, have not been integrated (do not
participate) into the UN-REDD+ programme, probably due to their low forest cover and
national rates of deforestation. This paper discusses the potential contribution of REDD+
activities to the South African Government’s pledge of reducing national greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by 34% below business as usual by 2020. A number of issues such as
complex land tenure system, limited forest cover and other conflicting environmental
issues present challenges for REDD+ in South Africa. Despite these genuine concerns,
REDD+ remains a practical strategy to contribute to climate change mitigation for South
Africa. The paper raises the need for development of a variety of emission reduction
programmes – not only in the energy sector. The paper also assesses several national
options and opportunities towards a working REDD+ mechanism. It concludes by identify-
ing key mechanisms for moving forward to prepare for REDD+ actions in South Africa and
raises the urgent need for national dialogue between stakeholders and institutions to
evaluate the feasibility of making use of the mechanism in South Africa and the Southern
African Development Cooperation (SADC) region. The paper further addresses possible
synergies and conflicts between the national climate change and forestry policies towards
REDD+ development. It suggests that REDD+ should be part of the national dialogue on
policy to respond to climate change and should be integrated into the national flagship
programmes that the national climate change white paper seeks to implement. A multiple-
benefit REDD+ initiative for South Africa can benefit from these international financial
initiatives. It is anticipated that this initiative will provide a platform to enhance policy,
institutional and technical stakeholder capacities to access financial incentives that may
lead to sound environmental practises.
# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 21 650 2831; fax: +27 21 650 2830.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (S. Rahlao), [email protected] (B. Mantlana),
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
[email protected] (H. Winkler), [email protected] (T. Knowles).
1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.013
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 2 25
1. Introduction
Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use (AFOLU) activities are
a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which
deforestation forms the major part. Globally, deforestation
and degradation more broadly contribute about 12% of the
total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually (van der Werf
et al., 2009). As dry biomass is approximately 50% carbon,
forests play an important role in the global carbon budget, by
acting either as sinks or sources of carbon. Causes of
deforestation differ in different parts of the world. Logging
and land clearing, especially for agricultural expansion, are
some of the major anthropogenic activities that lead to
deforestation. Reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation (REDD) is a mechanism that seeks to
incentivize the halt of deforestation and forest degradation
with the view to reduce the associated GHG emissions.
However, since the discussions on deforestation, the scope
of REDD has since covered more than deforestation and forest
degradation. The scope of REDD now also includes conserva-
tion of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of
forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+).
Up to now, the treatment of land-use based activities under
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has been limited to national GHG inventories, Kyoto
Protocol reporting for Annex I Parties and limited afforestation
and reforestation projects under the Clean Development
Mechanism to the Protocol. However, it is increasingly becom-
ing clear that a post-2012 agreement under the UNFCCC will
include a broader consideration of land-use based climate
change mitigation adaptation activities. Moreover, it is increas-
ingly acknowledged that forests are more than just long-term
reservoirs of carbon. It is now broadly recognized that the
maintenance of indigenous forests and landscapes also leads to
the conservation of biodiversity and generates critical ecosys-
tem services to local communities and downstream economies.
It is in the interest of the international community to include a
mechanism like REDD+ if the human-driven climate change is
to be stabilized at a level that prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the earth’s climate (Denman et al., 2007).
As a Party to the UNFCCC (1992), South Africa has accepted
the obligation to prepare and implement national pro-
grammes to mitigate climate change. This undertaking was
voluntary and different to the quantified emission reduction
and limitation commitments of developed countries under the
Kyoto Protocol (1997). South Africa, like many other govern-
ments, has included a REDD+ mechanism as one of the
priorities in a post-2012 climate policy regime in the UNFCCC
process. Even though the AFOLU sector contributes only six
per cent (�28 Mt CO2e) of South Africa’s emissions (South
African GHG Inventory 2000) and its own emissions are mainly
from energy use and supply, South Africa supports a variety of
approaches to reduce its emissions and enhance its terrestrial
carbon sinks. At a national level, South Africa is preparing to
undertake its own analysis of options, opportunities and
challenges for REDD+.
The objective of this paper is to assess the potential for
REDD+ in South Africa. This assessment will be crucial in
providing information base for the development of the
national REDD+ mechanism for South Africa and as a
contribution to South Africa’s commitment for emissions to
deviate 34% below business-as-usual by 2020 (RSA, 2010). The
paper also introduces key issues, challenges and opportunities
for South Africa arising from REDD+ in climate change
negotiations and policy development. Furthermore, it pro-
vides an indication of the extent on how mitigation actions in
the REDD+ sector can contribute to South Africa achieving its
emission reduction targets in climate change negotiations.
The first part of the paper highlights the origins of the
REDD+ mechanism within the international policy context
and the relevant decisions within the UNFCCC. The second
part deals with the forest and carbon resource availability in
South Africa, emissions sources from the forestry sector and
the tenure (both land and carbon tenure) governance and its
social context. The third part deals with national climate
change response (white paper) and how the REDD+ mecha-
nism could be integrated into the national flagship pro-
grammes that address broader socio-economic issues. The
fourth part of this paper assesses the availability of multilat-
eral and bilateral financial initiatives through which the
REDD+ initiative can be financed in South Africa. It also
assesses the policy, human resource capacity and available
programmes that can collectively attract funds for REDD+ and
other socio-economic initiatives. The last part identifies a
number of research priorities and policy opportunities as a
way forward towards a successful REDD+ initiative.
2. Conference of Parties (COP) decisions onREDD+
The issue of deforestation was first brought up in the
negotiation process under the UNFCCC during LULUCF
negotiations when discussing eligible LULUCF activities under
the CDM. From those discussions it was decided that LULUCF
activities under the CDM be limited to afforestation and
reforestation (16/CMP.1, 5/CMP.1). There were many concerns
that excluded deforestation in the first commitment period.
These included methodological issues such as leakage
(whether emissions beyond project and country boundaries
could be controlled), non-permanence (emissions due to
natural/anthropogenic disturbances at a later date), baseline
setting (uncertainties of estimates) and additionality (estimat-
ing the real reduction in GHG emissions below a business-as-
usual scenario). The other concern was that after the issuance
of carbon credits, the scale of possible emission reductions
would flood the market. Furthermore, there was a risk
including deforestation in the first commitment period may
reduce the domestic efforts by Annex 1 countries to reduce
emissions. Other issues such as governance and sovereignty
concerns, e.g., illegal logging control, ownership of the land,
were also highlighted as obstacles to implementation.
Considerations on including forests in developing and least
developed countries in the formal global efforts to reduce
emissions from deforestation were initiated by Papua New
Guinea and Costa Rica in 2005 in Montreal, Canada, during the
Conference of Parties (COP) under the UNFCCC. Subsequently,
an agenda item that considered the technical processes was
launched in 2006.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 226
A COP decision in Bali, in 2007 (Decision 2/CP.13), included
REDD as one of the key mitigation approaches that required
support and action. The Bali Action Plan launched two parallel
processes; a continuation of methodological considerations
under Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
(SBSTA) and consideration of policy approaches and positive
incentives; the latter under the Ad Hoc Working Group on
Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-
LCA). The COP, at its 15th session (Copenhagen, 2009), adopted
a decision on methodological guidance and also made specific
reference to guidance on capacity building. One of the
provisions of the Copenhagen Accord, which was noted but
not adopted by this COP, was on the forest sector. The
Copenhagen Accord committed to the ‘‘immediate establish-
ment of a mechanism to enable the mobilization of financial
resources from developed countries’’ to support efforts to
reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
and to enhance forest sinks.
Decisions adopted at COP16, in Cancun, were in many
respects similar to those that were agreed, but not adopted, in
Copenhagen. Key elements of those decisions include encour-
aging countries to develop national REDD+ strategies, national
or sub-national reference (emission) levels, a national or sub-
national measurement, reporting and verification (MRV)
system and a system that reflects how social, environmental,
economic and legal safeguards are observed. While the
decision is clear that the implementation of the REDD+
mechanism will be carried out through a phased approach, it
is silent on financing options. The negotiations on REDD+
recognise a variety of financial sources including market-
based, fund-based and a combination of both markets and
funds. A decision on funding architecture for REDD+ has been
postponed to the 17th session (COP17), in Durban, South
Africa, 2011.
3. South Africa’s forest resources
South Africa has 1,257,341 ha (about 1.3% of its total land
surface) of forestland (including exotic plantations, South
African GHG Inventory 2000). Forests in South Africa include
commercial plantations (1.1%) that are mostly exotic species,
intact indigenous forests (0.5%) and indigenous woodlands/
savannas (35%) that include vegetation types ranging from
sparsely wooded grasslands to dense thicket and woodland
(Willis, 2002). Such woodland and savanna systems typically
have relatively low carbon stocks per hectare (<30 tC ha�1)
compared to moist, tropical forests and woodlands (Gibbs
et al., 2007). However, globally, South Africa ranks in the top-
ten countries with volatile carbon (4.1 GtC) stocks stored in
other landscapes, such as grasslands, that could be readily
released into the atmosphere through land use change
(Terrestrial Carbon Group Project, 2009).
The existing UNFCCC definition of a ‘forest’ includes most
of South Africa’s woodland, thicket, plantation and indige-
nous forest vegetation types. The Marrakech Accords define a
‘‘forest’’ as a vegetation type with a ‘‘single minimum tree crown
cover value between 10 and 30 per cent; and a single minimum land
area value between 0.05 and 1 hectare; and a single minimum tree
height value between 2 and 5 metres’’ (FAO, 2007).
4. South Africa’s AFOLU emissions profile
In January 2010, the South African government notified the
Secretariat of the UNFCCC that it ‘‘will take nationally
appropriate mitigation action to enable a 34% deviation below
the ‘business as usual’ emissions growth trajectory by 2020
and a 42% deviation below the ‘business as usual’ emissions
growth trajectory by 2025’’ (RSA, 2010). This commitment is
based on the long-term mitigation scenarios (LTMS), with
some adjustment for near-term electricity plans. In pledging
this nationally appropriate mitigation action (NAMA), South
Africa made it clear that the offer was conditional on support
for the NAMA in the form of finance, technology and capacity-
building and on an ambitious, fair, effective and binding multi-
lateral agreement. In undertaking a ‘commitment to act’, the
letter recalled the study of mitigation potential under the
LTMS (SBT, 2007). The notification concluded that with
‘‘financial, technology and capacity building support from
the international community, this level of effort will enable
South Africa’s GHG emissions to peak between 2020 and 2025,
plateau for approximately a decade and decline in absolute
terms thereafter’’ (RSA, 2010).
The major source of South Africa’s GHG emissions is the
energy sector (energy supply and energy use), contributing
about 78% of the GHG emissions. The other 22% is from non-
energy emissions (caused by activities other than burning fossil
fuels) resulting from AFOLU (6%) waste (2%) or industrial
processes and product use (14%) that do not require fossil fuel
combustion. Land use based emission reductions may therefore
be important for South Africa to reach its emission reductions
targets. If South Africa is to achieve its relative GHG emission
reduction by 2020, the AFOLU sector could contribute a tenth of
the effort, or 4.2 percentage points of the 34% (RSA, 2010). The
AFOLU sector contributes about 6% to the total national GHG
emissions with the forests as a small sink (DEA, 2009).
5. Potential REDD+ challenges for South Africa
5.1. Carbon resource and land tenure – policy andgovernance
Land tenure in many parts of Africa exists as a prohibitive
obstacle to the implementation of afforestation and reforesta-
tion sequestration approaches. Land tenure and land law in
many parts of Africa is complex as land rights are intertwined
with politics (Unruh, 2008). Complex and highly contested land
tenure issues, too, could arise from transnational and trans-
boundary REDD+ initiatives (Nhamo, 2011). Unlike in many
parts of Africa, the South African land tenure system provides a
different but complex issue as far as REDD+ is concerned. The
South African land ownership is unique and racially orientated
since the 1960s to the 1990s, and is still very much in evidence
today. Property rights have complex political and social
dimensions in South Africa under apartheid where private
land rights were promoted over communal cultivation and
grazing (Everingham and Jannecke, 2006).
South Africa has about 1.3 million hectares of forestland
and 70% of that is privately (corporate and private farmers)
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 2 27
owned and the remainder (30%) belongs to the state. About
33% of the state lands and an unreported number of private
lands are occupied by communities without formal rights
(Forestry South Africa 2005). As mentioned above, whilst this
is an opportunity for effective interaction between stake-
holders and the government, in the event that the agreed
institutional and other related arrangements do not work out,
it can prove to be a major challenge to overcome.
Native land rights are one of the key challenges for REDD+
implementation in many parts of the world (Ghazoul et al.,
2010) and community land rights are likely an important factor
for action on REDD+ in South Africa. The lawful ownership of
generated emission reduction units (ERUs or colloquially
referred to as ‘carbon credits’) will need to established in
the process of developing a national REDD+ program. Land
tenure and ownership of ERUs needs to be clearly defined to
understand the potential opportunities and risk for REDD
implementing agents and investors. In areas with defined
tenure rights, carbon owners will have to be engaged in the
REDD+ process. Furthermore, there will have to be develop-
ment of capacity to reform the carbon rights policy. The other
way would be to secure carbon rights linked to terrestrial
carbon sources (trees, other vegetation and soil).
Synergies and conflicts between REDD+ mechanism and
the national resources (forestry, land-restitution, agriculture
and energy) polices will have to be addressed in the early
stages of REDD+ development. These policies can limit the
demand for land and REDD+ governance. The energy policy
can also limit the pressure on forest degradation and
deforestation as a result of woodfuel harvesting for the
majority poor who cannot afford other sources of energy.
With key international decisions still pending on REDD+,
developing countries face the challenges and the opportu-
nities to soundly integrate biodiversity issues into their
national strategies (Pistorius et al., 2010). In this regard, South
Africa faces challenging questions when it comes to REDD+
mechanism. This is largely due to the fact that the initial focus
of the REDD+ mechanism was on deforestation. It followed
then that countries most likely to participate in this mecha-
nism were those that have extensive deforestation rates,
particularly those that have tropical rain forests (Lykke et al.,
2009). As a result, for a country like South Africa with relatively
small forest cover, the question still remains; what is the
potential to reap REDD+ benefits and what are the costs and
the tools needed to achieve those benefits? This challenging
question faces not only South Africa but other SADC countries
as well.
5.2. Environmental challenges
There are a number of environmental concerns regarding
REDD+ implementation in South Africa. A large proportion of
South African ‘forests’ are exotic plantations using alien
invasive species such as eucalyptus, wattles and pinus species
(Christie and Scholes, 1995). The Second National Communica-
tion and Outcome 10 in particular, state that plantation forestry
uses more water than natural vegetation. Increased demands
on water could translate into further restrictions on plantation
forestry. This will be exacerbated in areas where rainfall is likely
to decrease, such as the Western Cape (DEA, 2010).
Considering exotic plantations as part of a national REDD+
strategy presents several challenges and concerns. It is
important that modalities for REDD+ do not promote the
conversion of intact, indigenous vegetation types to alien
commercial plantations but to retain natural forests or
prioritise indigenous reforestation. When assessing the net
effect of plantations on atmospheric GHGs, there is a need to
include emissions from the entire operation compared to a
baseline, business as usual scenario (i.e, leaving it as
indigenous grassland). This would include emissions from
the establishment of timber mills, transport of timber, and
transport to market.
6. Opportunities to implement the initiative
The implementation of REDD+ activities could be a mecha-
nism which to simultaneously address climate change and
rural poverty, while conserving biodiversity and sustaining
environmental services (Lykke et al., 2009). The identification,
development, monitoring and maintenance of REDD+ activi-
ties across South Africa would require substantial new
capacity and therefore provide skill-development and em-
ployment opportunities in rural areas. This could be done
through integration with other existing public-private part-
nerships that restore ecosystem services while creating jobs
and skill development opportunities. The South African
Government’s Expanded Public Works Programme focussed
on ecosystem management (Working for-Water, -Woodlands,
-Wetlands, and Working on Fire) could be extended to the
implementation of REDD+. In addition, the required monitor-
ing of carbon, biodiversity and socio-economic metrics
provides additional employment opportunities (Skutsch,
2005; Knowles et al., 2010).
Two reforestation projects are already being implemented
in South Africa that clearly illustrate the additional social and
biodiversity benefits of REDD+ activities. Both the Buffelsdraai
Landfill Site Community Reforestation project located just
outside Durban and the Working for Woodlands Thicket
Restoration Project that focuses on the restoration of the sub-
tropical thicket biome in the Eastern Cape are being validated
through the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance
Standard and provide clear, measurable employment, skill
development, biodiversity and climate change adaptation
benefits (http://www.climate-standards.org).
6.1. Financial options for South Africa’s REDD+ initiative
6.1.1. Multi-lateral fund initiatives
A number of global multi-lateral initiatives have been
developed and further strengthened with extra funding from
developed countries. The Food and Agricultural Organisation
(FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and
the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) have
together developed a programme (UN-REDD Programme) to
support developing countries with significant forest cover to
develop the required human- and institutional capacity as
well as supporting policy for national-scale REDD+ implemen-
tation. It is a collaborative framework to assist forested
developing countries and the international community on risk
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 228
management and payment structures (UN-REDD 2009). The
UN-REDD programme supports the capacity of national
governments to prepare and implement national REDD+
strategies with active involvement of stakeholders. The
programme also supports countries in developing measure-
able, reportable and verifiable (MRV) monitoring systems. Over
40 countries are developing their REDD+ initiatives to benefit if
REDD+ becomes part of the post-2012 climate regime. The
programme now considers making use of the potential
synergies between the Rio Conventions.
In a similar manner, the World Bank Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility (FCPF) is dedicated to creating ‘REDD
readiness’ in target countries through technical assistance.
The Forest Investment Program is part of the multilateral
development banks’ Strategic Climate Fund that focuses on
countries located in the tropics with significant forest cover
and high deforestation rates. A multiple-benefit REDD+
initiative for South Africa can benefit from these international
financial initiatives.
6.1.2. Bilateral financial optionsAlternative to multilateral initiatives to finance REDD+ activi-
ties, there are numerous bilateral initiatives. The Government
of Norway is a major donor to many such bilateral funds and
has a record of partnerships with South Africa on other
environmental aspects. These are bilateral agreements on
REDD+ are typically between a developed- and developing-
country. The REDD+ Partnership is also an initiative initiated
at a ministerial conference in Paris and later Oslo (initially
known as the Paris-Oslo Process). It is a voluntary partnership
based on all pledges made through other multilateral and
bilateral initiatives (see Westholm, 2010 for a more detailed
analysis of multilateral and bilateral initiatives).
As opposed to land-use based climate change mitigation
projects being implemented under Clean Development Mech-
anism (CDM) to the Kyoto Protocol, which were solely financed
through carbon market based mechanisms; the realisation of
REDD+ at proposed national scales may require a combination
of market- and fund-based finance.
Whereas a certain level of preparation is required prior to
the launch of REDD+ activities, for example the development
of a national strategy, associated policy and human- and
institutional capacity, such activities do not generate direct,
immediate GHG emission reductions. Relying solely on
market-based revenues for the establishment of initial
national-scale REDD+ capacity is unlikely to work. At the
same time, however, public funding may not be sufficient to
pay for global REDD+ implementation over the long-term. A
gradual move towards compliance-generated revenues,
whether generated through a market-based mechanism or
another form of innovative finance, for example, a new broad-
based taxation on shipping or aviation, may be required. The
negotiations on REDD+ within the UNFCCC now recognise the
need for a variety of financial sources including, fund-based
finance and a combination of market and fund based in the
different phases of the REDD+ process.
6.1.3. National funding opportunitiesThe current national climate change response white paper
(CCRWP) makes provision for active development of short to
medium term opportunities that sequestrate atmospheric
carbon dioxide while simultaneously conserving biodiversity.
The white paper also makes an undertaking to mobilising
finance for climate change response strategies, to mainstream
response measures in the fiscal budgetary process and to
integrate climate change response programmes at national,
provincial and local government levels as well as through
development finance institutions and state-owned entities.
6.2. Looking beyond carbon sequestration
The current scope of REDD+ mechanism, as agreed in Cancun,
2010, has ensured participation of all countries in the
developing world. Within the existing scope of REDD+, South
Africa would look at participating through conservation of
forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks. According to the South
Africa’s Second National Communication, the commercial
forestry sector has made significant progress toward attaining
sustainable forest management (DEA, 2010). Furthermore, this
document mentions that current projections of climate
change suggest that the area under plantation forestry is
likely to remain constant or even extend in the eastern part of
the country and increase slightly in productivity (SNC, 2011).
This report is based on recent studies that modeled use rainfall
and temperature to map areas that are potentially suitable for
afforestation with a particular species.
In addition, South Africa has a long history of well-defined
natural resource governance, a key element toward effective
participation in the REDD+ mechanism. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that recognised activities and carbon pools
included in future ‘REDD+’ definitions may include carbon
sequestration and emissions reduction from agriculture and
soil carbon. The inclusion of these activities and pools into the
REDD+ mechanism would enhance South Africa’s participa-
tion. Integration of REDD+ with agriculture and soil carbon
would assist other national priorities like payment for
ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, poverty allevi-
ation and job creation.
The implementation of REDD+ at national scale requires
considerable effort in terms of identification-, development-
monitoring- implementation- and support. In addition, across
the three spheres of government (national, provincial and
municipal), land-use policies, budget and planning would
need to include REDD+ activities if they are to remain in place
over the long-term. The implementation of REDD+ activities
essentially requires the appropriate management of ecosys-
tem services at a landscape scale. The restoration, avoided
degradation and long-term sustainable management of
forests and woodland systems in South Africa, is likely to
provide ecosystem service benefits in the form of water flow
and sedimentation management services and the sustainable
supply of food, fuel and fibre, in addition to climate regulation.
The South African government has agreed on 12 outcomes
as a key focus of work between now and 2014. Each outcome
has a limited number of measurable outputs with targets.
Delivery agreement for Outcome 10 is on Environmental
Assets and Natural Resources that are valued, protected and
continually enhanced. Under Outcome 10, there are two
outputs that are relevant to the issue of REDD+ mechanism.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 2 29
These are Output 2: Reduced greenhouse gas emissions,
climate change impacts and improved air/atmospheric quality
and Output 3: Sustainable environmental management.
Interestingly, deforestation and forest management are
mentioned only under Output 3. While this placement may
be a reflection of the challenging question referred to above
regarding implementation of REDD+ mechanism in South
Africa, there is also an opportunity to inform the government
about the role of the forest sector in reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. All the 12 Outcomes will be reviewed annually in
light of learning by doing and monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) findings. It is in that annual review process that a case
can be made to highlight the extent that SA’s forests can
contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
Non-energy emissions mentioned in Outcome 10 include
reducing industrial process emissions, waste minimization,
improved agriculture and emission reductions in LULUCF.
Perhaps during the annual review of the Outcomes, it would be
appropriate to emphasize importance of implementing REDD+
mechanism under Output 2, and also highlight its critical role
in achieving Output 3. Indeed, the REDD+ mechanism and the
restoration of ecosystems may couple well with ‘ecosystem-
based climate change adaptation’ activities that seek to assist
vulnerable population groups to adapt to climate change
through the restoration and appropriate management of
ecosystem services.
The REDD+ mechanism bears the potential to shape
comprehensive integrated land-use plans that can serve the
sustainable development of a country (Pistorius et al., 2010).
This is largely due to the observation that the development of
the national REDD+ strategy touches on socio-economic,
environmental and political aspects of land-use planning
(Pistorius et al., 2010). It requires close cooperation between
national ministries, especially UNFCCC and CBD focal points,
public authorities and other relevant stakeholders.
South Africa’s participation in the REDD+ mechanism
would also considerably improve its national obligations to
the UNFCCC in terms of monitoring and reporting GHG
emissions. The implementation of a national scale REDD+
programme would require the development of a comprehen-
sive countrywide monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV)
system. The data emerging from such a system would not only
allow the quantification of GHG emission reductions due to
REDD+ activities, but also would provide valuable input into
the development of national climate mitigation and adapta-
tion strategies.
7. Research priorities and policy opportunities
7.1. Research priorities
7.1.1. Understanding the drivers of deforestation andmapping REDD+ opportunitiesAs most REDD+ opportunities are likely to be located in
landscapes that are populated to a certain extent and may be
used for alternative purposes, the identification of REDD+ and
reforestation activities generally requires a multi-disciplinary
assessment including ecological opportunities, socio-eco-
nomic and governance considerations. One of the first
considerations is to assess where ecological opportunities
exist to reduce atmospheric GHGs. This is not so much an
assessment of standing terrestrial carbon stocks but an
assessment of where it is possible to either sequester
additional carbon or to avoid GHG emissions through REDD+.
In addition to the generation of an initial map of above- and
below-ground carbon stocks for the country, one would
therefore need to identify degraded systems that could be
restored as well as areas that are under threat of deforestation
and degradation. As explored in the section below, opportu-
nities in non-forest vegetation types should also be investi-
gated. Initial empirical studies in the high altitude grasslands
of Drakensberg escarpment have shown that there may be
good opportunity to sequester additional soil carbon through
grassland rehabilitation and likewise to avoid GHG emissions
through avoided grassland degradation (Knowles et al., 2008).
Furthermore, REDD+ could be aligned to biodiversity conser-
vation programmes such as in national parks where carbon
stocks are intact and protected.
7.1.2. Socio-economic and governance considerationsAdditional consideration when identifying potential REDD+
and ecosystem rehabilitation activities is the socio-economic
circumstances of the potential implementing agents as well as
the governance system in place, particularly with regard to
land tenure and poverty alleviation. A suite of different
implementation models may need to be developed to adapt to
the particular socio-economic and land-tenure context found.
For example, implementing a project in an area where the
landowners are large commercial concerns with clear tenure
under constitutional law may be relatively straightforward. A
commercial concern is also likely to have the financial
capacity to fund the initial development of the project to
the point of where initial carbon revenues are realized.
Alternatively, developing a project in communal areas where
land-tenure may exist under customary law but not constitu-
tional law, may require a protracted stakeholder engagement
process to structure implementation and the distribution of
incentives appropriately. Furthermore, the participants may
not have the financial resources to fund the initial develop-
ment of REDD+ activities and therefore rely more on national-
scale capacity.
7.1.3. Is the implementation of REDD+ activities a financiallypreferable land use choice?Although a particular land-use practice, for example com-
mercial crop farming may lead to deforestation as well as the
release of soil carbon stocks, the foregone opportunity costs of
not farming may not be met through carbon revenues.
Furthermore, while assessing the financial feasibility of
REDD+ opportunities, efforts should be made to identify
where costs and ‘barriers to entry’ can be reduced or negated.
Especially for small-scale landowners, accessing carbon
revenues may not be seen as possible due to relatively high
transaction costs and perceived complexity of payment for
climate change mitigation. Through the bundling of individual
projects (in a similar manner to ‘programmatic’ CDM activi-
ties) and the creation of national capacity to facilitate and
monitor numerous small-scale ventures, the number of
participants may be increased.
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 230
7.1.4. Broadening the scope of recognised activities and poolsThis definition of a ‘forest’ is relativity broad and includes
savanna and thicket vegetation types in South Africa. It
however, excludes grassland and other non-forest vegetation
types, which cover a considerable area in South Africa. In terms
of reducing atmospheric GHG emissions in non-forest vegeta-
tion types, the belowground carbon pool in grassland systems is
substantial and may be larger than the aboveground carbon
pool in dry forest and woodland systems and less at risk of fire
(Knowles et al., 2008). Empirical studies in the high-altitude
grasslands of the Drakensberg Mountains indicate that burning
has little effect on below ground carbon stocks and may even
lead to a marginal increase in soil carbon stocks (Manson et al.,
2007). In addition, the high altitude grasslands of the escarp-
ment are crucial in terms of regulating water flow and
sedimentation in a region that is forecast to get warmer and
drier due to anthropogenic climate change (Boko et al., 2007).
The indigenous grasslands of the escarpment have high
biodiversity, economic and livelihood value but are susceptible
to degradation (Rouget et al., 2004; Bohensky et al., 2004). The
inclusion of ‘avoided grassland degradation’ therefore makes
sense from a climate change mitigation and adaptation, socio-
economic, biodiversity and water services point of view. There
is therefore a good reason to revisit the restrictions on
vegetation types in which land-use based climate change
mitigation ventures are allowed to occur.
The intact thicket biome in the Eastern Cape has been found
to have high ecosystem carbon storage (exceeds 20 kg/m2),
which is an unusually large amount for a semiarid ecosystem
(Mills and Cowling, 2006). The area is already under restoration
from government programme on thicket restoration with
Spekboom (Portulacariaafra) and could potentially return greater
than 8.5 kg C/m2 to transformed sites, reduce erosion, increase
biodiversity, provision of employment amongst other benefits
(see Mills and Cowling, 2006 for more details).
7.2. Policy considerations – national climate changeresponse white paper
7.2.1. Integrating REDD+ into other national programmesThe government has released the white paper on climate
change response and this has provided several opportunities
for REDD+. The integration of REDD+ policy into other cross-
sector national development planning programmes would be
an ideal way moving forward with REDD+ and also to mitigate
delivery risks. The white paper identifies the forestry sector as
important in climate change mitigation and will seek to ensure
that forest planning tools take into account carbon sequestra-
tion to assist in involvement in carbon trading. With this
concept in mind, the REDD+ initiative will provide such
planning towards involvement in carbon trading and climate
change mitigation. This involves integration and identification
of potential conflicts between REDD+ and the broader national
land-use management system. The land-use change process-
es will have to be continuously monitored and integrated into
the REDD+ system.
In order for the REDD+ mechanism to be operational, it will
need to be integrated to other national development frame-
works that address national priorities such as job creation,
poverty reduction, human rights and capacity development.
The REDD+ mechanism should also focus on development of
programmes to enhance terrestrial carbon stocks from other
systems, such as agriculture, land-use change and soil. Low-
biomass native ecosystems could become inadvertent victims
of REDD+ programs (Brown, 2010; Miles and Kapos, 2008) if it
focuses on high biomass (forested) lands. The REDD+ mecha-
nisms should integration these systems with low biomass but
high volatile carbon to avoid leakage. REDD+ could also be
aligned to the recently approved national programme on
‘‘working for energy’’ that seeks to provide energy from
biomass derived from alien invasive species.
7.2.2. Multi-stakeholder participation and engagementA number of processes will have to be developed in order to for
a REDD+ mechanism to operate in South Africa. Stakeholders
and carbon owners will have to be engaged and debate in order
to make REDD+ a reality/failure. Mechanisms and processes to
engage carbon owners do not currently exist and these will
have to development to evaluate the feasibility of the REDD+
mechanism. Firstly, the stakeholders will have to be identified
and secondly, mechanisms to engage with them developed.
This will help establish a multi-stakeholder platform or build
on the existing one for other national conversations. These
stakeholders include carbon resource owners, economic
agents and groups with traditional rights. This should be a
government-initiated process with public-private partner-
ships together with national NGO network. A number of
partners with a range of strategic expertise will be needed to
undertake the REDD+ initiative; these would include, under-
standing of carbon markets, biodiversity conservation, inte-
grated community resource management, multi-sector policy
development, and carbon accounting amongst others. Per-
haps REDD+ should be part of the national dialogue on policy
to respond to climate change.
7.2.3. Capacity development in key stakeholdersIt is important that the process is hosted and coordinated within
the government ministry. Capacity development through
education and training programs to stakeholders on REDD+
would be essential. The host government ministry will need to
have the capacity to coordinate and develop policy on REDD+
with the help of other institutions. Capacity on data mining and
research projects on carbon sequestration are some of the
important expertise needed in the government ministries.
REDD+ is a performance-based payment for forest ecosystem
service and capacity for MRV will have to be enhanced within
the host institution. These include monitoring of carbon pools,
decision on verification entities (national or international) and
how to set reference levels (Verchot and Petkova, 2009).
8. Conclusions
Despite REDD+ likely to be embraced and benefit forested
countries with high rates of deforestation, it does provide an
opportunity for other countries like South Africa with low
forest cover but high terrestrial volatile carbon to be creative
and develop nationally appropriate mechanisms to contribute
to the national climate change mitigation actions and local
sustainable development. Such activities with clear-cut
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 2 31
quantifiable emission reductions would be vital in meeting
national emission reduction targets. The land use and forestry
sector actions could include restoration of degraded forests
through partnerships with public-private partnership pro-
grammes such as working for woodlands and working for
water and increased forest cover through reforestation. Better
management of fires towards avoided emissions could also be
enhanced. In the agriculture sector, such practices as;
improved productivity, reduced energy inputs, water conser-
vation, crop rotations, could immensely reduce GHG gas
emissions in this sector.
This calls for capacity building in forest carbon sequestra-
tion and early detection of degradation and deforestation
towards long-term mitigation strategies. Carbon stocking
provides an alternative as other benefits such as food security
and biodiversity conservation would be provided through
REDD+ activities. Despite some environmental limitations
including limited space for enhancement of carbon stocks
from forests, we put forward that South African ecosystems
such as some parts of the Thicket biome have the potential to
contribute in REDD+ towards post-2012 climate change
regime. The lessons learned during the REDD+ mechanism
process will assist in development of other programmes for
terrestrial emissions (such as AFOLU) to contribute the South
Africa’ emissions reduction targets.
Acknowledgements
We thank anonymous reviewers for their comments and
discussions on the pervious versions of the article. We thank
other colleagues from different NGOs with their several
discussions and inputs to this paper. The National Research
Foundation (NRF) of South Africa and the Oppenheimer
Memorial Trust are thanked for support to SR.
r e f e r e n c e s
Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Fabricius, C.,Erasmus, L., Ginsburg, A., Holgate, C., Knowles, T., Lebesa,L.N., Pfab, M., van der Merwe, M., Shackleton, C., Zondo, L.,2004. Ecosystem Services of the Gariep Basin – A MillenniumAssessment report. Sun Press, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Boko, M., Niang, I., Nyong, A., Vogel, C., Githeko, A., Medany, M.,Osman-Elasha, B., Tabo, R., Yanda, P., 2007. Africa. In: Parry,O.F.C.M.L., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E.(Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation andVulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK, pp. 433–467.
Brown, M.L., 2010. Limiting corrupt incentives in a global REDDregime. Ecology Law Quarterly 37, 237–267.
Christie, S.I., Scholes, R.J., 1995. Carbon storage in eucalyptusand pine plantation in South Africa. EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment 38, 231–241.
Denman, K.L., Brasseur, G., Chidthaisong, A., Ciais, P., Cox, P.M.,Dickinson, R.E., Hauglustaine, D., Heinze, C., Holland, E.,Jacob, D., Lohmann, U., Ramachandran, S., Da Silva Dias, P.L.,Wofsy, S.C., Zhang, X., 2007. Couplings between changes inthe climate system and biogeochemistry. In: Soloman, S., Qin,
D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor,M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The PhysicalScience Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the FourthAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change. Cambridge, p. 90.
Ghazoul, J., Butler, R.A., Mateo-Vega, J., Koh, L.P., 2010. REDD: areckoning of environment and development implications.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25, 396–402.
Gibbs, H.K., Brown, S., Niles, J.O., Foley, J.A., 2007. Monitoringand estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD areality. Environmental Research Letters 2, 045023.
DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs), 2009. Greenhousegas inventory 2000: National Inventory Report. Compilationunder the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change, Pretoria.
DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs), 2010. SouthAfrica’s Second National Communication. Compilationunder the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change, Pretoria.
Everingham, M., Jannecke, C., 2006. Land restitution anddemocratic citizenship in South Africa. Journal of SouthernAfrican Studies 32, 545–562.
FAO, 2007. Global Forest Resources Assessment,2010.Specification of National Reporting; Tables for FRA2010. Forest Resources Assessment Programme, Workingpaper 135, Rome.
Knowles, T., von Maltitz, G., Makhado, R., 2008. TheuKhahlamba – Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site:Carbon Sequestration Feasibility and ImplementationAssessment. CSIR Report for Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife. CSIR,Pretoria, South Africa.
Knowles, T., McCall, M., Skutsch, M., Theron, L., 2010.Preparing community forestry for REDD+: engaging localcommunities in the mapping and MRV requirements ofREDD+. In: Zhu, X., Moller, L.R., De Lopez, T., Romero, M.Z.(Eds.), Pathways for Implementing REDD+: Experiencesfrom Carbon Markets and Communities. Perspectives Series2010. UNEP Riso Centre, Roskilde, Denmark.
Lykke, A.M., Barfod, A.S., Svendsen, G.T., Greve, M., Svenning,J.C., 2009. Climate change mitigation by carbon stock–thecase of semiarid West Africa. Earth and EnvironmentalScience 8 , doi:10.1088/1755-1315/8/1/012004.
Manson, A.D., Jewitt, D., Short, A.D., 2007. Effects of season andfrequency of burning on soils and landscape functioning in amoist montane grassland. African Journal of Range andForage Science 24, 9–18.
Miles, L., Kapos, V., 2008. Reducing greenhouse gas emissionsfrom deforestation and forest degradation: global land-useimplications. Science 320, 1454–1455.
Mills, A.J., Cowling, R.M., 2006. Rate of carbon sequestration attwo thicket restoration sites in the Eastern Cape, SouthAfrica. Restoration Ecology 14, 38–49.
Nhamo, G., 2011. REDD+ and the global climate policynegotiating regimes: challenges and opportunities for Africa.South African Journal of International Affairs 18, 385–406.
Pistorius, T., Schmitt, C.B., Benick, D., Entenmann, S., 2010.Greening REDD+: Challenges and Opportunities for ForestBiodiversity Conservation. Policy Paper, University ofFreiburg, Germany.
Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K.,Egoh, B., Cowling, R.M., 2004. South African National SpatialBiodiversity Assessment 2004, Technical Report, vol. 1:Terrestrial Component. South African National BiodiversityInstitute, Pretoria.
RSA (Republic of South Africa), 2010. Letter dated 29 January, forthe South African National Focal Point. Pretoria, Departmentof Environmental Affairs. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/application/pdf/southafricacphaccord_app2.pdf (accessed08.02.10).
e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 7 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 4 – 3 232
SBT (Scenario Building Team), 2007. Long Term MitigationScenarios: Strategic Options for South Africa. PretoriaDepartment of Environment Affairs and Tourism. http://www.environment.gov.za/HotIssues/2008/LTMS/A%20LTMS%20Scenarios%20for%20SA.pdf (accessed15.10.08).
Skutsch, M., 2005. Reducing carbon transaction costs incommunity-based forest management. Climate Policy 5,433–443.
Terrestrial Carbon Group Project, 2009. The Role of TerrestrialCarbon in the Climate Change Solution: Where, Why andHow – a Short Guide. Terrestrial Carbon Group. .
Unruh, J.D., 2008. Carbon sequestration in Africa: the landtenure problem. Global Environmental Change 18, 700–707.
van der Werf, G.R., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Olivier, J.G.J.,Kasibhatla, P.S., Jackson, R.B., Collatz, G.J., Randerson, J.T.,2009. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience 2,737–738.
Verchot, L., Petkova, E., 2009. The State of REDD Negotiations:Consensus Points, Options for Moving Forward and ResearchNeeds to Support the Process. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Westholm, L., 2010. Getting ready for REDD+, Focali Report No.2010:01, Gothenburg.
Willis, C., 2002. Baseline Study on Woodlands in South Africa.Report to the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry.Report No.: ENV-P-C 2002-021, CSIR Environmentek, Pretoria.
Sebataolo Rahlao is a researcher in the Energy Research Centre atthe University of Cape Town, South Africa. His research focuses onreducing emissions and increasing carbon sinks from non-energysources of agriculture, forestry and land use change sectors andthe synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Brian Mantlana is a director of climate change policy, co-ordina-tion and communication in the Climate Change and Bio-Adapta-tion division at the South African National Biodiversity Institute.
Harald Winkler is a professor in the energy research centre at theUniversity of Cape Town. His work focuses on energy and climatechange mitigation, and its links to local sustainable development.His approach is multi-disciplinary, focusing on policy questionsusing economic tools, social analysis and environmental indicators.
Tony Knowles is currently completing his Doctoral thesis on therisk and feasibility aspects of REDD activities located in sub-SaharanAfrica. In his capacity at the Cirrus Group, Tony advises a broadscope of private, NGO and Government sector clients on how toappropriately respond to climate change and in particular, how todevelop land-use based climate change mitigation and adaptationactivities. His main area of interest and expertise lie in climatechange strategy, systems ecology, the creation and trade of carbonassets, environmental economics and ecosystem services.
