Options for REDD+
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • 1,056 views

Presentation by Louis Verchot, Eduard Merger, and Michael Dutschke ...

Presentation by Louis Verchot, Eduard Merger, and Michael Dutschke
Options for REDD+ Voluntary Certification
Oaxaca Workshop Forest Governance, Decentralisation and REDD+ in Latin America and the Caribbean,
31 August – 03 September 2010, Oaxaca, Mexico.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,056
Views on SlideShare
1,048
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0

3 Embeds 8

http://www.cifor.cgiar.org 6
http://www.cifor.org 1
http://unjobs.org 1

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
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #5254 -- Dayak tribe, hunting; East Kalimantan, Indonesia To give you just one example of the incredible diversity of forests, the island of Borneo – where CIFOR has conducted a lot of research over many years – occupies less that 1% of the world’s land surface, yet contains over 6% of its plant, bird and mammal species. A nd biodiversity is of value not just to international conservationists, but to the livelihood and cultural integrity of forest communities. CIFOR research undertaken in collaboration with forest communities in East Kalimantan identified some 2100 different species with more than 3600 uses, of which 120 had no known substitute.
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #11699 -- . . .
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #14167 -- Teak logs; Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, Indonesia
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library . . . In 2005, CIFOR and the World Agroforestry Centre launched the LAMIL project in Guinea – landscape management for improved livelihoods. The project looked at ways in which forest management institutions and regulations could be better aligned. It was about reducing transaction costs, improving community benefits, and conserving biodiversity. Research findings demonstrated that regulatory impediments prevented forest user groups from obtaining legal recognition, which thereby impeded the ability of communities to enforce forest management rules. Policy options were identified to strengthen community forests as viable legal entities and establish a national definition of community forestry. Options were also developed for agricultural intensification, in order to reduce pressure on forests. In late 2006 the Government of Guinea designed a new strategy for participatory forest management. This strategy drew heavily on the LAMIL project’s findings. As a result, co-management agreements have been developed between local forest communities and the Directorate of Water and Forests. By increasing agricultural productivity and improving access to markets, the project has helped to raise incomes and promote the principle of joint forest management. Some of the beneficiaries have more than tripled their annual revenue and are helping to increase vegetation cover. As an example, the Community Forest Management Committees in Nyalama had generated around $US1,500 over 11 years, prior to LAMIL. Following support from the project to restructure their management and secure legal rights, they have since generated $US1,500 over the last 11 months. USAID recently approved funding for the second phase of the project, which will apply a similar approach to integrated landscape management in Sierra Leone.
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library . . . An estimated 240 million people live in forested communities, and rely heavily on forests for their income. In developing countries, up to 35 per cent of non-farm employment in rural areas is based on forest-activities, which support around 30 million jobs in the informal sector. Yet despite an increase in demand for forest products in recent years, many of these forest communities remain poor. Because deriving profit from such products can be extremely difficult for people who have limited knowledge or involvement in marketing. For example, teak production is a lucrative trade in Indonesia but smallholders will often accept prices well below market level because they do not have access to market information, such as simple data on supply and demand. Another problem is poor silviculture techniques, which leads to a poor quality timber, while a lack of financial capital can result in teak being felled before the optimal teak rotation period, simply because smallholders need cash to pay bills.   These are not insurmountable problems, but there is surprisingly little empirical knowledge about the links between forests and poverty. So we are working with smallholders to get a better understanding of how forest communities can sustainably produce and market their products. And in doing so, improve their livelihoods.
  • Photo: Philip Manalu. Smallholder teak farmer; Gunung Kidul, Central Java, Indonesia (2007)
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #9050 – Lanscape mosaic; Taman Nasional Kerinci Seblat, Jambi, Indonesia.
  • Photo: L. Verchot, Proboscis monkey Tanjung Puting National Park, Borneo
  • Photo: L. Verchot, Tunari National park, Cochabamba, Bolivia
  • Photo: L. Verchot Yusipang, Bhutan
  • Photo: CIFOR slide library . .
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #11179 -- Burnt patch of dense Gelam saplings; Mesuji, Lampung, Indonesia
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library #3385 -- Moist Forest; West Java, Indonesia Climate change is already leading to a greater frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Poor people in developing countries are particularly exposed to these events, not least because they often live and work in the very areas in which natural disasters most often occur, such as flood plains, mountainsides and deltas. So, we must reduce the vulnerability of these people and forests can help us to do this. For example, forests play a major role in stabilising soils, discouraging erosion and maintaining a steady supply of clean, fresh water. So, the transport sector has a strong interest in conserving healthy forests, as landslides often close roads, and haze from forest fires in Indonesia can be thick enough to close airports. Also, drinking water and hydroenergy companies in South America are starting to incorporate forests into their risk management strategies to safeguard the quality and quantity of their water supply.
  • Photo: CIFOR Slide Library # 12797 -- discussing traditional land use; Indonesia CIFOR fills a very specific niche in providing policy relevant research related to forest management. We employ around 200 full-time staff globally. To leverage the impact of this research we work closely with other organisations who do the things we don’t, such as advocate policy change or implement practical changes in forest management. We call ourselves a “centre without walls”, because our work involves many partners, from NGOs, to universities, to development agencies, media outlets and all levels of government.
  • Photo: L. Verchot, Mt. Kilimanjaro from the Kenyan side
  • Photo: Tim Cronin CIFOR

Options for REDD+ Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Options for REDD+ Voluntary Certification Louis Verchot, Eduard Merger, and Michael Dutschke
  • 2.
    • Veracity of ERs and C sequestration claimed by projects or programmes
    • Negative impacts on local communities and indigenous peoples
    • Environmental externalities
      • Biodiversity
      • Water resources
    There are many concerns about international mechanisms aimed at sequestering carbon and reducing land based emissions such as the CDM and REDD
  • 3.
    • The voices of indigenous and local peoples have been heard in the international debate around forests from the outset, and that voice has consistently sounded a note of caution.
      • UNDRIP
      • FPIC
    • Environmental advocacy groups are also expressing concern very vocally
  • 4.
    • CDM modalities require countries to certify the SD benefits of projects
    • Draft REDD+ text includes:
      • safeguards,
      • eligibility criteria,
      • recognition of UNDRIP
    • Civil society and the private sector have been developing and promoting standards as a means to ensure the integrity of projects
    There have been responses at several levels to these concerns
  • 5. We reviewed 10 standards in this study, which can be grouped into three categories Sustainable Forest Management Standards REDD+ Project/Program Design Standards GHG Accounting Standards Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) ISO 14064:2006 Parts 2 and 3 Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) SOCIALCARBON Standard CCBA REDD+ Social & Environmental (S&E) Standards Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards CarbonFix Standard (CFS) Global Conservation Standard (GCS) Plan Vivo Standards
  • 6.
    • PEFC
    • Endorses national or regional forest certification systems
    • Promotes SFM through development of standards and policies designed to ensure forests are managed for multiple objectives
    • Intended for use by national governing bodies
    Forestry standards Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification
    • FSC
    • Seeks to achieve environmentally appropriate, socially responsible, and economically viable use of natural resources
    • Intended for use by private companies
  • 7.
    • ISO 14064-2&3:2006
    • Specific guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring, and reporting of GHG ERs or removal enhancements
    • Specific guidance for the validation and verification of GHG assertions
    • ISO does not certify GHG projects or issue carbon credits
    GHG accounting standards
    • VCS
    • Based on the principles of ISO
    • Standards available for A/R, revegetation; agricultural land management; improved forest management; and REDD
    • Seeks to provide GHG accounting standard for carbon offset projects in the voluntary market
  • 8.
    • CCBA
    • Focus on general design and specific carbon, biodiversity, and community benefits
    • Several levels of certification
    • Intended for use by project-developing organizations
    • CCB REDD+ S&E
    • Encourage social and environmental integrity of REDD+ programs, policies, and measures
    • Intended for use by governments for programs at national or sub-national level and for either fund-based or market-based REDD+ initiatives
    CCB standards
  • 9.
    • CarbonFix Standard
    • Sequester carbon, restore forests, and deliver benefits to people and the environment
    • Combines criteria on SFM, GHG accounting, and permanence
    • Intended for project developers for A/R in the voluntary market
    Project design standards
    • SOCIALCARBON Standard
    • A set of analytical tools
    • Assess and improve socioeconomic and enviromental, and performance of GHG mitigation projects
    • Requires application of other GHG accounting standards to generate VERs for the voluntary carbon market.
  • 10.
    • Global Conservation Standard
    • Facilitates the monetization of conservation assets
    • Focuses on carbon sinks and other environmental services
    • Intended for use by government or private landowners and license holders of conservation areas
    Project design standards
    • Plan Vivo
    • Aims to promote sustainable livelihoods and deliver ecosystem services such as carbon and water;
    • Promotes protection and planting of native and naturalized tree species
    • Intended for use by project developers
  • 11.
    • Poverty alleviation
    • Land tenure
    • Governance (international treaties and conventions)
    • Participation of local populations and stakeholders
    • Conflict resolution mechanisms
    • Impacts outside the project areas
    • Capacity building
    • Equitable benefit sharing
    • Food security
    • Biodiversity
    • Separation of production forestry and conservation areas
    • Protection of rare and endangered species
    • Local population’s social and cultural values of biodiversity.
    Evaluation criteria
  • 12.
    • SFM
    • Governance issues
    • Requirements to develop long-term forest management plans
    • Approaches to:
      • ecosystem services
      • conversion of natural forests
      • land use planning
    • Certification procedures
    • Involvement of accredited third-party auditors
    • Periodicity of certification
    • Stakeholder consultations during certification process
    Evaluation criteria
  • 13.
    • Monitoring & reporting
    • Length of monitoring and reporting over the project lifetime
    • Periodicity
    • MR principles
    • GHG accounting framework
    • Applicability for certifying GHG benefits from AFOLU projects
    • Compliance with IPCC principles
    • Address leakage
    • Guarantee permanence
    Evaluation criteria
  • 14. Forestry standards PEFC FSC standard
  • 15. GHG accounting standards ISO 14064: 2006 VCS
  • 16. Project design standards CCBA REDD S&E CCBA SOCIALCARBON
  • 17. Project design standards CarbonFix Global Conservation Standard Plan Vivo
  • 18.
    • None of the standards that we evaluated covered the 6 areas of evaluation comprehensively.
    • Carbonfix and GCS provide the most comprehensive coverage.
    • In practice, the choice of the standards will depend on the project modalities, scale, scope, and the expectations of the prospective sponsors.
    Conclusions
  • 19.
    • Projects seeking certification may need to consider combining certification by two or more standards
      • Either of the CCB standards may be combined with either of the forestry standards
      • Project design standards and Forestry standards should be combined with GHG accounting standards
    • Transactions costs will likely increase for each standard used by a project.
    Conclusions
  • 20.
    • www.cifor.cgiar.org
    CLICK TO EDIT MASTER TITLE STYLE THINKING beyond the canopy Click to edit Master text styles www.cifor.cgiar.org