REALU: Linking REDD+ and NAMA Approaches


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

REALU: Linking REDD+ and NAMA Approaches

  1. 1. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses in Indonesia:  linking REDD+ and NAMA approaches 25 February 2011, Bogor Tree cover and demographic transitions in Indonesia and their consequences for emission reduction opportunities base opportunities, base- lines and stratification of ‘pilots’ Meine van Noordwijk and Sonya Dewi Meine an Noord ijk and Son a De i
  2. 2. Where does agriculture start  & forest end?Yet, institutions see a dichotomy & contrast
  3. 3. Rights to define forest  ~ 5 different ways of classifying forest: Conservation +  10% State  National Park watershed  Forest Protected Area protection  Forest  forest Restoration conces‐ Emis‐ domain sion sion  53% Other +  Community‐forest GHG Production  C capture disputed  forest forest lands Village forest Benefit‐sharing Convertible  Logging concession forest Plantation contract l Official conversion from  forest to non‐forest land  status: ‘planned  p Mixed agroforest,  deforestation’ private forests,  Non‐forest land uses  community  landscapes with  ( (APL)) trees 1. By ecosystem  2. By vegetation       3. By land use          4. By ‘owner’   5. By ‘co‐management service                  & its C‐stocks category  regime’
  4. 4. “The global REDD+ agreement is ready to go, it may  pnot be perfect, but it is time to act now” But have we  agreed on  agreed on which trees are  NOT a forest? Tony La Vina
  5. 5. Stakeholder:1. Undisturbed natural forest   Rainforest foundation2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 2 Undisturbed + sust logged natural forest Conservation agency3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest     Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations  4B 3 i b l i Ministry of Forestry4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops  UNFCCC definition4D as 4C + shrub  Modis data
  6. 6.
  7. 7. Nicholas SternREDD finance should be used for investment REDD finance should be used for investmentin alternative development pathways that support maintenance of C stocks – rather  t i t fC t k ththan in protection of forests per se
  8. 8. Tree cover transitionWidening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared
  9. 9. In the 1990’s loss of  natural cover increased  the amount of ‘low C‐ stock’/low economic  value land; tree (crop)  value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the  loss of natural forest  areaAfter 2000 planting of tree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss of of concurrent loss ofnatural forest; the amount of low C‐stock/low economic value land decreases Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010
  10. 10. consequences for• emission reduc- i i dtion opportunities,• base-lines and• stratification of‘pilots’
  11. 11. Agricultural intensification hypothesisRemote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed      ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994 ASB findings in 1994 systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems… More intensive agriculture at forest  margins can save forest at equal total  agricultural production agricultural production Or… speed up  forest conversion  forest conversion to profitable  agriculture This may be  This is true in  true in  ‘open’  ‘open’ ‘closed’  economies economies
  12. 12. From a ‘land sparing’ to a ‘land sharing’ paradigm of landscape multifunctionality di fl d ltif ti lit• Managing a gradient rather than dichotomy Managing a gradient rather than dichotomyRealistic +Conditional +C diti l+Voluntary +Pro‐pooragreements g 6/7
  13. 13. The REDD+(+) value chain & C rights1. Local development pathway & land use2.2 ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains) ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains)3. minus allowance for Cstock uncertainty y4. additional to Reference Emission Level Transaction5. minus allowance for leakage costs when seen from local6.6 filtered by eligibility criteria filtered by eligibility criteria perspective7. multiplied with price/investment level p p C rights apply8. minus taxes and retribution to steps 1…8
  14. 14. Unpacking carbon rights – beyond ‘forest’ 1• Modify C stock of land (Cut trees      , Plant  2, 3, 4, 5, trees      , Use fire      , Control fire     , Drain      ,  6 Rewet peat       , Pest&Disease Control      ,  7 8 InfGrowthRate      , Remove topsoil/mining      ) p g 9 )• Reduce C stock uncertainty 10• Establish baseline/additionality 11 Establish baseline/additionality• Determine leakage (emission displacement) 12• Define eligibility of emission reduction claim 13• Negotiate price or investment regime 14 g p g• Impose tax and/or co‐invest public funds 15
  15. 15. Rights to Plot Village Landscape Country Global bodies 1 Cut/harvest 1 Cut/harvest 2 Plant 3 Burn Land use plan- Land  4 Control fire ning, ning tenurial use  reform, reducing 5 Drain 6 Re‐wet peat rights ~  conflicts over 7 Pest control tenure multiple rights 8 Growth rates 9 Mine 9 Mine Bottom up participation10 Measure MRV MRV‐inst11 REL standard LAAMA NAMA GAMA12 Leakage NAMA13 Eligibility filter Top-down planning REDD +  safeguards14 C  $ Fund‐based15 Tax & coinvest REDD+strat
  16. 16. PES (Wunder, 2005)Increased efficiency  CES  Open market and flexibility in produ‐ f y p Increased ‘fairness’  trade in  commoditized trade in ‘commoditized’ cing well‐defined ES ES produced by legal  and opportunity to sup‐using operational  land users on demand port interest of rural       indicators for ‘scala‐ .    poor in situations with ble ES; price basedble’ ES; price based  ES are scalable with MRV in place p contested land contested landon bargaining  COS  Compensate legal land users for  use rights and ES power & total  skipping their opportunities to shift  as emergent supply land use to more pro fitable but less ES  land use to more pro‐fitable but less ES properties of  friendly land use landscape  mosaics Legality of land use is clear and non‐contested CIS  CIS Seek co‐investment by external and local  Seek co‐investment by external and local stakeholders to reduce legal, semi‐ and illegal threats  to ES, through support for collective action and  building of social & human capital External value of environmental services exceeds local appreciation Clarify the relationship between land use options, productivity, profitability  and provision of environmental services  (ES) – from the perspective of  local, public/policy and scientific ecological/economic knowledge l l bli / li d i ifi l i l/ i k l d Non‐linear baseline: tree cover transitions
  17. 17. http://www.asb.ww
  18. 18. Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade and the global displacement ofland use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, XXXX
  19. 19. http://www.asb.ww
  20. 20.   Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010
  21. 21. Active small-scale conversion Slow small- sca e scale Last block of 18,000 ha peat conversion swamp forest as ‘protection protection Javanese zone’ migrants Large-scale conversion for oil palm and HTI
  22. 22. Fairness/Transparency Efficiency/Clarity Legend: International rules, Respect, Image, fund/market Knowledge International border value chain ment Free and Prior relations paym Nested baselines, certi- N t db li ti Informed Consent fied emission reduction of sovereign decision makers Subnational sectors/areas  private sector p Investment/ / Finance: invest- rust/threat CREDD ment, payment Additionality ~ baseline g p Leakage/displacement Certified Emission Tr Reduction Local sectors/areas  private sector Monitoring C stocks & project cycle aspects Local sectors/areas: communities, households Sustainable livelihood Reducing direct drivers support of emissions
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.