Drivers, forest transitions and setting baselines at sub-national level

  • 88 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
88
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Drivers, forest transitions and settingbaselines at sub-national levelSonya DewiwithMeine van Noordwijk,Peter Minang
  • 2. OUTLINE• Reference Emission Levels (REL) in thecontext of REDD and land based NAMAs(Submission to SBSTA UNFCCC, February 28 2012)• Experiences and lessons learnt fromIndonesia
  • 3. REL IN THE CONTEXT OFREDD+ AND LAND-BASEDNAMA
  • 4. Key points• The forest transition’concept can be operationalized as typology ofsubnational entities within a large country; an example forIndonesia• Different REL calculation techniques apply to different stages offorest transition, at (sub)national level, to fulfill fairness andefficiency principles• Evaluation of existing (pre‐REDD discussion) planneddeforestation’provides an indication of feasible emissions, asregards infrastructure, labour and capital requirements forconversion• The concept of reference level’of deforestation is non‐ operationalunless a stringent ‘natural forest’definition can be agreed uponinternationally; for example Indonesias recent deforestation ratevaries from ‐0.5 to 3% depending on the forest definition used.• Linear temporal and spatial extrapolation of historical emissiontrends is neither a realistic nor a fair basis for determining REL
  • 5. Local circumstances• Variation within a country regarding landuse changes and drivers of land usechanges, and therefore emissions in thepast• Variation wrt poverty, HDI, populationdensity, regional income – needs foreconomic growth and equity• Variations in land and forest resources –stock
  • 6. 60% Undisturbed forest; deforestation are lowest20% Undisturbed forest; half LOF; degradation is highest<20% UF, degraded forest and estate; deforestation is highest10% natural forest; 30% mixed tree, 15% estate and crop:deforestation >degradation, but lower than the above10% natural forest; 30% estate, 15% crop land and mixed tree40% crop land, small fraction of NF in PA, 20% estate, 15%mixed tree and settlementForest transitionsFrom landcover 1990, 2000, 2005
  • 7. Proposed methodology
  • 8. Forward Looking RELHistorical RELDiscounted Historical RELHistorical RLProposed methodology for REL
  • 9. Forward looking scenario: Aligningbaseline scenario and REL withdevelopment and land use planning
  • 10. Land use/cover map of 2005 and existing plan ofPapua
  • 11. Baseline scenario and REL based on drivermodelling
  • 12. Example: Spatially explicit modelof land use change• Modelling with NeuralNetwork (MultilayerPerceptron) in IDRISI• Scope: Berau and EastKalimantan• Period: 2000 – 2020• Proximate drivers: landsuitability, elevation, spatialplan, distance to road,river, settlement, loggingconcession, forestplantation, distances toforest and changed area,population density
  • 13. Actual 200820102020
  • 14. Key points• The forest transition’concept can be operationalized as typology ofsubnational entities within a large country; an example forIndonesia• Different REL calculation techniques apply to different stages offorest transition, at (sub)national level, to fulfill fairness andefficiency principles• Evaluation of existing (pre‐REDD discussion) planneddeforestation’provides an indication of feasible emissions, asregards infrastructure, labour and capital requirements forconversion• The concept of reference level’of deforestation is non‐ operationalunless a stringent ‘natural forest’definition can be agreed uponinternationally; for example Indonesias recent deforestation ratevaries from ‐0.5 to 3% depending on the forest definition used.• Linear temporal and spatial extrapolation of historical emissiontrends is neither a realistic nor a fair basis for determining REL
  • 15. Ex: Linear projection:historical rate of LULCC020004000600080001000012000T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10Forest(ha)Year/periodDeforestation rate = 0.1Deforestation rate = 0.1Area of 10,000 ha of forest over 10 year or 10 time periods
  • 16. Key points• The forest transition’concept can be operationalized as typology ofsubnational entities within a large country; an example forIndonesia• Different REL calculation techniques apply to different stages offorest transition, at (sub)national level, to fulfill fairness andefficiency principles• Evaluation of existing (pre‐REDD discussion) planneddeforestation’provides an indication of feasible emissions, asregards infrastructure, labour and capital requirements forconversion• The concept of reference level’of deforestation is non‐ operationalunless a stringent ‘natural forest’definition can be agreed uponinternationally; for example Indonesias recent deforestation ratevaries from ‐0.5 to 3% depending on the forest definition used.• Linear temporal and spatial extrapolation of historical emissiontrends is neither a realistic nor a fair basis for determining REL
  • 17. EXPERIENCES AND LESSONSLEARNT FROM INDONESIA
  • 18. Projection ofEmission ReductionReference EmissionLevel2000 2010 2020Mt/y Projection ofEmission fromMitigation ScenarioHistoric emission for the base period:- Source of emissions and drivers ofLUCC- Emission shareHistoric EmissionReference Emission Level:- Baseline scenario, incl drivers- Projected emissionMitigation activities:- Addressing dominant sourcesof emission and levers- Projected emission frommitigation
  • 19. Transition Probability Matrixfor setting baseline scenario
  • 20. Reference level(cumm CO2-eq/ha to 2020)
  • 21. Lessons learnt• Trainings were conducted with variable success rates nation-wide atprovince level• Progressive provinces have more initiative in collecting data andbuilding capacities in setting baseline beyond historical projection• Parallel processes in developing provincial strategies of REDD+ inpilot provinces were hard to reconcile from the beginning butconverge toward the end• Unsupported national action plan for mitigation is soon to besubmitted as the Indonesian NAMA• There are still confusion between LAMA-NAMA nesting due topolitical consideration• Due to attribution, the direct activities and enabling conditions aremixed up• Scope of land-based NAMA coincides with REDD+: REL and MRVshould be common between the two mechanisms
  • 22. Recommendations• District level action planning should take place inthe next round, since it is at the district levelwhere the real on-the-ground implementationwill be happening• Design iterative review and revise processes• Guidelines from the government is necessary toavoid confusion, including the nesting processes• Data improvement• Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting as part ofMRV system
  • 23. THANK YOU VERY MUCHTERIMA KASIH