REDD Offset Working Group - Overview of Recommendations


Published on

Tony Brunello

  • 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
  • Talking Points: the technical experts serve in the personal capacitiesMOU states appreciate the willingness of participants and stakeholders to volunteer their expertise and time to this effort and will review the recommendations put forward by the technical experts participating in the ROW.
  • REDD Offset Working Group - Overview of Recommendations

    1. 1. REDD Offset Working Group Overview of Recommendations Tony Brunello February 5, 2013
    2. 2. Key Points for Today1. Your perspective is important and we need your help.2. Today’s focus is to discuss how to link Acre and Chiapas’s REDD+ efforts through California’s cap and trade program and the use of carbon offsets.3. Today’s focus is NOT on entire document, but mainly on (1) Reference Levels, Additionality and Own Effort (2.2), and (2) Monitoring, Reporting & Verification (2.3.4).
    3. 3. KEY POINT – California context1. Why California? – Could send significant signals regarding potential pathway – Could potentially provide low cost, high quality offsets to regulated entities in California’s cap and trade compliance program. – California’s actions can show the importance of state action on REDD+ and how comprehensive jurisdictional REDD+ models of success2. What has California done on REDD+? – Passed cap and trade program allowing the possibility for REDD offsets to be used in the system. – Approved the use of U.S. forest carbon offsets in cap and trade program demonstrating confidence in forest conservation as mitigation option – Helped Create the world’s first provincial level REDD+ task force (GCF) – Created the ROW to help develop a REDD+ blue print
    4. 4. ROW Process February 2011 Beginning of ROW process with multiple meetings ROW PROCESS Draft report released, 3 public workshops to Jan-April 2013 be held at Stanford, UCLA and UC Davis Final report released with changes based on May 2013 public comment - end of ROW ROW Process States Formal Processes Formal Regulatory Processes (Dates not determined)California Acre Chiapas
    5. 5. ROW Participants• IPAM – Amazon Institute for Environmental Research• Climate Action Reserve• Environmental Defense Fund• Stanford University/Carnegie Institution for Science• The Ford Foundation• The Nature Conservancy• University of Colorado Boulder Law School• Conservation International• ProNatura Sur• Green Technology Leadership Group
    6. 6. ROW Focus1. What legal and institutional mechanisms are required to enable cap and trade programs like California to recognize international REDD-based offsets for compliance purposes?2. What are the key policy considerations a REDD+ program should address to achieve the level of performance needed for California to recognize the REDD-based offsets for compliance purposes?3. What should be the basis for judging the performance of the states in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation or increasing carbon removals by forests?
    7. 7. KEY POINT - Jurisdictional REDD+• Reductions achieved across an entire state or province• Individual REDD+ projects incorporated in, and accounted for, under jurisdictional REDD+ program• Jurisdictional REDD+ seeks large-scale changes in rural development through policy alignment, institutional innovation, and through mechanisms for attracting private sector investment
    9. 9. Recommendation 2.1 - ScopeBackground: What types of forest carbon emissionsand atmospheric removals will be required and/orallowed as offsets? Deforestation (RED), forestdegradation (REDD), and/or enhancement ofcarbon stocks (REDD+)?Recommendation: Include deforestation and forestdegradation (i.e., REDD). Add removals throughcarbon stock enhancement when appropriate ( “+”)
    10. 10. Recommendation 2.2 - Reference Levels and “Own Effort”Background: A Reference Level (RL) represents the bestestimate of future forest carbon emissions and removalsin the absence of a REDD+ program. Measured emissionsthat fall below the RL, and measured removals that fallabove the RL, are considered additional.Recommendation:• Base RL on a ten-year average of annual emissions during 1995–2010, using the best available data• RL could be adjusted under limited circumstances• Jurisdictions should outline their own effort at reducing emissions without compensation
    11. 11. Recommendation 2.3.1 - Crediting Pathway & Nested CreditingBackground: Jurisdictions need to determine how credits are issued& trackedRecommendations:• Performance and credit issuance are assessed at jurisdiction level• Jurisdictions should decide what will be eligible for crediting (state-wide efforts only, nested projects only, or both scales of policies and measures)• California sets requirements for credits, and recognizes and converts credits issued by Jurisdictions or approved third-party programs that meet those requirements• Jurisdictions design and establish their own carbon accounting and registry systems that meet criteria established by California
    12. 12. Recommendation 2.3.3 – AccountingBackground: REDD+ reductions must be above and beyond whatwould have happened in the absence of a REDD+ program. Thus, aREDD+ Program must account and control for leakage, reversals, anddouble-countingRecommendations:• Jurisdictions should reduce the risk of leakage by maintaining commodity production levels as deforestation levels decline• Jurisdictions should manage, mitigate and account for any residual inter- and intra-state leakage• Jurisdictions should have mechanisms for managing performance reversal risk, and for emissions from major natural disturbances• Jurisdictions should avoid double counting by defining who can legally own credits, and developing linked accounting frameworks
    13. 13. Recommendation 2.3.4–Measurement,Monitoring, Reporting & VerificationBackground: MMRV systems ensure all parties involved are onlycredited for the actual emissions reductions they achieveRecommendations:• CA should establish a threshold level of uncertainty in measuring and monitoring REDD above which a state’s program would be ineligible, and include incentives to further decrease uncertainty over time• Validation of measuring and reporting methodologies should occur at beginning of program, and periodically thereafter• Independent, 3rd-party verification of GHG reductions should occur as a precondition of crediting and at intervals of no more than five years thereafter
    14. 14. Recommendation 2.4 – SafeguardsBackground: : Environmental and social safeguards are necessary pre-conditions for the implementation and ultimate success of REDD+programsRecommendations—Safeguards should• Ensure emissions reductions are achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the rights and interests of local, forest-dependent communities (including indigenous peoples), supports rural livelihoods, and does not damage ecological systems• Use the safeguard guidance developed under the UNFCCC Cancun Agreement and emerging best-practice standards , such as the REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (SES)• Jurisdictions should define their own benchmarks and performance indicators when implementing SES
    15. 15. Recommendation 3.1.1 – Linkage OptionsBackground: A formal agreement linking partner jurisdictions isnecessary before any carbon offsets can be traded. However,jurisdictions must work within their national governments lawsand regulations.Recommendations• Avoid any “binding” treaty like arrangements as defined under international law• Develop an agreement consistent with those being developed under the Western Climate Initiative• Consider adopting a non-binding MOU that recognizes each partner jurisdictions laws and regulations such as California’s sector-based offset provisions
    16. 16. Recommendation 3.1.2 – EnforceabilityBackground: Partner Jurisdictions wanting to link with Californianeed laws to ensure their domestic programs are enforceableand meet “linkage findings” made by California GovernorRecommendations• California should use its “buyer liability” provision for offsets to further ensure enforceability of sector-based offsets• Consider innovative public/private partnerships, such as Acre’s Company, to allow players to share relevant liabilities