Problems and Prospects of Redd in Pakistan and in Community based Forest Management System

Research Article RESEARCH ARTICLE ON REDD , “ PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF REDD IN PAKISTAN AND IN COMMUNITY BASED FOREST MANAGEMNT SYSTEM”

Mr. Alam Zeb Qazi,(Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal Dir Upper kpk Pakistan)

Abstract

Deforestation and forest degradation are the second leading causes of global warming. Interest in the potential of avoided deforestation has been growing and solutions to the problems are currently being worked to through the development of proposed mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol (KP) called Reducing Emission Thorough Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). This Research-paper argues that unless a significant change

is made in the existing proposal of REDD till Copenhagen in December 2010, prospect of benefiting PAKISTAN forest in general and community forestry in particular looks not so encouraging. It is mainly due to factors like poor documentation of deforestation and degradation (uncertainties of baselines), small scale of forests to attract global buyers and PAKISTAN low influence in the international REDD policy process, among others. This Paper tries to analyse that, despite achievements in the forestry capital formation, several contentious issues related to the equitable sharing of income among different stakeholders have emerged, and may even threaten the sustainable management of this capital if issues are not duly addressed. Much of the debate on forest based mitigation measures are dominated by technical issues and socio-ecological systems such as livelihoods and biodiversity tend to take a back seat. Finally, the author has forwarded the responsibility of Gigantic Institute of Forestry like Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal and PFI (which are the top most ones) in carbon inventory process.

INTRODUCTON

REDD: WHY IT CAME? AND WHAT DOES IT MEANS?

Deforestation and forest degradation are the second leading causes of global warming. Tropical forest clearing accounts for roughly 20% of the anthropogenic carbon emissions and destroys significant carbon sinks globally (IPCC, 2007). The global response to climate change is coordinated through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and since early 2005, under the Kyoto Protocol.

Efforts to reduce atmospheric Greenhouse Gas (GHG) concentrations (and thereby mitigate increases in global temperatures) are being made through schemes that aim to reduce the use of fossil fuels, increase energy efficiency and sequester carbon dioxide in biological matter. In developing countries (especially PAKISTAN) these schemes are managed in two ways: first, regulated or certified projects which come under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol and which are regulated according to international standards; and second, ‘voluntary’ projects which operate outside of the KP and have no overall governing body, although voluntary standards may be compiled to (Staddon, 2009). These certified and voluntary projects involve the trading of Certified Emission Reduction (CER) or Voluntary Emission Reduction (VER) credits respectively. One CER or VER credit is typically equivalent with the capture of one ton of carbon dioxide, and companies or individuals buy credits to comply with legal commitments for the purpose of Corporate Social Responsibility for philanthropic reasons.

Almost all CDM projects involve energy efficiency or energy reduction, with only one out of the 400 registered projects relating to carbon sequestration through forestry, falling under the ‘Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry’ (LULUCF) category. The lack of forestry projects is considered to be due to the high transaction costs of the CDM process and restrictions placed on forestry projects by the CDM (Peskett, Brown, & Luttrell, Making Voluntary Carbon Markets Work Better for the Poor: The Case of Forestry Offsets., 2006a). In contrast, the more flexible voluntary market is dominated by forestry related projects located throughout the globe (Peskett, et. al. 2006a).

Under the CDM’s LULUCF Programme, only Afforestation and Reforestation (AR) projects are currently recognized, and many projects in the voluntary market involve the planting of trees, meaning that there is a little scope for projects that work through ‘avoided deforestation’. Reasons given for the exclusion of the avoided deforestation include the difficulties in ensuring ‘additionality’ (i.e. the project provides emissions reductions which are additional to what would have occurred in its absence ), problems in establishing ‘baselines’ (levels from which to estimate emission reductions due to the project), problems in preventing ‘leakage’ ( changes in emissions due to project activities but which occur outside of the project area, e.g. shifting deforestation to another area), the problem of ensuring that reductions are permanent, the fact that the large potential scale of avoided deforestation emission reductions could flood the market, and finally, that it may reduce incentives for developed countries to ‘de-carbonize’ and reduce emissions through energy efficiency or energy reduction (Peskett et. al. 2006b, Richards and Jenkins 2007, Karky and Banskota 2007).

Interest in the potential of avoided deforestation has been growing, however, and solutions to the problems listed above are currently being worked out through the development of proposed mechanism under he Kyoto Protocol called REDD. At the 13th Conference of Parties (CoP 13) of the UNFCCC, held in Bali in 2007, it was agreed in principle to implement a policy called REDD in developing countries upon completion of the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol, i.e. 2008-2013. Under the proposed REDD Policy; there is a strong move to reduce CO2 emissions from terrestrial ecosystems by reducing deforestation rates in the tropics (cited by Karky and Banskota, Gullison et. al. 2007). Additionally, at the UNFCCC meeting held in Accra from August 21-27, 2008, REDD gained a broader support for an agreement to reward actions that enhance forest cover and is additional to avoided deforestation and forest degradation (popularly called REDD+). Once it comes into operation, this will add value to the existing forest capital and the stream of income that flows from it through reduced deforestation, reduced degradation and forest enhancement, and, hence, should theoretically benefit all primary stakeholders. However, to make claims to this income, it will be essential to demonstrate that there has indeed been a net sequestration of carbon. Other social, economic and technical issues will also have to be complied with. As the policy is still being discussed and negotiated, uncertainties associated with REDD implementation will continue to trigger more questions and debates before they are decided to the CoP 15 meeting in December 2009.

MATERIAL & METHODS

The study has carries out in Pakistan and in community based forest Management system

Pakistan is comprises of four provinces including FATA & Gilgitbaltistan with northern areas,As the divisional system was abolished in 14 August 2001, there are 117 districts including capital district Islamabad, in which 35 districts in Punjab,24 in Khyber PukhtoonKhwa, 27 in sindh, 30 in Balochistan ,3 districts in federal capital, 7 districts in Northern areas and 8 districts in AJK. In Pakistan there is 4.8% forest cover (inlatest books 4 % by some authors) in which Punjab contributes 0.51 million hectares, Khyber Pukhtonkhwa contributes 1.33 million hectares, Sindh contributes 0.84 Million hectares & Balochistan contributes 1.36 million hectares. (As shown in below Map indicating forests & table indicates their respective cover )

In Khyber PukhtoonKhwa there is no desert, Pakistan 13 % of mountain range is covered by glaciers , it covers 13680 square.km( Siachen glacier 72.5 km, Hasper glacier 61 km). Length of coastline of Pakistan is 1046 km,58 % area of Pakistan is covered by Mountains & plateaus. Rajoka ,A.,Raza,W,H.,Numan,M,A,.(2012)

Pakistan raised major concerns about the protection and growth of forests and active local participation in forest management. This can be attributed to the efforts of thousands of CFUGs. Many issues and challenges triggered by the stocks thus rejuvenated have given rise to a number of subset of issues, including ownership, rewards and distribution. This often culminated serious conflicts. This is primarily the second generation issue in Pakistan’s community forestry and needs to be addressed with due priority (Dahal & Banskota, 2009).

To date some of the 14,439 plus CFUGs are managing over a million hectares of forests and are generating income in most places DoF 2009).