1. Indonesia NAMA concept:
I d i NAMAs t
Land-based Sector
Yuliana C. Wulan, Philippe Guizol,
Heiner von Luepke
ICRAF NAMA Half Day Seminar,
25 February 2011

2. Outline
 Indonesian NAMAs Development
 Land-based NAMAs: scope and cross
cutting issues – linking to National
REDD+
 Baseline (BAU) and target line
 MRV
 Prioritizing mitigation actions
 Next Steps

3. Indonesia s
Indonesia’s NAMAs Development
 Indonesian NAMAs - RAN GRK (Draft Perpres)
 Unilateral: self-financing (26% from the National
Baseline – Letter to UNFCCC, 30 Jan 2010).
 Supported NAMAs ( p to 41% with International
pp (up
support - G20 Meeting in Pittsburgh 2009).
 RAN/GRK NAMAs: sectoral basis (forestry,
/ ( y,
and peatland; agriculture; energy, transport
and industry; and waste).

4. General NAMAs Concept in
Indonesia
 Scope and rationale,
 Baseline (BAU) and sectoral target: nationally
integrated,
i t t d
 Mitigation scenarios,
 Potential costs and benefits
benefits,
 Priority mitigation actions,
 Policies measures and instruments
Policies, instruments,
 MRV

5. General NAMAs Concept in
Indonesia
WU1
Source: Situmeang, 2011

6. Slide 5
WU1 proposed slide title: General NAMAs concept in Indonesia
The source will be an issue? I am bringing this up, as the paper is by no means approved or accepted by bappenas...informally we are
working with it already in a lot of ways, but let us consult with Idai, if this can be already presented officially (just to be in the safe
side)
Windows User, 2/22/2011

7. Land Based NAMAs: starting
from the land
WU2
Indonesia lands in million ha
Indonesia lands in million ha
Forest lands Total
Total APL. Non
Limited Permanent Convertion Total forest Forest land
Conservation Protection Production Production Forest Forest land (Agriculture…) Total
Forest cover 15,2 23,0 18,8 22,1 79,1 11,0 90,1 8,3 98,5
Non‐Forest
cover 3,8
38 5,9
59 5,5
55 13,1
13 1 28,3
28 3 11,0
11 0 39,3
39 3 46,5
46 5 85,8
85 8
Data
deficiency 0,7 0,9 0,5 0,5 2,6 0,3 3,0 0,6 3,6
Total 19,7
, 29,9
, 24,8
, 35,7
, 110,0
, 22,4
, 132,4
, 55,4
, 187,8
,
% of Total 10% 16% 13% 19% 59% 12% 71% 29% 100%
Source: Forest Statistics, MoFor 2009
About 67 % of emissions are land based (SNC 2010)
(SNC,

8. Slide 6
WU2 to explain: actual forest stocks versus official land use type? And: can we use another term for "data deficiency"? something like "error
range"?
Windows User, 2/22/2011

9. Scope of land based NAMA
 The scope of the Land based NAMAs
includes forests, forest and agri-
plantations,
plantations agroforestry and other
h6
agriculture lands.
 Land based NAMAs scope includes REDD+
scope.
h7
 To be noticed: No explanations about
p
articulations between land based NAMA &
REDD in Cancun

10. Slide 7
h6 i thought peatlands can be found under any kind of land use type? Hence it is more a soil class and not strictly used for a particular
land use type...so for scope setting we can say: all of the scopes can include as a special type "xxx land use type on peat"
heiner, 2/22/2011
h7 can we say somewhere, why we are after all concerned about the issue of drawing the scope of REDD+ and other land based NAMAs?
In my view because:
- a clear scope will allow to establish BAU scenario/reference levels
- the remaining NAMA/REDD+ elements can be established only if we know the respective scopes
we assume however, that design elements of NAMA and REDD in accordance with the indonesian concept are rather similar and hence
must be made compatible
heiner, 2/22/2011

11. Land based NAMAs and
REDD+: why setting the scope
 We
W need an integrated landscape approach: full carbon
d i t t dl d h f ll b
accounting needed, avoiding that some activities not included in
REDD+ are left unconsidered and vice versa
 A clear scope will allow to establish BAU scenario/reference levels
l ill ll bli h i / f l l
 The remaining NAMA/REDD+ elements (mitigation scenarios,
policies measures, instruments, mitigation actions, MRV) can be
established only if we know the respective scopes
 We assume however that design elements of NAMA and REDD in
accordance with the Indonesian concepts are rather similar and
hence must be made compatible

12. Land based NAMA: including
National REDD+
 REDD+ scope: not clearly defined (territorial and h8
t l l d fi d (t it i l d
activities) – STRANAS REDD+, Cancun agreement
 REDD+ modalities are more advanced compared to
NAMAs (i
NAMA (inc. international finance support, guiding
i i l fi idi
principle, etc.) h9
h10
 REDD+ Task Force (UKP4): establishing national REDD+
institutions, formulating REDD+ national strategy,
designing financing instrument for all REDD+ activities
in Indonesia, setting up framework and independent
MRV institution
 NAMAs will cover the broadest land use sector
classifications and link to baseline/mitigation actions
from all sectors

13. Slide 9
h8 according to which source? stranas REDD+?
heiner, 2/22/2011
h9 to add: "Gives the opportunity to learn for the formulation of remaining NAMAs"
heiner, 2/22/2011
h10 when we speak about links...what is the implication of this bullet point?
heiner, 2/22/2011

14. Scope of land based NAMA
LAND‐BASED NAMAS
LAND BASED NAMAS
LAND USE TYPE REDD+ SCOPE
SCOPE
PRIMARY FOREST (ON PERMANENT/
INCLUDE INCLUDE
CONVERTIBLE FOREST AREA)
SECONDARY FOREST (ON PERMANENT/
SECONDARY FOREST (ON PERMANENT/
INCLUDE INCLUDE
CONVERTIBLE FOREST AREA)
LOGGED OVER FOREST ON PRODUCTION
INCLUDE INCLUDE
AND PEATLAND
FOREST AREA (HPH/IUPHHK)
TIMBER PLANTATION ON FOREST ZONE
NOT CLEAR YET* INCLUDE
(HTI/HTR)
PRIVATE TIMBER PLANTATION (HUTAN
NOT CLEAR YET*
O C INCLUDE
CU
DRY LAND A
RAKYAT) ON APL
RAKYAT) ON APL
CROP PLANTATION (EG., RUBBER,
NOT CLEAR YET* INCLUDE
COFFEE, COCOA)
AGROFOREST NOT CLEAR YET*
NOT CLEAR YET* INCLUDE
OIL PALM EXCLUDE INCLUDE
OPEN FIELD FOOD CROPS EXCLUDE INCLUDE
RICE FIELD EXCLUDE INCLUDE
SETTLEMENTS/ROAD EXCLUDE INCLUDE
h11
*GOI should clarify whether this should be include/exclude under national REDD+ scope

15. Slide 10
h11 did you advance yet with your arguments for your expert judgment/recommendation?
heiner, 2/22/2011

16. Baseline (BAU) and target line
h12
M t of CO2
Land based BAU
Unilateral
Target line = BAU‐ X%
Supported
Historical baseline Market
Actual future trajectory?
Years
Past Emissions Commitment period

17. Slide 11
h12 does this refer to the accumulated or point in time difference in the year 2020? (it is implied in the term target line that it is
accumulated, but i wanted to be sure...)
heiner, 2/22/2011
h14 as mentioned: please make sure that supported and market are two distinct ranges...here it sounds as if they are one and the same
heiner, 2/22/2011

18. MRV (Decision_/CP.16)
 Internationally Supported Mitigation Actions will be
Measured, Reported and Verified (MRV) domestically and
will b subject t I t
ill be bj t to International M
ti l Measurement, R
t Reporting
ti
and Verification in accordance with Guidelines to be
developed under the Convention.
p
 Domestically Supported Mitigation Actions will be
Measured, Reported and Verified (MRV) Domestically in
, p ( ) y
accordance with General Guidelines to be developed under
the Convention.

19. MRV Priorities for Land-based
NAMAs
h16
1.
1 Defining credible Land based BAU and target line
(Clear assumptions…)
2. Derive MRV indicators: only possible after setting the
scope of REDD+/LB NAMAs
f / h15
3. Making MRV Institutions right (transparent, one
National MRV institution – so that MRV institution for
REDD+ should be inline with national MRV)
4. Advance Indonesia capacity for improving satellite
imageries analysis emissions factors, data on land
analysis, factors
management as well as for improving human
resources though training
5. An information system on safeguards
5 A i f ti t f d

20. Slide 13
h15 but you have one for REDD+ already...so you will have more than one eventually..or do you want to say that the UKP4 institution
should do all MRV in all sectors? (fair enough, but that is not the plan, i think)
heiner, 2/22/2011
h16 how would MRV differ according to REDD+ and remaining land based NAMAs?
MRV according to international standards and conducted by UKP4 new instittion for REDD+, whereas it would be up to the sectors and
national framework to decide how to do the MRV for remaining land based NAMAs?
Another point to be mentioned: MRV indicators of REDD+ and land based NAMAs should be different, becuase they will be derived by
the particular mitigation actions...
heiner, 2/22/2011

21. Prioritizing Land based
mitigation actions
1. Pre-requisite
1 Pre requisite and enabling conditions
2. Mitigation actions priorities should take into
account:
1. Other Indonesian government policies, which
affect land use decisions (economic development,
poverty reduction co-benefits)
reduction, co benefits).
2. Action effectiveness and practicality
3. Cost-efficiency, which includes transaction costs,
investment costs and opportunity costs.
4. Fairness (local community rights, social
safeguards)
g )

22. Further Steps for Developing
h17
Indonesia NAMAs:
 R i
Review and establish common national policy f
d t bli h ti l li framework
k
and legal systems related to lands
 Set up baseline for land-based sector that linked to
national BAU sectoral t
ti l BAU, t l target line, and mitigation
t li d iti ti
scenarios
 Set up MRV system (institutional and technical concept)
 Review potential abatement costs (inc. opportunity cost,
transaction and adm.cost) and benefits (inc. co-benefits
and social safeguards)
 Prioritize mitigation actions
 Formulating financing schemes and benefit-cost sharing
mechanisms

23. Slide 15
h17 will this also be valid for the land based NAMAs including REDD+?
heiner, 2/22/2011

24. National Centre for NAMAs Development Office
Wisma Bakrie II 6th Floor
Jl.
Jl HR Rasuna Said Kav B-2
Kav. B 2
Jakarta 12920
T +62-21-57945739
F +62-21-57945739