CCCC

1 Introduction and rationale
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates global deforestation and forest degradation to have contributed 17,4% to global, annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 (IPCC, 2007). The main part of these emissions results from the destruction and degradation of tropical forests in developing countries and countries in transition. According to FAO (2001), deforestation from 1990 to 2000 occurred to 97% in tropical countries. Recent research by Hansen et al. (2008a) supports these findings. The first attempt to include the concept of avoided deforestation into the international climate regime failed for several reasons, but the topic was reintroduced by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations (CfRN) in 2005 as part of the negotiations for the post-2012 climate agreement.
In its 4th assessment report (2007), the IPCC states that […] forestry can make a very significant contribution to a low cost global mitigation portfolio […] (IPCC 2007). Previously, the Stern Review (2007) had provided a very similar conclusion, stating that the opportunity costs of avoiding 70% of emissions from deforestation would be around 5 bn US$ a year. Assumedly, this was an important driver behind the decision at COP 13, Bali, to include the concept of "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries" (REDD) into the post-2012 climate agreement. By now it is largely acknowledged that REDD must be part of the international mitigation effort in order to prevent dangerous climate change.
However, there still is broad disagreement on how REDD should be integrated into the architecture of the post-2012 climate agreement. Consensus has been growing on many methodological issues but views on policy approaches still differ widely. Much energy has and still is being put into the question "how to finance REDD", due to the far-reaching implications this issue could have. This is absolutely justified, yet it must not consume the entire REDD debate. Just as important is the question of "how to spent the money (wisely)" and how an international system for REDD transfers should thus look like. Also, one needs to consider the implications of policy approaches on methodological issues and vice versa.
Finally, serious consideration must be given on how REDD design affects equity issues such as multi-level participation, but also poverty, biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management. While it is often mentioned that REDD could yield co-benefits e.g. for biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation (see UNEP-WCMC 2007), there are also voices cautioning against the adverse impacts of REDD. The impact of REDD on indigenous people’s rights, biodiversity conservation and poorer people is a major concern (see Swallow et al. 2007, Griffiths 2007, Peskett et al. 2008, Miles and Kapos 2008).
In its decision 2/CP.13 (UNFCCC 2007a), the COP has formally recognized most of the concerns mentioned above. It has stated, that:
• REDD should help to meet the ultimate goal of the convention, which is […] stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system […].
• REDD could complement the goals of other relevant conventions and should take note of their provisions
REDD implementation should address the needs of local and indigenous communities
REDD should take into consideration the role of sustainable forest management and conservation
However, as REDD is being developed and negotiated in detail, questions have and still are arising, how to fit these considerations into an all-encompassing solution. While it is doubtful that REDD will equally benefit each interest/stakeholder group and will always create a win-win situation, REDD should nevertheless strive for maximum comprehensiveness, in order to maximize synergies and reduce potential negative side effects. This requires to look at REDD from an integrated perspective, i.e. to shed light on REDD from the different viewpoints of overall climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and equity. This study will thus analyze the impact of proposed REDD design options (policy approaches and methodological issues) on climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and equity issues, and will make some policy recommendations for an integrated REDD design.