• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
MRV System in Indonesia: 
Credibility, governance and benefit sharing
 

MRV System in Indonesia: 
Credibility, governance and benefit sharing

on

  • 1,083 views

This presentation by Daniel Murdiyarso shows the history of forest governance in Indonesia, how the REDD+ strategy can be understood as a landscape approach, where potential REDD+ projects could be ...

This presentation by Daniel Murdiyarso shows the history of forest governance in Indonesia, how the REDD+ strategy can be understood as a landscape approach, where potential REDD+ projects could be located in Indonesia, how the MRV system can still maintain credibility, what FREDDI is and what kind of nested approach we need for MRV payment.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,083
Views on SlideShare
975
Embed Views
108

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

5 Embeds 108

http://www.scoop.it 96
http://jumatil.tumblr.com 5
http://news.google.com 3
https://twitter.com 2
http://localhost 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    MRV System in Indonesia: 
Credibility, governance and benefit sharing MRV System in Indonesia: 
Credibility, governance and benefit sharing Presentation Transcript

    • MRV System in Indonesia: Credibility, governance and benefit sharing Daniel Murdiyarso
    • Outline • Long history of forest governance system • REDD+: a steep learning curve • MRV system: maintaining credibility • Financing instrument • (Costs and) benefits sharing • Concluding remarks
    • Long history of forest governance  Centralized, legally guided by national Law over resources, permitting and licensing procedures  Goods oriented rather than services – climate change was never in the agenda  Decentralized authorities with limited capacities  Leaving huge gaps in a lot of fronts
    • A steep learning curve National REDD+ Strategy Pilot Province REDD+ Agency MRV and Financial Instrument Demonstration Activities REL/RL (technical) Safeguards Underlying causes of DD Consultation processes Institutional capacity building NICFI KFCP/UN-REDD IFCA/WB-FCPF | | | | 2007 2008 2009 2013 and beyond
    • REDD+ strategy: a landscape approach
    • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Potential REDD+ projects               Ketapang/FFI/Kalbar Kapuas Hulu /FORCLIME/Kalbar Kapuas Hulu/FFI/Kalbar Sentarum/FFI/Kalbar Lamandau/YAYORIN-RARE/Kalteng Rimba Raya/RRC-Infinite Earth/Kalteng Katingan/RMU-Starling Resources/Kalteng Sebangau/WWF/Kalteng KFCP/AusAID-MoFo/Kalteng Heart of Borneo/WWF/Kalteng Kutai Barat/WWF/Kaltim Kutai-Malinau/Global Green/Kaltim RHOI/BOS/Kaltim Malinau/GER/Kaltim Malinau/FORCLIME/Kaltim Berau Forest Carbon/TNC/Kaltim Berau/FORCLIME/Kaltim         • Mamuju/Inhutani/SulBar • TN Lore Lindu/UNREDD-MoFo/Sulteng • SM Nantu/YANI/Gorontalo • Poigar/ONF/Sulut         • Merang/GiZ/Sumsel • Berbak/ZSL/Jambi • SFCP/AusAID-MoFo/Jambi • Kampar Ring/APRIL/Riau • Tesso Nilo/WWF/Riau • Siberut/Global Green/Sumbar • Leuser/YLI/Aceh • Ulu Masen/Aceh Green/Aceh   • Lombok/KOICA-MoFo/NTB • TN Meru Betiri/ITTO-MoFo/Jatim Biak-Rumfor/Emerald Planet Mamberamo/New Forest Merauke-Mappi-Asmat/WWF Jayapura/WWF • TEBE Project/YTM-AusAID/NTB
    • MRV system: maintaining credibility M IPCC – Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF activities • Publish data (area, biomass data, carbon density) • Describe methodologies (measurements in 5 pools, use model • Include all greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) • Document QA/QC procedures R IPCC Reporting Principle – managed uncertainties • Consistency • Transparency • Comparability • Completeness • Accuracy V Validation Project development phase • Estimation of future GHG emissions reductions to be achieved • Use models (historical trend, numeric, economic) Verification Project monitoring phase • Confirmation of actual GHG emission reductions achieved during crediting period • Compare between estimations and observations
    • Developing higher Tier EFs is possible
    • FREDDI: financing instrument • Modalities: grant making, trust fund • Funding: Broad array of opportunities/initiatives • Guiding principles: performance-based and safeguards • Governance: GoI-led design and management, Board of Trustee
    • (Costs and) benefits sharing M • National REDD entity • Sub-national entities • Project proponents/implementers • High costs R • National REDD entity • Sub-national entities • Project proponents/implementers • Potentially high costs V Validation • In-house validation processes • During development phase • Potentially low costs Verification • Third party - independent verifiers • During monitoring phase • High costs
    • Nesting sub national projects Market or fund CO2-eq Verified reports Stream of fund National Reporting • Carbon • Social • Biodiversity MRV Aggregate Province Benefit sharing • Technical • Administrative • Financial MRV Aggregate Project Project Project MRV MRV MRV
    • What kind of nested approach?
    • Key messages  Indonesia has good practice MRV for emission hotspots in place  Linking GHG emissions and removals with IPCC Guidelines will ensure credibility  Nested-approach for MRV-payment may be viable; need further thoughts