REDD in Asia - Challenges and Opportunities


Published on

Can REDD+ achieve poverty alleviation and deliver conservation benefits for Great Apes? Laura D'Arcy from ZSL explores this question in a presentation she gave at the ‘Linking Great Ape Conservation with Poverty Alleviation’ workshop hosted by CIFOR in January 2012.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • 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

REDD in Asia - Challenges and Opportunities

  1. 1. REDD in Asia - Challenges andOpportunitiesCan REDD+ achieve poverty alleviation and deliverconservation benefits for Great Apes? ©Susan Cheyne
  2. 2. The need for a green economy• Ecosystem services – ‘ the free’ economic system• Unsustainable use of the world’s ecosystems – loss of biodiversity, ecosystem provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.• Climate change –C02 levels 35% higher pre-industrial revolution, warming rate of 0.29°F/decade.• Natural capital –attributes a value to ecosystem services, incentivising conservation and highlighting the relationship between economic development, human wellbeing and maintenance of these services which directly benefit biodiversity conservation.
  3. 3. Great Apes in Asia©Kirsty Manduell ©Andrea GibsonSumatran Orangutan (Pongo Bornean Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) –abelii) – critically endangered – endangered PHVA 45,000 – 69,000 (Singleton et7300 (Singleton et al 2007) al 2004), 3 sub spp. (wurmi, morio, pygmaeus)
  4. 4. Indonesia – REDD Potential• Forested areas: 100 million ha belong to the Indonesian Government, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forestry. More forest under various management levels.• Legal framework: exists to protect forests and endangered species such as orangutans• C02 emissions: 85% in 2005 (3.01 Gt CO2 ) results from deforestation/ degradation (Peace 2007)• Government commitment: C02 emissions reduction pledge 26% by 2020 or 41% with international funding• Readiness: March 2010 U$5.6 million released by UN- REDD for REDD implementation phase• Deforestation rates 2000-2008: Kalimantan 2.3 million ha over 8 years, 3.1 million ha over 8 years (Brioch 2011)
  5. 5. Threats• Economic growth 4.5-6.3% / year (IMF 2010).Set for 7% by 2020• Land use cover changes planned by 2020include: 10 million ha (pulp and paper),9 million ha (palm oil plantations). ©Laura D’Arcy• Ineffective forest management units• Conflicting legal framework• Lack of law enforcement• Funding sources and duration• Apes: poaching, encroachment,human - wildlife conflict, disease ©Laura D’Arcy
  6. 6. Challenges to implementation• Land tenure issues  globally on land exclusively with communal or customary use or ownership rights, only 17% of not-for-profit projects, 2% for profit-only projects (Diaz et al 2011)  Indonesia indigenous Adat law, decentralisation and conflict• Spatial planning review (RENSTRA)  Review process to link to goal of 7% development target• Long timescales i.e. Verified CarbonStandards (VCS) methodology approval• REDD framework yet to be established• Gaining market confidence Source : Global forest watch 1999
  7. 7. Challenges to additionality• Safeguards: not providing for threatened species such as apes and safe guarding communities’ interests  Project level CCBA Gold standard  National social and environmental standards (SES)• Implementation strategy  Enforcement (removal of people) v amelioration  Paradigm shift (payment leaving forests alone)• Expectations not met – social and environmental  Consultation / Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)  Compensation only or livelihoods (why not have both?)• Leakage: Displacement of degradation/deforestation activities
  8. 8. Opportunities for REDD in Indonesia• Letter of Intent from Norway –pledged USD 1 billion over 7 years. Moratorium (Presidential Instruction No. 10/2011), a two-year suspension on all new concessions for conversion of peat and natural forest, allowing for ‘REDD-iness’ preparations and planning review• 23 million ha –of degraded forest mapped in 2006 (PHKA 2009), ready for development• Political support – role of forests in economics, climate change, food and energy security acknowledged by President Yudhoyono• Measuring, reporting and verification – orangutan population method is clear, tangible, easy to demonstrate and measure success of enhancing HCV, to achieve and maintain CCBA Gold standard
  9. 9. REDD Framework so far• Pilot phase or REDDiness – a nested approach of small pilot/demonstration projects which will feed into national reduction targets:  UPK4 Presidential REDD Taskforce established in 2010 to establish legal and economic framework for REDD  Pilot projects identified to demonstrate addressing the fundamental drivers of deforestation at a local level  44 REDD projects registered with the Ministry of Forestry• Durban COP 16 – Agreement toestablish global Green Climate Fundbut no money. Fungibility (mixed) creditsstill unclear.Source: state of forest carbon market 2011 Diaz et al 2011 Source : Diaz et al 2011
  10. 10. Costs: Peat compared to Mineral Forest• 11 out of 17 active REDD projects are on peat swamp forests (Paoli et al 2010)  A ‘win-win’ situation for apes - lower costs to offset conversion to palm oil peat swamp forest have low yield production of palm oil, reducing the cost of carbon emission required in areas with high OU density (Vetner et al 2009).Bad news for more high yield, mineral soils which are more bio-diverse than Peat forests (Paoli et al 2010) Forest type Mineral (353 tC02/ha)1 Peat (2680 tC02/ha) 1 Palm Oil 1030/ton2 U$ 6180/ha (6 ton/ha) U$ 3090/ha (3 ton/ha) REDD US/tC02 U$ 17.5/tC02 U$ 1.15/tC02 VCS/Compliance price 63 /10.244 U$ OU density/ 0.98 ± 41 1.32 ± 651. From Paoli et al (2010) mean value used, 2. Rotterdam CPO price Jan 2012 ,3. CTX mean 2011, 4. UNEP Report 2011
  11. 11. Wildlife premium• Wildlife premium – proposed by World Bank/WWF in 2011  Premium to be paid additional to the standard carbon market for conservation activities• CCBA – Gold Standard  Must work in a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) framework, vulnerable and/or irreplaceable species• Market access – buyers have increasedConfidence if charismatic/flag ship species involved. Increase ‘saleability’ of credits as CSR value as well.
  12. 12. Is REDD the only way?• Clean development mechanism (CDM)– allows emission- reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction (CER) credits, equivalent to one tonne of CO2. CERs can be traded and used by industrialised countries to meet part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. Main source of income for UN-REDD adaptation fund• Afforestation/Reforestation (AR)– a falling market, problems financing and commercialising the oldest strategy of enhancing and restoring forest health: planting trees.• Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects– mostly US-based projects and market but on the increase internationally applicable IFM-specific methodologies by a third-party standard in 2010 and 2011 under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS).(Source: Diaz et al 2011 – Forest Trends Report)
  13. 13.
  14. 14. With thanks toDolly Priatna, Murray Collins, TheOrangutan Tropical Peatland Project,Susan Cheyne, Mark Harrison, KirstyManduell