Lasco - Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Lasco - Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects

on

  • 819 views

Rodel D. Lasco (ICRAF). Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects. Presented at CCAFS Science Meeting, 1-2 December 2010

Rodel D. Lasco (ICRAF). Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects. Presented at CCAFS Science Meeting, 1-2 December 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
819
Views on SlideShare
819
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

    Lasco - Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects Lasco - Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects Presentation Transcript

    • Lessons  learned  from  RUPES:    The  Carbon  Market  for  A/R   Projects   Rodel  D.  Lasco   World  Agroforestry  Centre  (ICRAF)   1 1  
    • What  is  PES?  1.  a  voluntary  transacDon  in  which    2.  a  well-­‐defined  environmental  service  (or  a   land  use  likely  to  secure  that  service)    3.  is  “bought”  by  a  (minimum  of  one)  buyer    4.  from  a  (minimum  of  one)  provider    5.  if  and  only  if  the  provider  conDnuously   secures  the  provision  of  the  service   (condiDonality).   Wunder 2005 RD  Lasco   2  
    • Watershed Protection Biodiversity Protection Carbon Sequestration Landscape BeautyRD  Lasco   Source: Francisco, 2005 3  
    • •  four  main  types  of  environmental  services:     –  carbon  sequestraDon  and  storage     –  biodiversity  protecDon     –  watershed  protecDon     –  protecDon  of  landscape  beauty     4  
    • Tropical  Forests  and  the     Carbon  Cycle   IPCC, 2007 5  
    • Global  emissions  (1850-­‐2000)   6  6   Murdiyarso et al., 2009
    • CDM  vs  REDD  A/R CDM(sequestration) REDD (emission reduction) RD Lasco 7 7   Van Noordwijk, 2007
    • Scope  of  REDD   RED CDM REDD REDD+REDD++/REALU/AFOLU including all land uses(eg agriculture) 8  
    • (Painful)  LESSONS  FROM  CDM   (AND  REDD)   9 9  
    • 1.  It  takes  Dme!     REDD Kyoto    Marrakesh  (A/R)                            COP  15  Mexico     |   |   |   |   |   |   |   1990                              97                    2002                                  2007        08        09                    2012      Post  2012         Kyoto   Base  year   1st  Commitment  Period   Under  Kyoto  Protocol  10  
    • CDM  Projects  by  scope  as  of  22  Nov  2010   0.56% from A/R (17 projects)11  
    • 2.  High  transacDon  costs  •  Base  financing  for  tree   planDng  lacking    •  TransacDon  cost   significant  (>  US$   200,000)  •  Carbon  credits  not   sufficient  to  cover  total   cost  of  project  •  No  CDM  project  has   been  approved  in  the   Philippines   12  
    • Example:  5,000  ha  in  the  Philippines   13  
    • CostCan be made profitable byIncluding harvest fromproducts like wood and fruits! 14  
    • 3.  Measuring  and  monitoring  of  carbon  benefits  (MRV)  •  Pose  huge  challenges  especially  for  forest   degradaDon.    •  difficult  to  monitor  because  available  data  are   limited,  highly  uncertain,  and  not  readily   detectable  from  exisDng  satellites  •  The  IPCC  approach  can  be  used  •  In  CDM,  approval  of  methods  cost  money   15  
    • Gain-lossStock-difference approach approach 16  
    • 4.  Equitable  sharing  of  benefits  •  Carbon  payment  must  be  shared  fairly   especially  to  local  farmers  and  land  mangers  •  With  lijle  experience  in  handling  carbon   payments,  there  are  few  models  to  learn  from  •  Small  farmers  could  be  eased  out   17  
    • How  a  REDD  mechanism  may  look  like….   18   Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikof, 2008
    • 4.  ProtecDng  small  farmers  and  indigenous  peoples  rights  •  The  rights  of  local  and  indigenous  peoples  may  be   threatened  under  REDD.    •  The  rights  of  Indigenous  Peoples  necessary  for   success  of  REDD  •  Some  contend  that  lijle  was  being  done  to  enable   the  parDcipaDon  of  indigenous  communiDes  •  or  to  protect  the  right  to  free,  prior  and  informed   consent  (FPIC),  as  provided  in  the  UN  DeclaraDon  on   the  Rights  of  Indigenous  Peoples     19  
    • 6.  Governance  •  The  ability  of  naDonal  and  local  insDtuDons  to   manage  the  REDD  process  needs  to  be   addressed  through  a  capacity  building   program.     20  
    • UNFCCC, 2009 21  
    • 7.  PromoDng  co-­‐benefits  •  Forests  produce  many  other  goods  and   services  other  than  carbon  which  must  also  be   protected.    •  OpportuniDes  of  poor  country  parDcipaDon  •  Link  with  other  internaDonal  convenDons   (CBD,  Ramsar)  •  Local  co-­‐benefits  eg  watershed  protecDon   22  
    • 8.  MulDple  stakeholders  •  As  a  result  of  the  preceding,  there  are  many   stakeholders  concerned  with  how  forests  are   managed.    •  Eg  small/large  farmers,  hydro-­‐power,   irrigaDon,  wood  industry,  (eco-­‐)tourism    •  Their  interests  will  have  to  be  considered  in   any  C  project.   23  
    • The  Philippines  and  REDD   24 24  
    • The  vanishing  Philippine  forests…   Extent of Forest Cover Loss for the last 100 years70 % 60 % 40 %34 % 23.7 % 18.3 % Source: Dolom, 2006; Adapted from Environmental Science for Social Change, 1999 25  
    • 26  
    • No  deforestaDon?   27 27  
    • Most  likely  the  2nd  D…    18,000     Acosta, 2009  16,000      14,000      12,000     Closed  canopy    10,000     Open  canopy   Mangrove,  Natural    8,000     PlantaDon    6,000     Total  forest   Other  wooded  land    4,000      2,000      -­‐     1969   1988   2003   28  
    • degradation 29  
    • REDD  Assessment  Framework   REDD   Types  of   Land   Policies  and   OpOon     AcOviOes   included   Role  of  and   InsOtuOons   Included   benefits  to   smallholders  RED  REDD  REDD+  REDD++/  REALU   30 30  
    • REDD   Types  of   Land   Role  and   OpOon     AcOviOes   included   benefits  of   Policies  and  InsOtuOons   Included   CBFM   smallholders  RED   NONE-­‐   Possibly   None  since  no   DENR  will  be  the  lead  unit   forest  area   none   land  will   involved   increasing   qualify.   Logging  banned  in  all   recently  so   primary  forests  (1  M  ha)   credit  for   Logging  allowed  in  second-­‐ RED  unlikely.   growth  forests  Protected   areas  law  (NIPAS)   Law  for  indigenous   peoples  lands  (IPRA)   31 31  
    • REDD   Types  of   Land   Policies  and   OpOon     AcOviOes   included   InsOtuOons   Role  and  benefits  of  CBFM   Included   smallholders  REDD   There  is   7  million   CBFM  smallholders   DENR  will  be  the  lead   anecdotal   has   potenDal  beneficiaries  as   unit  involved   evidence  that   “guardians”  of  the  forest.   Policies  same  as  above   forest   They  can  help  protect   degradaDon  is   forests  from  loss  of   going  on  (eg   biomass  through  logging   illegal  cumng)  .   and  fuelwood  gathering.   They  can  also  assist  local   authoriDes  in  prevenDng   encroachment  of  migrants   in  natural  forests.  In  this   role,  smallholders  could   have  a  share  of  carbon   payments.   32 32  
    • REDD   Types  of   Land   Policies  and   OpOon     AcOviOes   included   InsOtuOons   Role  and  benefits  of   Included   CBFM  smallholders  REDD+   Reducing  the   7  million   Same  as  above.   DENR  will  be  the  lead   rate  of  biomass   has  of   unit  involved   In  addiDon,  CBFM   degradaDon  in   forests   smallholders  can   DA  could  also  be   forests   9  million   implement  projects  that   involved   Enrichment   has  of   enhance  carbon   Policies  same  as   planDng   open   sequestraDon  such  as   above   lands  in   agroforestry,   ANR   “forest”   reforestaDon,  and  ANR  in   ReforestaDon/   lands   open  lands  under  their   agroforestry   management.  These  will   increase  carbon  payments   for  smallholders.   33 33  
    • Gaps  and  Research  Needs  •  With  exisDng  data,  it  is  relaDvely  easier  to   esDmate  the  potenDal  carbon  credits  from  loss  of   forests  or  deforestaDon.    •  However,  the  Philippines  does  not  stand  to  gain   credit  from  reducing  deforestaDon    •  There  is  hardly  any  informaDon  on  biomass   degradaDon  rates  in  Philippine  forests.     34 34  
    • •  Another  possible  indicator  is  fuelwood  gathering.    •  major  need  is  to  study  the  rate  of  biomass   degradaDon  in  various  types  and  geographic   locaDons.    •  One  way  to  do  this  is  to  check  forest  inventory   records    •  Remote  sensing  techniques  coupled  with  GIS  should   be  explored.   35 35  
    • •  A  second  informaDon  gap  relates  to  drivers  of   biomass  degradaDon  in  Philippine  forests.    •  These  are  crucial  in  craning  policies  and   measures  to  reduce  degradaDon.    •  The  usual  culprits  are  well  known—illegal   cumng,  Dmber  poaching,  fuelwood  gathering.    •  However,  empirical  data  are  wanDng.     36 36  
    • •  Should  carbon  payments  flow  to  the  country,   how  this  will  be  shared  to  local  communiDes   including  indigenous  people  has  not  yet  been   invesDgated.    •   The  capacity  of  the  DENR  as  well  as  other   local  government  units  to  implement  and   monitor  REDD  at  the  naDonal  and  local  level  is   sDll  weak.     37 37  
    • PotenDal  implicaDons  to   Agriculture  Carbon  Projects    •  Carbon  credits  from  land  use  changes  can  take   Dme  to  develop  •  Technical,  social,  economic  and  governance   concerns  must  be  addressed  •  Relying  on  carbon  benefits  alone  not   profitable   38  
    • Thank  you!   39 39