Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byClimate Policy Initiative
Taking Stock of International Contributions to Low-Carbon, Climate Resilient Land Use in Indonesia
The document discusses Indonesia's significant role as a global land use emitter, illustrating its commitment to reduce emissions by 26% by 2020, primarily through its forest and peat sector. It highlights the challenges of low international climate finance flow to land use sectors and emphasizes the need for better coordination among development partners to enhance effectiveness. Recommendations include developing sustainable funding mechanisms and leveraging local organizations to improve long-term project outcomes.
More Related Content
Similar to Taking Stock of International Contributions to Low-Carbon, Climate Resilient Land Use in Indonesia
Taking Stock of International Contributions to Low-Carbon, Climate Resilient Land Use in Indonesia
- 1. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 1 BRAZIL CHINA EUROPE INDIA INDONESIA UNITED STATES Menara Bank Danamon, 11th floor,Jl. Prof. Dr. Satrio Jakarta, 12940, Indonesia Taking Stock of International Contributions to Low Carbon, Climate Resilient Land Use in Indonesia Angela Falconer Skye Glenday
- 2. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 2 Indonesia was the top global land use emitter in 2012 • 44% of global land use and forestry emissions came from Indonesia in 2012 • Halting global deforestation could make up to 25-35% of global action to address climate change Land-Use Change and Forestry Emissions, 2012 Brazil Indonesia Rest of the World Source: WRI, 2015
- 3. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 3 The international community has a huge opportunity to help reduce emissions and build resilience in Indonesia • Govt. of Indonesia has committed to reduce emissions by 26% by 2020, scaling up to 29% by 2030, and further extending to 41% with international support • Indonesia plans to meet 88% of its emission reductions target from forest and peat sector ieving broader mic goals, aiming 7% on average of Finance’s 2014 egy has cautioned have to rise from y 2025 to maintain therwise economic o losses associated n of natural portant contribution sions and economic to climate impacts, esilient land use is of Indonesia (GoI) ving this goal will licy incentives, ts and international Indeed, Indonesia’s eenhouse Gas of emission me from forests and 2014) call “a period novation with experts point out that the standard may require some strengthening to deliver the desired sustainability outcomes.10 Finally progress has also been made towards creating “Onemap,” a database bringing together land use, land tenure, and other spatial data to help overcome land title disputes. This progress may have contributed to the downturn in 2013 in tree loss, however, much more needs to be done to turn this into a stable downward trend (Dharmasaputra and Wahyudi 2014, Sizer et al. 2015, Seymour 2015). Table 1 Emission reduction targets stipulated in the RAN-GRK to reach a 26% reduction SECTOR Gt CO2 (e) % TOTAL AGRICULTURE 0.008 1% FOREST AND PEAT LAND 0.672 88% ENERGY AND TRANSPORT 0.038 5% INDUSTRIAL 0.001 0% WASTE 0.048 6% Total 0.767 100% Source: RAN-GRK
- 4. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 4 But not enough climate finance is flowing to land use sectors, especially from international partners The 26% target requires USD 11-15 billion per year in 2020. Source: Ministry of Finance Mitigation Fiscal Framework 2012
- 5. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 5
- 6. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 6
- 7. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 7 Land-use deep-dive - this study finds that: • While international disbursements to the land use sector are low, the focus of existing development finance is well directed • But, finance is often too short-term to deliver desired results • Management by international rather than local organizations is limiting its effectiveness • Better coordination presents the best opportunity to maximize the next phase of international support – and although politically challenging, there are some specific steps forward
- 8. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 8 Study Approach
- 9. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 9 Objectives • Understand how land use climate finance from international partners is flowing: actors, instruments, activities • Assess role & value add of international development partners • Identify implementation challenges • Propose opportunities to improve the effectiveness of development cooperation
- 10. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 10 The Landscape of Climate Finance Framework which to measure progress toward economic and environmental goals and plan scale up. It also reveals and the disbursement value for 2011 was collected for these projects as part a survey carried out for the Indonesia Landscape.2 Data also includes disbursements 2 For the forestry and agriculture sectors, our data includes the following Figure 1 The Climate Finance Landscape framework SOURCES AND INTERMEDIARIES INSTRUMENTS DISBURSEMENT CHANNELS USES PUBLIC FINANCE PUBLIC- PRIVATE PRIVATE FINANCE Domestic Government International government Development Finance Institutions Climate Funds Capital Markets Business Budgets Grants Risk Management Debt Equity Balance sheet financing Public Private Adaptation, Mitigation Specific uses (sector, type of support) Source: Buchner et al. 2011a, 2011b, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.
- 11. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 11 Approach for the tracking public climate finance in Indonesia • Collected data on disbursements of public climate finance in 2011 • coded 12,000 lines of state budget for 11 key ministries • surveyed 25 international development partners • reviewed national data on local government transfers and a case study for one region • literature review of 46 state-owned enterprises • conducted many interviews with stakeholders.
- 12. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 12 International land use finance deep dive • 69 projects by 15 donors and 2 climate funds • Literature review for additional project information and contextual data • Expert interviews to help interpret our findings and build recommendations, focused on: – The suitability of current support – The value add of international support – Operational challenges and ways forward
- 13. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 13 Study Findings
- 14. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 14 Disbursement to land use sectors is low Source: OECD, 2015 International climate finance commitmetns to forestry and agriculture in Indonesia (USD million)
- 15. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 15 Low disbursement reflects the dominance of grants for indirect activities as well as implementation challenges 93% grants 47% grants Agri & Forestry All sectors Source: author’s assessment based on review of project documentation where available
- 16. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 16 88% of international finance disbursed to the land use sectors in 2011 was from bilateral donors, with the remainder from multilateral organizations or funds Cumulative climate marked ODA in the agriculture and forestry sectors, 2010-2013 (USD million) Source: OECD, 2015
- 17. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 17 Most international finance is managed by international entities, which may impede sustainability of results Source: authors’ interpretation based on publically available project documentation. Note: we aimed to identify the type of organization that managed the finances of projects and was mainly in charge of the project implementation and direction. In reality, most projects have a decision-making structure involving key government partners and stakeholders, while beneficiaries are varied and multiple.
- 18. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 18 Finance focused on capacity building and strengthening of enabling environments is well directed given persisting weaknesses Key enabling environment challenges include: • lack of spatial information on concessions, licenses and permits • lack of recognition of customary land rights • conflict over land rights and illegality in land use • limited capacity of institutions and human resources • lack of political support and corruption
- 19. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 19 However, public finance needs to transition from supporting enabling activities toward direct implementation
- 20. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 20 There are mixed views on the role and value add of development partners ü Accelerate government activities not covered by the national budget ü Building capacity of local civil society organizations ü Help overcome inter- ministerial blockages ü Progress to build awareness of REDD+ issues • New cooperation models have proven challenging e.g. performance based payments (Indonesia-Norway agreement), funds • Some opposition to external support
- 21. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 21 Addressing development cooperation challenges could further improve effectiveness of finance • Local organizations frequently struggle to meet diverse reporting requirements or follow application procedures for development partner funding • Program knowledge is frequently lost following host government staff rotations • Funding timescale are commonly too short to enable full implementation and meet project goals • Significant duplication of donor efforts – with overlapping projects often running in silos within same or parallel ministries
- 22. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 22 Recommendations & Ways Forward
- 23. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 23 Development partners and the Government of Indonesia need to coordinate more systematically to support regulatory reform and improve systems • Working together to form a vision for land use that is cross-ministerial, cross-jurisdictional, and cross- donor • Creating a comprehensive public database of international development partner activities and disbursements
- 24. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 24 Development partners can make adjustments to improve effectiveness & longevity of programs • Develop funding mechanisms that delink funding from political cycles, enabling sustained support for land use projects over extended durations • Work with local delivery agents who are better placed to maintain longer term relationships with local government • Take care during project inception to prepare full risk assessments and realistic, participatory implementation plans • Aim to provide systems and outputs that can quickly transfer data and information to local officials following staff rotations
- 25. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 25 Leverage greater finance and impact by building up the capacity of Indonesian organizations and promoting innovative public private funding partnerships • Assisting Indonesian institutions meeting accreditation requirements to access international funds directly • Streamlining administrative requirements and offering support to meet them to potential local implementing organizations
- 26. Landscape of LandUse Climate Finance 26 Explore the report further... DOWNLOAD THE REPORT: http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/publications/ CONTACT US WITH ANY FEEDBACK: mia.fitri@cpi-indo.org angela.falconer@cpivenice.org sky.glenday@cpi-indo.org
- 27. BRAZIL CHINA EUROPE INDIA INDONESIA SOUTHERN AFRICA UNITED STATES ...helpingdecision makers spend their money wisely
Editor's Notes
- #2 Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) works to improve the most important energy and land use policies around the world, with a particular focus on finance. We support decision makers through in-depth analysis on what works and what does not. Focus of CF workstream: tracking, effectiveness, innovation CPI’s land use work focuses on a Production & Protection approach A growing population and middle class mean it’s more important than ever to use land wisely. To meet our needs we must improve agricultural productivity while avoiding expansion into carbon-rich areas.
- #3 Major driver of deforestation – palm SG: - on second dot point – I presume this isn’t Indonesia specific, but global? That is unclear above – but seems way to high to be Indonesia specific stat. AF: yes, made this clearer
- #4 Spend is 10-15 times lower than it needs to be
- #5 Spend is 10-15 times lower than it needs to be
- #8 ERP: I don’t want people to have to wait 15 minutes to get to your findings and recommendations. Instead, I suggest a quick recap slide here before you move into the methodology section. This piques peoples’ interest and also helps the messages sink in. Here is an example, based on what I took from the presentation. SG: I edited this a bit to better align with study recommendations (including suggesting change in title – to try and segue from broader landscape to deep-dive findings). I also added acknowledgement that coordination while recommended is not necessarily easy (I think we need to be clear that we understand the hurdles and why this coordination has not occurred yet)… Does this work? AF: looks good to me, thanks for rewording.
- #10 ERP: Moved this from the end of the last section to here, where it makes more sense.
- #11 As shown in Figure 1, the approach maps the lifecycle of finance flows along the horizontal access, identifying the sources of finance, who intermediates and disburses the finance and what financial instruments they use and finally what mitigation or adaptation activities money is spent on. The vertical access instead moves from public to private actors and instruments. The landscape framework allows us to have a good overview or ‘snapshot’ of who is investing in emissions reduction and climate resilience efforts around the world or in a particular country, through what instruments, and what they are investing in. By identifying what is already happening on the ground, the landscape approach can provide a baseline against which to measure progress toward economic and environmental goals and plan scale up. It also reveals Figure 1 The Climate Finance Landscape framework investment patterns that pinpoints where the biggest barriers and opportunities lie. A landscape approach can also help international partners and governments identify the best ways for tailoring international support to complement domestic efforts and improve coherence across a range of actors.
- #12 How about the methodology we used for the study? We focussed on PUBLIC climate finance flows to keep the scope manageable but this also makes sense given Indonesia’s current focus on building enabling environment for future investment. We collected data on disbursements as we are interested in what is getting spent rather than what is promised and potentially blocked. Our analysis covered four key public actors: central government, local government, international development partners and state-owned enterprises. For central government spending, we coded 12 000 lines of state budget for 11 ministries deemed to be key for CC We surveyed 25 international development partners We reviewed national data on local government transfers and found it not to be detailed enough so we developed a case study for one region (Alika led on the analysis here) literature review of 46 state-owned enterprises conducted interviews with many other stakeholders. In all cases we combined together the best available datasets, correcting for overlaps, applying a technical definition of climate specific finance. While this was a long bottom up data collection process, the Ministry of Finance, our partner for this study, is in the process of improving their systems for tracking of international and domestic climate finance, with support from the study team. So hopefully the task becomes easier in the future!
- #13 This paper provides a ‘deep dive’ sectoral analysis of international development partner data collected for the Indonesian Landscape (Ampri et al. 2014), including information on 69 agriculture and forestry projects reported by 15 of the biggest international development partners operating in Indonesia. Basic project information (donor agency, project name, sector, financial instrument, recipient, and channel) and the disbursement value for 2011 was collected for these projects as part a survey carried out for the Indonesia Landscape.2 Data also includes disbursements from two international climate funds.3 Reported data was supplemented with additional information on project objectives and implementation partners taken from publicly available project documentation where available. We also put our data in context of surrounding years using 2010-2013 data on donor commitments from the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database. Additionally, this paper was informed by a literature review and a series of seven telephone interviews carried out between August and September 2015 with development partners and Indonesia land use finance experts. The interviews were carried out on an anonymous basis, and hence insights are not attributed in the paper. The interviews were structured around the following key questions, which are explored in this paper: 1. To what extent does current international develop- ment partner support in the forestry and agriculture sectors fit with Indonesia’s needs? 2. What type of international development partner support adds most value in the land use sectors in Indonesia? 3. What challenges do international development partners and the Government of Indonesia face to realizing effective contributions? What systematic improvements could help overcome these issues? 4. What contribution from international development partners would be most effective going forward?
- #15 International land use climate finance deployed in Indonesia is dominated by grants. The international land use support that we capture was delivered entirely in the form of grants, apart from concessional loan projects financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development. These loan finance projects may provide useful lessons for how public finance can be invested to leverage private sector investment and promote sustainable agriculture value chains, including in key sectors such as oil palm. ERP: You may want to split this into two slides – one showing low disbursement, and the next showing that this low disbursement is explained by grants and implementation challenges SG: agree needs to be split AF: split
- #16 International land use climate finance deployed in Indonesia is dominated by grants. The international land use support that we capture was delivered entirely in the form of grants, apart from concessional loan projects financed by the International Fund for Agricultural Development. These loan finance projects may provide useful lessons for how public finance can be invested to leverage private sector investment and promote sustainable agriculture value chains, including in key sectors such as oil palm. ERP: You may want to split this into two slides – one showing low disbursement, and the next showing that this low disbursement is explained by grants and implementation challenges SG: agree needs to be split
- #17 Ten bilateral partners, including for example Norway and Germany, delivered around 88% of international finance disbursed to land use sectors in 2011. The remaining 12% came from multilateral organizations and funds. SG: I’m confused by USAID is mentioned in TP – but they don’t even appear in the graphic? Shouldn’t they be in the graphic – is that en error? Or they don’t report to OECD? In TP I think we should refer to the top 2-3 contributors if we make a reference (Norway, Germany etc.) AF: yes, they don’t report any climate marked data to OECD. Clarified that data on figure is cumulative commitments.
- #18 We estimate that approximately 85% of international development partner finance for forestry and agriculture in 2011 was delivered through managing contractors, international governments, international NGOs, international development banks, international universities and UN organizations.
- #19 84% spend on mitigation, 16% on adaptation. Land use activities supported by international development partners have focused thus far on capacity building and strengthening enabling environments. We classify 48% of international disbursements in land use in 2011 as ‘indirect’ activities, including training, institutional development, systems development, research, strategy and policy advice aimed at creating the enabling environment for emissions reductions or resilience improvements. They mostly support strengthened timber legality, developing MRV systems, sustainable forest management, and spatial planning. ‘Direct’ implementation (emission reducing or resilience improving) activities accounted for 13% of disbursements. These include ecosystem rehabilitation, as well as management of fire, and protected areas to a lesser extent. A further 39% of disbursements had both indirect and direct components, largely for training related to ecosystem rehabilitation and sustainable agriculture. Indirect Support helps to improve information, transparency, and governance, to tackle illegality, and allocate and manage land more efficiently. Such activities are challenging and do not always provide such visible results as implementation activities, but they have the potential to unlock significant streams of future public and private investment in land use. While such activities generally fall within the domain of the Indonesian Government, international partners can help to stimulate action, boost capacity, and provide best practice examples from other contexts. Nonetheless, parallel support is needed to further scale up direct implementation activities that can help develop sustainable agriculture and agro-forestry value chains, support ecosystem restoration, and produce sustainable livelihood options for rural communities. Such support will help implementation activities scale up as the enabling environment is strengthened, providing proof of concept and also helping to push forward linked reforms in governance and regulation.
- #20 In the long run, to achieve sustainable, socially- inclusive economic and development goals, direct implementation will need to be scaled up, including sustainable agriculture and forestry, ecosystem restoration, and sustainable livelihoods. Some of these activities are potentially revenue generating, and hence can be funded through a redirection of private investments, if initially supported by public investment to overcome gaps in information, risk, and viability. SG: need a TP that explains the diagram a bit more. They are related – but heaps of information and flows in diagram that will be hard for audience to asborb without more instruction. Maybe the heading needs to also link into a message about the diagram – I’m not quite sure what this is yet as while see nothing inaccurate in the diagram I’m not sure what I’m meant to do with it / take from it. AF: I would say there are a number of different entry points and financial instruments for public and private actors and highlight that public expenditure and investment is needed for the types of enabling activities listed as well as to support implementation, where private sector input can also be leveraged to maximise impact and evenually reach goals.
- #21 Positive / negative
- #22 SG: I edited this as it should highlight the challenges not the solutions? Because solutions are quite duplicative of recommendations in next slides AF: yes better thanks, I was trying to sound positive but you are right
- #24 This vision can help minimize duplication and maximize reach to enhance coordination and cooperation, and therefore effectiveness
- #25 We touched on these already when mentioning cooperation challenges but I think good to repeat these key ones here.
- #26 SG: I took out the SOE dot point – that is in the report, but suggestion of one interviewee. We reflect the opinion, but I don’t know that we are ready to make it a formal “recommendation”. Can talk to them as being an option under dot point one