Social and political dimensions of REDD+ financing, MRV and benefit distribution across levels in Brazil 


860 views

Published on

This presentation by Maria Fernanda Gebara from CIFOR shows how exactly REDD+ financing in Brazil works, focusing on the National Strategy Objectives, national and sub-national financing mechanisms, the Green Climate Fund, the monitoring & reporting aspect and how verification & performance works. Also she explains how benefits can be shared and what conclusions can be drawn from all of this.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
860
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • only for national governments of developing countries; (financing of projects developed by other actors)reward developing countries for the results achieved, as well as help ensure the permanence of such resultsNeither preclude the continuation of current REDD+ financing initiatives, nor exclude further financing through the GEF or bilateral arrangements. It does not exclude the possibility of developing appropriate market based approaches. However, “these discussions are not yet mature for a decision and there is a need to broaden the debate in order to have a common understanding”.
  • MMA and state governments - decentralising capacities for remote sensing and GIS-based monitoring Censipam – Centro Gestro e Operacional do Sistema de Monitoramento da Amazônia (vinculadoaoMinistério da Defesa)Processo de MRV: o monitoramento da coberturaflorestalserárealizadopeloInstitutoNacional de PesquisasEspaciais (INPE) e InstitutoBrasileiro do MeioAmbiente e dos RecursosNaturaisRenováveis (IBAMA), servindoàmensuração de emissõespor parte do MMA (IBAMA) e posterior verificaçãopor um Comitê323Técnico Científico2. Os dados sobre as reduções de emissõesverificadasserãocomunicadosàInstânciaExecutiva, para fins de captação de recursos. O processoatualcontinuaráocorrendo, e orientaránãoapenas o Fundo Amazônia, mas também as açõesprevistasnaestratégianacional de REDD+.
  • Reference levels should be established by a focal point (nationally) following all relevant UNFCCC decisions (international approval);Technical annex – biennal update reportsExpressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year are benchmarks for assessing each country’s performance (Decision 12/CP.17);2 important issues: modalities and procedures for evaluation of reference levels + modalities and procedures for monitoring, reporting and verificationO secretário acredita que o impasse de Doha foi superado com uma proposta que partiu do Brasil de manter o MRV com processo de consulta e análise nacional, mas a nível internacional ter um detalhamento maior. Ou seja, países que terão pagamentos por resultados, terão que fazer um anexo técnico de REDD+, com uma memória do cálculo dos resultados em relação ao nível de referência. De forma geral, o que acontece é que os países que estão próximos da fase 3 (pagamentos por resultados), teriam a oportunidade de apresentar o nível de referência pra avaliação e, uma vez avaliado, passa a ser o nível de referência internacional. Após esse passo, os países podem calcular os resultados. Esses resultados, após aprovação nacional, serão apresentados e aprovados a nível internacional. Vai haver uma consulta publica on-line e isso é um esforço para aumentar a transparência em relação aos países desenvolvidos.
  • A verificação de REDD seráfeitapeloComitêTécnicoCientífico a partir de níveis de referência de emissõesestabelecidospelaComissãoInterministerial Permanente de REDD+ e comunicadaanualmenteàInstânciaExecutiva.
  • Once the results are endorsed by COP they would be published on the UNFCCC website, indicating the country, the year, the reference level, if it has already been paid or not, etc.;
  • Are to be determined independently by developing countries that receive results-based payments for REDD+, as means to recognize the role of different sectors in achieving results at national level; GCF: the distribution of the grants would take as reference the total results presented by applicants over a period of time, rather than a fixed monetary value per tCO2e/year
  • Leader in developing national criteria for social and environmental safeguards.“Principle and Criteria for REDD+” with the participation of all relevant stakeholders (except the government)
  • Social and political dimensions of REDD+ financing, MRV and benefit distribution across levels in Brazil 


    1. 1. Social and political dimensions of REDD+ financing, MRV and benefit distribution across levels in Brazil Maria Fernanda Gebara Phd Candidate Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro mfgebara@gmail.com
    2. 2. REDD+ in Brazil Brazil and REDD+ - Timeline Bolsa Floresta Program 2003 PPCDAM 2006 States Task Force JUMA EN-REDD+ 1st draft Forest Code 2009 Amazon Fund Bolsa Verde Program 2010 2011 REDD+ and PES Bills WGs NAMAs “Principle and Criteria” Bonn Proposal PPCerrado Sub-national Initiatives FIP Safeguard System ABC Plan 2013 2012 FIP Investment Plan National Policy for Climate Change 2008 2007 Voluntary Regime Governors Forum National Plan for Climate Change Zero Deforestation Pact “Compensated Reduction” Interministerial WG for REDD+ More than 50 projects THINKING beyond the canopy
    3. 3. National Strategy Objectives:  Reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation by 2020, according to the actions established in PNMC;  Achieve zero net deforestation in 2020;  Maintain and restore ecosystem services and other functions of forest ecosystems; and  Promote the sustainable development of the regions with predominance of forests. THINKING beyond the canopy
    4. 4. Financial Mechanisms Sub- National Level National Level States Climate Funds Norway Amazon Fund Decree 6527/2008 E.g.: State of Amazonas Fund Petrobrás KFW Coca-Cola Bradesco State level Agreements National Climate Fund Law 12.114/2009 Marriot Petrobrás E.g.: Acre and California Surui and SFX Funds Other: FUNBIO (1996) GEF Amazon Fund etc. + Public Budget THINKING beyond the canopy
    5. 5. Financial Mechanisms Green Climate Fund a. Ex ante financing: to national governments; a. Ex ante financing: to other actors subject to a no-objection procedure by national designated authorities; a. Ex post payments: to be disbursed according to mitigation results.  Neither preclude, nor exclude others. It does not exclude market based approaches. However, “these discussions are not yet mature and need common understanding”. THINKING beyond the canopy
    6. 6. Financial Mechanisms National Authority  Designation of a national authority to recommend proposals to the GCF and be consulted on other proposals;  Responsible for presenting proposals under modality a); applying for grants under modality c); as for the nonobjection procedure referred to in modality b).  Work in close coordination with the national authorities responsible for REDD+ activities (it may be the same authority, if appropriate). THINKING beyond the canopy
    7. 7. Monitoring  One of the most advanced countries in the world in capacity to monitor its forest resources using remote sensing and GIS technologies. National Level Sub-national Level INPE  Partnerships MMA and states 1971 PRODES DETER 1980s 2004 EM IBAMA 1989 DEGRAD 2009 DETEX 2009 CEMAM 2004  Surui and Google  Other: Imazon, IPAM and Federal University of Minas Gerais THINKING beyond the canopy
    8. 8. Reporting RL Focal Point (national) UNFCCC decisions (international approval) tCO2e Projected emissions for 2020 Amazon: 1996-2005 ADR Cerrado: 1994-2005 Formula: Projected DR X Average emissions/area X CO2 equivalent factor  Results are approved at national level first and after international;  Consultation process and analysis national but greater detailing at international level (“technical Annex” with results calculation). THINKING beyond the canopy
    9. 9. Verification and Performance  Verification: transparency ("ensure that carbon reduction is generated, according to a reference level") and funding.  Verification is therefore domestic. “ No developing country will have international verification of its actions.” “It could cause disadvantages against other sectors and also add additional obligations.” (Brazil) “We are willing to pay as long as we can be sure we are paying for actual emissions reductions (credible figures)”. (Norway)  Indicator would be the tCO2e maintained/reduced  Technical Scientific Committee.  Other possible indicators, but still lacks a wider global debate. THINKING beyond the canopy
    10. 10. Verification and Performance International Verification Tool  Not centralized; Results endorsed by COP Published by UNFCCC Country Year RL Been paid? etc.  International level results-based payments can best occur using a national jurisdiction scale as reference (on an interim basis, subnational references could also be adopted)  ensure transparency and accountability, as well as avoid double counting of results. THINKING beyond the canopy
    11. 11. Investors Financing MRV Other Agents Executive Authority UREDD Amazon Fund Investors MRV and Financing THINKING beyond the canopy B E N E F I C I A R I E S
    12. 12. Benefit Sharing International Level  To be determined independently  recognize the role of different sectors in achieving results at national level; National Level  It does not yet have a clear position on how it will work;  Amazon Fund as main instrument;  GCF: total results  Use of economic instruments; over a period of time, rather than a fixed monetary value per tCO2e/year.  Descentralization  new instruments and types of financing. THINKING beyond the canopy
    13. 13. Benefit Sharing Some Initiatives BF Family Juma Project – AM BF Income Bolsa Floresta Program BF Social Law 3135/2007 FAS (2008) BF Association MRV Institutional Arrangements Sustainable Production + Areas of high forest cover + Enhancement of carbon SISA – AC Law 2308/2010 (2009) Elaboration of Territorial and Rural Property Management Instruments + stocks Services for Priority Areas Private Properties SFX Pilot Program – PA TNC/SEMA (2009) Conservation Strategies Indigenous Territories Conservation Units Carbon Accounting Program + System for monitoring and + Engagement and Capacitymanaging information Building of Stakeholders THINKING beyond the canopy
    14. 14. Safeguards  MMA meetings for SIS: (i) legal regulation, (ii) guarantee of rights; (iii) economic sustainability and poverty reduction; (iv) biodiversity conservation and recovery; (v) governance; (vi) benefit sharing; (vii) monitoring and transparency; (viii)permanence and leakage; and (ix) participation.  Amazon Fund: established safeguards in accordance to UNFCCC decisions. BUT, no monitoring! THINKING beyond the canopy
    15. 15. Challenges Conclusions  Nesting activities from sub-national/local to national level (accountability);  Attribution of results – how to link MRV, performance and benefit-sharing?  results-based payments;  Improve monitoring and measurement of AF results;  Monitoring safeguards. Key Lessons  Advanced monitoring systems are not enough;  Performance indicators are critical;  Think about the “Policyscape”. THINKING beyond the canopy
    16. 16. OBRIGADA! Maria Fernanda Gebara Phd Candidate Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro mfgebara@gmail.com THINKING beyond the canopy

    ×