SamrakshanTrust
Bhomik Shah
Building
Community’s
Capacity for a
REDD+ Project
in India
Feasibility Assessment for
a Commun...
Shorter title
Secondary information can go here
XX-XX Month, Year
• Additional information can run
• Underneath if necessa...
Shorter title
Secondary information can go here
XX-XX Month, Year
• Additional information can run
• Underneath if necessa...
Presentation to Company Name
1REDD+:
Definition to
Developments
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
• Sustainable Management of Forest
• Regeneration as ANR
‘+’ in REDD+
• Reducing emissions from deforestation
• Reducing e...
• There is no clarification on
A/R in REDD+ definition
• A few pilots include A/R
• We have not considered A/R
in financia...
Presentation to Company Name
2
Global Overview
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
UN-REDD
• 2008; FAO-UNDP-
UNEP
• US$ 60 Million
funding
• 14 Pilot countries
and 28 partner
countries
FCPF (The
Forest Car...
Three Phases of REDD+ Financing
Performance Payment Phase (2013-20)
Result based actions leading
to emission reductions
UN...
REDD+ and COP 17 (Durban)
• Consensus on market-
based approach for REDD+
funding; private sector has a
major role
• Effec...
Presentation to Company Name
3WWF, the BBL,
CCRs and
REDD+
30 September 2013 -
SamrakshanTrust
WWF’s Gui di ng Pr i nci pl es on REDD+
Cl i mat e
Bi odi versi t y
Li vel i hoods
Ri ght s
Fai r & Ef f ect i ve
Fundi ng...
Baghmara-Balpakaram Landscape (BBL)
• Good forest cover (88.6%) with D n D threats
• Community forest
• Biodiversity rich ...
Deforestation & Degradation
• Slash and burn agriculture (jhum)
• Reduced jhum cycle from 10-15 yrs to
3-4 yrs
• Monocultu...
Land Tenure and Carbon Rights
• Meghalaya is a Sixth Schedule State
• Most of the forests, forest land with the
communitie...
Presentation to Company Name
4Carbon Stock:
The Methodology
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
Reference Area
22487 ha (19
Akings)
Methodology
Project Area
8072 ha (15
Akings)
Leakage Belt
1991 2000 2011
Three time-
p...
Methodology
• Land use change analysis of last 20 years
• Calculation of mean Deforestation Rate
• Stratification of the p...
Biomass to Carbon
Above Ground Tree Biomass : Stem Volume* Wood Density* BEF
Below Ground Biomass : Above Ground tree Biom...
Presentation to Company Name
5The Baseline
Scenario
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
Baseline (BAU) Scenario (Land use change)
Source:
IGCMC,
WWF-India
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
ForestCover(ha)
Fore...
Business as usual (Baseline) Data
Year Cumulative
Deforestation (ha)
Business as usual
Forest Cover (ha)
2012 0 8072
2017 ...
Presentation to Company Name
6The Project
Scenario
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
Project Scenario
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
For...
Project Performance and Leakage
Project Performance
• 80% (1-5 years) Risk 20%
• 90% ( 6th Year onwards) Risk 10%
• Leakag...
Forest Carbon Standards
Climate, Community &
Biodiversity Standard
CarbonFix Standard
Plan Vivo
Social Carbon
Verified Car...
7Financial
Feasibility and
the Opportunity
Cost Analysis
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
Activity Cost/Price (US$) Year/application
PDD Cost 50,000 2012
Validation 20,000 2012
Project Activities at the beginning...
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033...
The Opportunity Cost Analysis
Opportunity costs are based on land use change, not on
land use
“…by conserving their presen...
Assumptions in the Opportunity Cost Analysis
• All NPV calculations are based on the project life and land
use change for ...
328 328 328
17 17
40
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
REDD+@US$3
REDD+@US$5.6
REDD+@US$7.5
Agriculture(5Yearcycle)
Agriculture...
8REDD+ Co-
Benefits and
Benefit Sharing
Mechanism
30 September 2013 -
Economics of REDD+ and Co-Benefits
• Conservation of forest biodiversity &
wildlife habitats
• Water regulation
• Soil con...
Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM)
• Both financial and non-financial benefits
• Stakeholders are both landholders and landle...
Presentation to Company Name
9The MOEF and
the Way Forward
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
Thank you
www.panda.org
Email: bhomikjain@gmail.com
+91-8860179180
© 2010, WWF. All photographs used in this presentation ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

REDD+ Feasibility Study in Meghalaya, India

888 views

Published on

This presentation is about the REDD+ Community Project's feasibility study undertaken by WWF-India in Megahlaya (India).

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
888
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

REDD+ Feasibility Study in Meghalaya, India

  1. 1. SamrakshanTrust Bhomik Shah Building Community’s Capacity for a REDD+ Project in India Feasibility Assessment for a Community REDD+ Project
  2. 2. Shorter title Secondary information can go here XX-XX Month, Year • Additional information can run • Underneath if necessary Layout Feasibility Study for a Community REDD+ Project in India 30 September 2013 - 1. REDD+: Definition to Developments 2. Global Overview 3. WWF, the BBL, CCRs & REDD+ 4. Carbon Stock:The Methodology 5. The Baseline Scenario 6. The Project Scenario 7. Financial Feasibility and the Opportunity Cost Analysis 8. REDD+ Co-benefits 9. The MoEF & the Way Forward
  3. 3. Shorter title Secondary information can go here XX-XX Month, Year • Additional information can run • Underneath if necessary Prologue 30 September 2013 - The South Garo Hills has lost 5000 ha* of forest between 2007 and 2009. -State of Forest Survey Report 2011 * 2.7% of geographical area and 3.05% of the forest cover
  4. 4. Presentation to Company Name 1REDD+: Definition to Developments 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  5. 5. • Sustainable Management of Forest • Regeneration as ANR ‘+’ in REDD+ • Reducing emissions from deforestation • Reducing emissions from forest degradation • Conservation of forest • Sustainable management of forests • Enhancement of forest carbon stock
  6. 6. • There is no clarification on A/R in REDD+ definition • A few pilots include A/R • We have not considered A/R in financial feasibility analysis • For livelihoods generation, fuel wood and other benefits A/R should be included Confusion on Afforestation/Reforestation ..?
  7. 7. Presentation to Company Name 2 Global Overview 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  8. 8. UN-REDD • 2008; FAO-UNDP- UNEP • US$ 60 Million funding • 14 Pilot countries and 28 partner countries FCPF (The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) • 2008 • The World Bank • US$ 447 Million pledged • 37 countries FIP(The Forest Investment Program) • Under Strategic Climate Fund Of CIF • 2009, Multi-donor trust fund (the WB Admin.) • 7 countries UN-REDD, FCPF and FIP Countries (48) as on Feb 20, 2012 150+ pilots REDD+ Platforms and Key Institutions Source: UN-REDD, FCPF, FIP
  9. 9. Three Phases of REDD+ Financing Performance Payment Phase (2013-20) Result based actions leading to emission reductions UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral Agencies , Govt. Implementation Phase (2012 onwards) Capacity Building, Institutional strengthening, Investments UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral Agencies , Govt. Readiness Phase (2010-12) National Strategies & Action plans UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral Agencies
  10. 10. REDD+ and COP 17 (Durban) • Consensus on market- based approach for REDD+ funding; private sector has a major role • Effective social, environmental and governance safeguards for local communities and biodiversity conservation • How much of Green Climate Fund for REDD+ ? Source: Carbon Market Trends 2011
  11. 11. Presentation to Company Name 3WWF, the BBL, CCRs and REDD+ 30 September 2013 - SamrakshanTrust
  12. 12. WWF’s Gui di ng Pr i nci pl es on REDD+ Cl i mat e Bi odi versi t y Li vel i hoods Ri ght s Fai r & Ef f ect i ve Fundi ng Pilots/support in • Peru • Indonesia • PNG • Laos • Vietnam • DRC • Cameroon • Brazil • Tanzania • Cambodia • Mexico • Madagascar • Guyana • Nepal
  13. 13. Baghmara-Balpakaram Landscape (BBL) • Good forest cover (88.6%) with D n D threats • Community forest • Biodiversity rich area; 700+ elephants, Habitat for Hoolock Gibbon, Sloth bear, Chinese Pangolin etc. 270 bird species, 300 species of butterfly and 60 species of amphibians • Good floral biodiversity; medicinal plants; Old Growth forest in reserve area Samrakshan/WWF-India
  14. 14. Deforestation & Degradation • Slash and burn agriculture (jhum) • Reduced jhum cycle from 10-15 yrs to 3-4 yrs • Monoculture plantation- rubber, cashew, areca nut • Illegal logging; Bangladesh border area • Fuel-wood • Potential threat from mining • Small agri-fields within forest Bhomik/WWF-India
  15. 15. Land Tenure and Carbon Rights • Meghalaya is a Sixth Schedule State • Most of the forests, forest land with the communities • The right for the management of forest with the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) • In practice Nokma (Aking level) is the decision making authority for the land use • No explicit legislation on ‘carbon right’ Bhomik/WWF-India
  16. 16. Presentation to Company Name 4Carbon Stock: The Methodology 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  17. 17. Reference Area 22487 ha (19 Akings) Methodology Project Area 8072 ha (15 Akings) Leakage Belt 1991 2000 2011 Three time- point Historic Image Analysis
  18. 18. Methodology • Land use change analysis of last 20 years • Calculation of mean Deforestation Rate • Stratification of the project area • Very Dense ≥70% • Moderately Dense ≥ 40-70% • Open ≥10-40% Remote Sensing • Initial plot samples for deriving the number. of plots in each strata for sampling • Stratified random sampling for the location of sample plots • On-Ground Biomass Inventory • Marking of plots and inventory assessment On-Ground Biomass Inventory
  19. 19. Biomass to Carbon Above Ground Tree Biomass : Stem Volume* Wood Density* BEF Below Ground Biomass : Above Ground tree Biomass*0.24 Deadwood and fallen tree : Stem Volume*Wood Density Regeneration : IPCC Default Values *0.33 Total Biomass in a plot : AGB+BGB+DW Biomass to carbon : Biomass*0.50 Total t Carbon/ha Carbon in biomass (AGB+BGB+DW)+ tC in Regeneration Source; IPCC-GPG , FAO, CIFOR
  20. 20. Presentation to Company Name 5The Baseline Scenario 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  21. 21. Baseline (BAU) Scenario (Land use change) Source: IGCMC, WWF-India
  22. 22. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 ForestCover(ha) Forest Cover Change in the Business as usual Scenario Bhomik/WWF-India
  23. 23. Business as usual (Baseline) Data Year Cumulative Deforestation (ha) Business as usual Forest Cover (ha) 2012 0 8072 2017 905 7167 2022 1708 6364 2027 2422 5650 2032 3055 5017 2037 3618 4454 2042 4117 3955 Description tC/ha Mean C stock in forest 313 Regeneration/year 15 Cropland/year 0.24 Shrubland/year 0.94 Monoculture/Plantation (Life cycle average) 40
  24. 24. Presentation to Company Name 6The Project Scenario 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  25. 25. Project Scenario 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 ForestCover(ha) Cumulative Deforestation Avoided Forest Area Baseline Scenario Net Forest Under Project Scenario (ha)
  26. 26. Project Performance and Leakage Project Performance • 80% (1-5 years) Risk 20% • 90% ( 6th Year onwards) Risk 10% • Leakage -10% Net emissions reduction: Project Scenario-Project Performance Risk- Leakage- Fuel wood
  27. 27. Forest Carbon Standards Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standard CarbonFix Standard Plan Vivo Social Carbon Verified Carbon Standard Methodology Status Methodology VM0006 Version1.0 Approved Methodology for Carbon Accounting in Project Activities that Reduce Emissions from Mosaic Deforestation and Degradation VM0007 Version 1.1 Approved REDD Methodology Module REDD Methodology Framework (REDD-MF) VM0015 Version 1 Approved Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation Draft Draft Methodology for Carbon Accounting of Grouped Mosaic and Landscape- scale REDD Projects
  28. 28. 7Financial Feasibility and the Opportunity Cost Analysis 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  29. 29. Activity Cost/Price (US$) Year/application PDD Cost 50,000 2012 Validation 20,000 2012 Project Activities at the beginning 60,000 2012 Project Activities each year 10,000 2013-2042 Verification 14,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Carbon Stock Adjustment 20,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Socio-environment monitoring 10,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Registration fee 0.05 Each Credit Issuance fee 0.1 Each Credit Brokerage fee 3% (of credit revenue) Carbon Credit Price 5.63 Non-Permanence buffer 10% Buffer Recovery (Every 5 years) 15% 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Discount Rate 10% Financial Data
  30. 30. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 CarbonCredits Credits Available Buffer Buffer Recovery 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 US$Millions REDD+ Project Carbon-Revenue Mean Annual Income Mean Annual Profit NPV US$ Carbon Revenue Financial Feasibility Average Profit/Year US$ 6,52,640 IRR 95% NPV US$ 4882048 Average Profit /Ha/Year US$ 81 Household/Yr US$1045 At present household Income: US$ 880/Annual
  31. 31. The Opportunity Cost Analysis Opportunity costs are based on land use change, not on land use “…by conserving their present forests, countries and landowners forgo the benefits of potentially more lucrative alternative land uses, such as crops or livestock-this forgone revenue is known as the opportunity cost of REDD+ “ -The World Bank 18% 14% 29% 7% 32% Crops in Agriculture Income/ha Rice Pineapple Ginger Turmeric Others 67% 10% 8% 15% Crops in Monoculture/Plantation/ha Rubber Cashew Areca Nut Others
  32. 32. Assumptions in the Opportunity Cost Analysis • All NPV calculations are based on the project life and land use change for 30 years. • Discount rate of 10% • Only carbon revenue has been taken into account •The land remaining fallow under 5 Yrs and 8 Yrs agriculture cycle would provide fuel wood and grazing related benefits and that have been taken into account • Employment benefit of US$17/ha/Yr in agriculture and monoculture has been incorporated in NPV projections.
  33. 33. 328 328 328 17 17 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 REDD+@US$3 REDD+@US$5.6 REDD+@US$7.5 Agriculture(5Yearcycle) Agriculture(8YearCycle) Monoculture(30YearDuration) tC/ha 1119 2119 2830 3319 3668 4656 14291 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 REDD+@US$3 REDD+@US$5.6 REDD+@US$7.5 Agriculture(5YearsCycle) Agriculture(8YearsCycle) Monoculture(30YearsDuration) REDD+withCo-benefits NPV (US$)/ha
  34. 34. 8REDD+ Co- Benefits and Benefit Sharing Mechanism 30 September 2013 -
  35. 35. Economics of REDD+ and Co-Benefits • Conservation of forest biodiversity & wildlife habitats • Water regulation • Soil conservation • Timber and NTFPs • Livelihood • Governance • Micro-climatic Benefits etc. • The economic value of these benefits is much higher than the carbon benefits • Economic valuation is a difficult exercise • Opportunity Cost Analysis doesn’t take these ecosystem services into account Bhomik/WWF-India
  36. 36. Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM) • Both financial and non-financial benefits • Stakeholders are both landholders and landless • Equity, the opportunity cost and social & environmental safeguards need to be addressed • Local institutions should have capacity to handle financial and social issues • Need to understand socio-cultural changes post-REDD+ • Synergy with national policy and legal regime • In BBL a BSM should be devised after consultations with community, CBOs and other stakeholders
  37. 37. Presentation to Company Name 9The MOEF and the Way Forward 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
  38. 38. Thank you www.panda.org Email: bhomikjain@gmail.com +91-8860179180 © 2010, WWF. All photographs used in this presentation are copyright protected and courtesy of the WWF-Canon Global Photo Network and the respective photographers.

×