Search

Brazil was the first country to submit a reference level (RL) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming to claim results-based payments for reduced emissions from deforestation in the REDD+ mechanism. This voluntary RL submission has passed an official technical assessment process by the UNFCCC on the accordance of the data and method applied, which was finalised in December 2014. After years of international negotiations this has become possible by the REDD+ framework finally agreed. Although never formally adopted, the rules of procedure of the UNFCCC foresee consensus among the 196 parties to the convention. Due to the wide heterogeneity in national circumstances and capacities between these parties, the decided REDD+ framework represents a compromise, and in some points space for interpretation remains due to a lack of clear definitions. E.g., no internationally standardised method exists for the design of RLs under UNFCCC; rather each country has the possibility to apply its own approach within a given range of requirements. We argue that these nationally designed RLs involve the danger of raising a ‘cherry-picking’ mentality, which would reduce cost-efficiency of the payments. Especially in the light of the ongoing pressure to fight anthropogenic global climate change, the overall objective of REDD+ should be climate effectiveness. Therefore, apparently contradictory objectives—of integrating as many developing countries as possible, by keeping the barriers low, and of effective emission reductions by persisting on strict rules for national carbon accounting—had to be balanced. According to the technical assessment by the UNFCCC, the submitted Brazilian RL fulfils all formal requirements. However, as implication of the negotiated framework, there remain some questions on the climate effectiveness and the cost-efficiency of the submitted approach, which this viewpoint paper aims to critically reflect. Brazil chose for its present RL design the eligible options of a subnational coverage, with consideration of the activity of deforestation only. But only comprehensive accounting of all activities on national scale can ensure that all potential emissions are accounted for. By the present accounting gap, doubts on climate effectiveness arise. Furthermore, Brazil chose a fixed starting year for historic emissions and did not consider national circumstances, which results in reference emissions of about 1100 Mt CO 2 /a between 2006 and 2010. This potentially profitable RL setting for Brazil raises doubt on the cost-efficiency of the implied REDD+ payment. Whether these problems arising from the four eligible but critical RL options applied by Brazil emerge in other RLs as well, was checked for further five RL proposals submitted up to now. None of these country submissions has passed the technical assessment yet. The submitted approaches for RL design differ among the considered countries but one can see a tendency towards profitable individual RL definitions, similar to the Brazilian RL. From our findings we conclude that individually determined RLs without standardised methods bear the risk of national ‘cherry-picking’ which can compromise climate effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the whole REDD+ mechanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Applied Economics / Economía Aplicada is the property of FEA-RP, Universidade de Sao Paulo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Simple Summary: Intensive broiler systems using fast-growing broiler strains at relatively high stocking density (higher than 38 kg/m2) are being criticised in Western countries because of risks for animal welfare. To address this criticism, alternative middle-segment production systems were introduced in North-West Europe in the 2000s. These middle-segment systems contain indoor housed slower-growing broiler strains housed at stocking densities ≤38 kg/m2 and claim to have increased animal welfare at a limited increase in production costs. In this study we aimed to analyse the level of animal welfare and production costs of these middle-segment production systems in different parts of the world (the Netherlands, United States and Brazil). Results show that in the Netherlands, United States and Brazil a change from conventional towards these middle-segment systems provides a considerable increase in animal welfare at a relatively small increase in production costs, i.e., has a high cost-efficiency. Overall, it can be concluded that in general middle-segment production systems entail a considerable increase in animal welfare at a relatively small increase in production costs and therefore offer good global prospects for a cost-efficient improvement of broiler welfare. In the 2000s, the idea of a so-called middle-segment arose in North-West Europe to address the criticism on intensive broiler production systems. Middle-segment systems being indoor housing of slower-growing broiler strains at a stocking density ≤38 kg/m2. Previous literature showed that Dutch middle-segment systems entail a relatively large gain in animal welfare at a relatively low increase in costs, i.e., have a high cost-efficiency. The question is to what extent these findings are applicable to other countries. Therefore, the aim of this study is to gain insight in the global prospects of middle-segment systems by exploring the cost-efficiency of these systems in other parts of the world. A set of representative countries, containing the Netherlands, United States and Brazil were selected. Cost-efficiency was defined as the ratio of the change in the level of animal welfare and the change in production costs. The level of animal welfare was measured by the Welfare Quality (WQ) index score. Data was collected from literature and consulting experts. Results show that in the Netherlands, United States and Brazil a change from conventional towards a middle-segment system improves animal welfare in a cost-efficient manner (the Netherlands 9.1, United States 24.2 and Brazil 12.1). Overall, it can be concluded that in general middle-segment production systems provide a considerable increase in animal welfare at a relatively small increase in production costs and therefore offer good prospects for a cost-efficient improvement of broiler welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]