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
  • INTRO: Mention context of negotiations, about the progress of the week, the discussions on REDD, global negotiations context PRESENTATION WILL COVER The highlights of REDD-Indonesia The importance of demonstration programs for development of REDD-Indonesia Overview of the Berau Forest Carbon Program as a potentially significant part of the demonstration phase
  • EXPECTED BENEFITS Economic - Employment maintained by engaging productive sectors rather than focusing just on conservation - Forest services maintained providing important economic benefits for local people Community / cultural Participation in program governance and site-level strategies Traditional lifestyles Environmental Habitat for 1,500 orangutans protected Ecosystem services Watershed protection CONCLUSIONS: Berau can be a key component of the demonstration phase in Indonesia providing important lessons learned for national program development, and also other local initiatives Working at the district level can help develop a key building block of a provincial and national program There must also be other demonstration programs in other biological, social, and economic contexts to develop a comprehensive REDD approach for Indonesia We think that there has been good progress to date, but we also realize we are at an early stage. We hope that we can have a dialogue and discussion with you over time, get feedback and ideas for the program We hope that the discussion over dinner can be a start of this
  • Who is involved? Top level decision-makers Government bureaucrats (senior, junior) Private sector Civil society Public What needs to get done? REDD policy Broader NRM policy Development planning/REDD strategy development Detailed land use planning Etc. Financial management Short-term Long-term Strategy implementation NRM Growth Development Measures Carbon Communities Biodiversity Communications
  • Jill’s bookcase Stop kidding ourselves
  • The emissions reduction actions planned for the pilot phase largely reinforce existing goals, but to go significantly beyond that, as a meaningful forest carbon program would need to, it will be necessary to develop much more robust decision tools that integrate appropriate economic (including carbon), social, and environmental data and allow decision-makers to determine optimal strategies. The program will focus on generating data, integrating data, and building processes to incorporate data into decision-making.
  • hovani_large_scale_implementation

    1. 1. Lessons Learned for Implementing Large-Scale REDD Programs Lex Hovani, Forest Carbon Advisor, TNC Indonesia REDD eX July 13-16, 2010
    2. 2. REDD “ I wouldn’t give a fig for the simplicity on this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the far side of complexity.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes (former U.S. Supreme Court Justice)
    3. 3. Outline <ul><li>Current situation </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of what needs to be done </li></ul><ul><li>3 key points </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strong core teams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smarter joint problem solving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Breakthrough knowledge management </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. CO2e Tons Millions The Goal: 3 billion tons REDD+ by 2020 3 G tons Halving deforestation and degradation by 2020 is an ambitious yet achievable goal, as part of a comprehensive approach to reducing emissions from all sectors
    5. 5. Expected Results????
    6. 6. Opportunities <ul><ul><li>Market forces taking hold (Lacey, European agreement, oil palm, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership from key countries (e.g. Indonesia, Brazil) not contingent on carbon finance—at least in short-term </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There are low-cost ways to increase the pace of development (even growth) while reducing exploitation of natural resources </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Outline <ul><li>Current situation </li></ul><ul><li>What needs to be done </li></ul><ul><li>3 key points </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strong core teams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smarter joint problem solving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Breakthrough knowledge management </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Bringing it all Together REDD+ Program Management & Leadership Forest Sector Dynamics Conservation Strategies Carbon Accounting/MRV Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Financing Low Carbon Development Plan Legal and Institutional Frameworks Stakeholder Involvement & Benefit Sharing
    9. 9. Outline <ul><li>Current situation </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of what needs to be done </li></ul><ul><li>3 key points </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Strong core teams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Smarter joint problem solving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Breakthrough knowledge management </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. REDD Strong core teams
    11. 11. Strong core teams <ul><li>Who needs them </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing country governments—all levels </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Donor agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Large-scale programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>International organizations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NGOs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why? Because REDD Programs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are complex—require expertise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are intricate—pieces need to fit, phasing important </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Involve many partners—need a hub </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Require adaptive management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>need to learn by doing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>stay aligned with shifting context as uncertainties get resolved </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Main BFCP Implementation Capacity Berau District Government Seconded staff Bupati <ul><li>District Agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Sekda </li></ul><ul><li>Bappeda </li></ul><ul><li>Kehutanan </li></ul><ul><li>Tata Ruang </li></ul><ul><li>Perkebunan </li></ul><ul><li>Pertanian </li></ul><ul><li>Pekerjaan umum </li></ul><ul><li>Pertanahan </li></ul><ul><li>Pertambangan </li></ul><ul><li>BFCP Technical Teams </li></ul><ul><li>REL </li></ul><ul><li>DA </li></ul><ul><li>Planning </li></ul>Berau Pokja REDD Technical Assistance Unit Management and Admin : (10) Supervisory Council REDD Site Activities MRV (3) Land Use Planning (3) Governance & Enforcement (3) Stakeholder involvement (3) Timber Concessions (2) Protection Forest (1) Oil Palm (1) Secretariat (4) Communities (3) Sub-contract Sub-contract Sub-contract
    13. 13. BFCP collaboration <ul><li>Partners </li></ul><ul><li>District Government REDD Working Group </li></ul><ul><li>Ministry of Forestry </li></ul><ul><li>Provincial Government REDD Working Group </li></ul><ul><li>ICRAF </li></ul><ul><li>Mulawarman University </li></ul><ul><li>Winrock International </li></ul><ul><li>World Resources Institute </li></ul><ul><li>Sekala </li></ul><ul><li>University of Queensland </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. Forest Service </li></ul><ul><li>Daemeter Consulting </li></ul><ul><li>World Education </li></ul><ul><li>Baker & McKenzie </li></ul><ul><li>Forest Carbon, Inc. </li></ul><ul><li>IHSA </li></ul><ul><li>TNC Operating Units </li></ul><ul><li>Indonesia Terrestrial Program </li></ul><ul><li>Responsible Asian Forest and Trade </li></ul><ul><li>Global Climate Team </li></ul><ul><li>Global Science Team (measures program) </li></ul>
    14. 14. REDD Smarter joint problem-solving
    15. 15. Types of problems <ul><li>Unresolved governance issues (land tenure, conflicting regulations, unclear roles) </li></ul><ul><li>REDD Approach/REDD policy/REDD Institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Low-carbon development strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Program/project implementation </li></ul>
    16. 16. Why joint problem solving? <ul><li>When decision quality is important and followers possess useful information </li></ul><ul><li>When the problem is unstructured and the leader lacks information / skill to make the decision alone , </li></ul><ul><li>When decision acceptance is important and followers are unlikely to accept an autocratic decision , </li></ul><ul><li>When decision acceptance is important but followers are likely to disagree </li></ul><ul><li>Decision acceptance is critical </li></ul><ul><li>Autocratic </li></ul><ul><li>Consultative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Group decision </li></ul>Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W. Leadership and decision-making . Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press
    17. 17. Problem-solving <ul><li>Mechanisms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutions created for problem solving </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informal working groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Workshops/conferences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learning networks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Central, provincial, district government </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private sector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NGOs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communities/public </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Coordination mechanisms Ministry of Forestry Liason Officer Secretariat Secretariat
    19. 19. REDD Break-through knowledge management Don’t worry, guys, I downloaded a lessons learned document on how to build a bivouac
    20. 20. Key areas of knowledge management <ul><li>Examples of outputs to support implementation </li></ul><ul><li>National laws and regulations clarified, organized </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial data integrated </li></ul><ul><li>BMP articulated and codified and effective assistance programs designed </li></ul><ul><li>Model local institutions and regulations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrated planning processes mapped out for large scale LCD programs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generic/adaptable project design documents for on the ground projects (e.g. community protected area project) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TORs for various project elements that do have to be replicated (e.g. TOR for provincial field inventories or community baselines </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Information to make good decisions for REDD Decision-makers Planning Process Internal data management system Data management system pilot Boundary maps Village develop. plans Threat assessment Land use profitability Carbon stocks HCVF Management unit plans All data Primary data Data users/ integrators Data management Oil palm Mining Sector analysis Timber Pulp and paper <ul><li>DECISIONS </li></ul><ul><li>Spatial plan </li></ul><ul><li>Allocation of permits and licenses </li></ul><ul><li>Planning within license areas </li></ul><ul><li>Development investments </li></ul><ul><li>REDD investment decisions </li></ul>Reference scenario
    22. 22. <ul><li>Stronger core teams </li></ul><ul><li>Smarter joint problem-solving </li></ul><ul><li>Breakthrough knowledge management </li></ul>
    23. 23. <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul>
    24. 29. Private sector development Benefit sharing GIS/RS Crew leaders Carbon inventory Measures Mining Protection Agriculture Forestry Best practices land management NRM policies and regulations REDD policy development Law enforcement Legal FPIC HCVF Community development NRM REDD Development planning Planning data FPIC Multi-stakeholder decision-making on land use Planning Individuals Systems/ Institutions Tools/ R&D Topic Theme
    25. 30. Information for decision-making <ul><li>TYPES OF INFORMATION </li></ul><ul><li>Biophysical </li></ul><ul><li>Forest cover </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon stocks </li></ul><ul><li>Land suitability </li></ul><ul><li>Economic analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity costs of land uses </li></ul><ul><li>Macroeconomic analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Fiscal Flows </li></ul><ul><li>Social </li></ul><ul><li>Legal status/boundaries </li></ul><ul><li>Conservation priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Economic development goals </li></ul><ul><li>Biodiversity </li></ul><ul><li>High conservation values </li></ul><ul><li>Connectivity assessments </li></ul><ul><li>Orangutan Action Plan Priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Programmatic Focus </li></ul><ul><li>Generating information </li></ul><ul><li>Integrating information </li></ul><ul><li>Refining processes for using information </li></ul>
    26. 31. Challenges <ul><ul><li>Have not yet really grasped the scale of the implementation challenge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Longstanding governance/decentralization issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Weak institutions and weak linkages between institutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Narrowly perceived incentives, institutions that are biased </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Land tenure: uncertain now, and no easy solutions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mechanisms in countries are weak </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Public and private donors aren’t ready to move large-scale REDD funds effectively </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capacity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Local NGO capacity weak </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>International NGOs not as strong as they need to be </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Project mentality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Carbon project </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Donor projects </li></ul></ul></ul>
    27. 32. Phasing <ul><li>PRIORITIZATION </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-requisites </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Real understanding of drivers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Getting planned deforestation under control </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Law enforcement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data generation and management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy process </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most important </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Moratorium on conversion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No-regrets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-existing goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Useful in different scenarios </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Phases </li></ul><ul><li>Scoping </li></ul><ul><li>Design </li></ul><ul><li>Early implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstration </li></ul><ul><li>Full implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Post-REDD </li></ul>
    28. 33. Programs, project types, sites Shrimp farming <ul><li>1 company </li></ul>Coal production Other industrial production Small scale agriculture Agroforestry <ul><li>20-30 villages </li></ul>Community Forestry Community production <ul><li>1-2 KPH </li></ul>KPH Governance <ul><li>3-5 areas </li></ul>Protection in KBNK <ul><li>3-5 areas </li></ul>Protection Forest <ul><li>1 concession? </li></ul>Conservation in KBK Conservation <ul><li>3-5 concessions </li></ul>Palm oil production Palm Oil <ul><li>1-3 concessions </li></ul>** Industrial timber plantation production <ul><li>11 concessions </li></ul>Industrial natural forest production Industrial production forestry Goals for sites Project type Program area
    29. 34. BFCP Management Challenge Sectoral and site-strategies : Project Management Unit: Joint team of government staff, consultants, NGOs leading program implementation and supporting natural resource governance and management <ul><li>Supervisory Council </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-stakeholder </li></ul><ul><li>Strong secretariat </li></ul>Timber Concessions Oil Palm Protection Forest Mining Advisory Groups Joint working group Create Enabling Conditions : Integrated planning, effective governance, community involvement HTI Other Do now—no regrets Limited scale Explore over time <ul><li>Community </li></ul><ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><li>Financing </li></ul><ul><li>Substantial upfront donor funds </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in low-carbon development </li></ul><ul><li>Sell emission reductions and reinvest in low carbon growth </li></ul><ul><li>Close work with main institutions of governance </li></ul><ul><li>PMU is technical resource </li></ul><ul><li>Will work closely with many government institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Governement institutions are the decision-makers </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive focus on communities </li></ul><ul><li>Involved in program governance and creating enabling conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Involved in all sectoral and site strategies </li></ul>
    30. 35. <ul><li>UPPER KELAY </li></ul><ul><li>Most traditional Punan Dayak people </li></ul><ul><li>High dependence on forests </li></ul><ul><li>20-30 families per village </li></ul><ul><li>All within timber concessions </li></ul><ul><li>Destruction of burial grounds, sago palms, fruit trees, honey trees by companies </li></ul><ul><li>Recent road openings changing transportation access </li></ul><ul><li>UPPER SEGAH </li></ul><ul><li>Mixture Punan Dayak and Gaai villages </li></ul><ul><li>Lower dependence on forests; better transportation </li></ul><ul><li>Shifting agriculture, gold mining primary economic activities </li></ul><ul><li>Stronger village institution as a result of previous conflict resolution process </li></ul><ul><li>LOWER KELAY </li></ul><ul><li>Ambitious plans for agricultural conversion </li></ul><ul><li>Ethnic diversity and conflict, inter-group competition </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse employment: plantations, logging, bird nest collection rotational agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunistic and excessive land claims </li></ul><ul><li>LOWER SEGAH </li></ul><ul><li>Various Dayak groups, transmigrants from Java, Lombok </li></ul><ul><li>Agriculture important; </li></ul><ul><li>Oil palm expansion communities divided; many conflicts </li></ul><ul><li>Ineffective community development program led by oil palm companies </li></ul><ul><li>Land speculation increasing </li></ul><ul><li>COASTAL </li></ul><ul><li>Fishing communities; mostly recognize importance of mangroves </li></ul><ul><li>Heterogeneous-various ethnic groups from Sulawesi (Bone, Makassar, Toraja, Banjar, Bugis) </li></ul><ul><li>Significant infrastructure development plans </li></ul><ul><li>Expected immigrants will likely put more pressure on mangroves </li></ul>WORLD EDUCATION/ TNC Villages in the area of forest concessions Villages in the area of Plantation concessions Villages in the are of Mining concessions Villages in the coastal Transmigrant villages Traditional Long Duhung, Long Pai (Pu­nan Mah­kam), Merabu, Lesan Dayak, Long Boy, Long Lanm­cin, Long Sului Samburakat Semanting, Matarintib Transitional Long Ayan, Merasak, Merapun Tepian Buah, Long Lanuk Kasai Melati Jaya “ Modern” Sido Bangen Bena Baru Tanjung Batu Labanan Makarti