"Carbon Cowboys" could inflate REDD+ payments through positive Measurement bias

Carbon Management

Volumn 6, Issue 3-4, 2015, Pages 151-158

  Rifai, Sami W ^a   West, Thales A P ^a   Putz, Francis E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Carbon markets; Carbon offset; Climate Change; Payments for environmental services; Tropical forests

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS; CLIMATE CHANGE; DEFORESTATION; ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS; GLOBAL WARMING; HARDWOODS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

CARBON MARKETS; CARBON OFFSETS; FOREST DEGRADATION; MEASUREMENT BIAS; PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES; RANDOM SELECTION; TROPICAL FOREST; UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGES;

FORESTRY;

EID: 84949544006     PISSN: 17583004     EISSN: 17583012     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17583004.2015.1097008     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. UN-REDD. The UN-REDD Programme Strategy 2011-2015. UN-REDD, Geneva, Switzerland (2011).
2. Saatchi SS, Harris NL, Brown S et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(24), 9899-9904. doi:10.1073/pnas.1019576108 (2011).
3. Baccini A, Asner GP. Improving pantropical forest carbon maps with airborne LiDAR sampling. Carbon Manage. 4(6), 591-600. doi:10.4155/CMT.13.66 (2013).
4. Asner GP, Mascaro J. Mapping tropical forest carbon: calibrating plot estimates to a simple LiDAR metric. Remote Sens. Environ. 140, 614-624. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2013.09. 023 (2014).
5. Souza Jr C, Siqueira J, Sales M et al. Ten-year Landsat classification of deforestation and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Remote Sens. 5(11), 5493-5513. doi:10.3390/rs5115493 (2013).
6. UNFCCC. A/R Methodological Tool: Estimation of Carbon Stocks and Change in Carbon Stocks of Trees and Shrubs in A/R CDM Project Activities. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany (2013).
7. Nerlich B, Koteyko N. Carbon Gold Rush and Carbon Cowboys: a new chapter in green mythology? Environ. Commun. 4(1), 37-53. doi:10.1080/17524030903522389 (2010).
8. Vatn A, Vedeld PO. National governance structures for REDD+. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23(2), 422-432. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.005 (2013).
9. Brown S. Estimating Biomass and Biomass Change of Tropical Forests: A Primer. FAO Forestry Paper 134 FAO, Rome (1997).
10. IPCC. Chapter 4: supplementary methods and good practice guidance arising from the Kyoto Protocol. In: Good Practice Guidance For Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T et al. (Eds). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC, Hayama, Japan (2003).
11. IPCC. Chapter 4: forest land. In: 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Eggleston HS, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K (Eds). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) for the IPCC, Hayama, Japan (2006).
12. Brown S, Gillespie AJR, Lugo AE. Biomass estimation methods for tropical forests with applications to forest inventory data. Forest Sci. 35(4), 881-902 (1989).
13. GOFC-GOLD (Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries: A Sourcebook of Methods and Procedures for Monitoring, Measuring and Reporting. GOFC-GOLD Report Version COP14-2. GOFC-GOLD Project Office, Alberta, Canada (2009).
14. Chave J, Condit R, Aguilar S, Hernandez A, Lao S, Perez R. Error propagation and scaling for tropical forest biomass estimates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 359(1443), 409-420. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1425 (2004)
15. Molto Q, Rossi V, Blanc L. Error propagation in biomass estimation in tropical forests. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4(2), 175-183. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00266.x (2013).
16. Clark D, Clark D. Landscape-scale variation in forest structure and biomass in a tropical rain forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 137(1-3), 185-198. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127 (99) 00327-8 (2000).
17. Cushman KC, Muller-Landau HC, Condit RS, Hubbell SP. Improving estimates of biomass change in buttressed trees using tree taper models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5(6), 573-582. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12187 (2014).
18. Feldpausch TR., Banin L, Phillips OL et al. Height-diameter allometry of tropical forest trees. Biogeosciences 8(5), 1081-1106. doi:10.5194/bg-8-1081-2011 (2011).
19. Chave J, Rejou-Mechain M, Burquez A et al. Improved allometric models to estimate the aboveground biomass of tropical trees. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20(10), 3177-3190. doi:10.1111/gcb.12629 (2014).
20. Brown S. Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. Environ. Pollut. 116(3), 363-372. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491 (01) 00212-3 (2002).
21. Larjavaara M, Muller-Landau HC. Measuring tree height: a quantitative comparison of two common field methods in a moist tropical forest. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4(9), 793-801. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12071 (2013).
22. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). National Forest Inventory - Field Manual Template. FAO, Rome, Italy (2004).
23. Kearsley E, De Haulleville T, Hufkens K et al. Conventional tree height-diameter relationships significantly overestimate aboveground carbon stocks in the Central Congo Basin. Nat. Commun. 4, 2269. doi:10.1038/ncomms3269 (2013).
24. Flores O, Coomes DA. Estimating the wood density of species for carbon stock assessments. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2(2), 214-220. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00068.x (2011).
25. Dexter KG., Pennington TD, Cunningham CW. Using DNA to assess errors in tropical tree identifications: how often are ecologists wrong and when does it matter? Ecol. Monogr. 80(2), 267-286. doi:10.1890/09-0267.1 (2010).
26. Gomes ACS, Andrade A, Barreto-Silva JS et al. Local plant species delimitation in a highly diverse Amazonian forest: do we all see the same species? J. Veg. Sci. 24(1), 70-79. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01441.x (2013).
27. Condit R. Tropical Forest Census Plots: Methods and Results from Barro Colorado Island, Panama, and a Comparison with Other Plots. Springer New York, NY, USA (1998).
28. Bohlman S, O'Brien S. Allometry, adult stature and regeneration requirement of 65 tree species on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. J. Trop. Ecol. 22(02), 123-136. doi:10. 1017/S0266467405003019 (2006).
29. Goldstein A, Gonzalez G. Turning Over a New Leaf - State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2014. Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, DC, USA (2014).
30. Mokany K, Raison RJ, Prokushkin AS. Critical analysis of root: shoot ratios in terrestrial biomes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 12(1), 84-96. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001043.x (2006).
31. Verified Carbon Standard. Validation and Verification Manual. Verified Carbon Standard, Washington, DC, USA (2013).
32. Theilade I, Rutishauser E, Poulsen MK. Community assessment of tropical tree biomass: challenges and opportunities for REDD+. Carbon Balance Manage. 10, 17. doi:10.1186/s13021-015-0028-3 (2015).
33. Holdaway RJ, McNeill SJ, Mason NWH, Carswell FE. Propagating uncertainty in plot-based estimates of forest carbon stock and carbon stock change. Ecosystems 17(4), 627-640. doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9749-5 (2014).
34. Garcfa B. Local Governance, Anti-Corruption and REDD+ in Latin America and the Caribbean: Exploring Synergies to Strengthen Transparency and Accountability. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Washington, DC, USA (2011).
35. Sears RR, Pinedo-Vasquez M. Forest policy reform and the organization of logging in Peruvian Amazonia. Dev. and Chang. 42(2), 609-631. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660. 2011.01697.x (2011).
36. Finer M, Jenkins CN, Sky MAB, Pine J. Logging concessions enable illegal logging crisis in the Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 4719(4), 1-6. doi:10.1038/srep04719 (2014).
37. Asner GP, Mascaro J, Muller-Landau HC et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168(4), 1147-1160. doi:10.1007/s00442-011-2165-z (2012).
38. Kronseder K, Ballhorn U, Bohm V, Siegert T. Above ground biomass estimation across forest types at different degradation levels in Central Kalimantan using LiDAR data. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinform. 18, 37-48. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2012.01.010 (2012).
39. ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO 14065:2013 Greenhouse gases - Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Validation and Verification Bodies for Use in Accreditation or Other Forms of Recognition. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2013).
40. Brown S. Measuring, monitoring, and verification of carbon benefits for forest-based projects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 360(1797), 1669-1683. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2002.1026 (2002).
41. American Carbon Registry. The American Carbon Registry Validation and Verification Guideline. American Carbon Registry, Arlington, VA, USA (2012).
42. Plan Vivo Foundation. The Plan Vivo Standard. Plan Vivo Foundation, Edinburgh, Scotland (2013).
43. Verified Carbon Standard. Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements. Verified Carbon Standard, Washington, DC, USA (2013).
44. Thompson ORR, Paavola J, Healey JR, Jones JPG, Baker TR, Torres J. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+): transaction costs of six Peruvian projects. Ecol. Soc. 18(1), 17. doi:10.5751/ES-05239-180117 (2013).
45. Zanne AE, Lopez-Gonzalez G, Coomes DA, Ilic J, Jansen S, Lewis SL, Miller RB, Swenson NG, Wiemann MC, Chave J (2009). Data from: Towards a worldwide wood economics spectrum. Dryad Digital Repository. http://dx. doi.org/10.5061/dryad.234