REALU: Linking REDD+ and NAMA Approaches
•
0 j'aime•538 vues
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
Similaire à REALU: Linking REDD+ and NAMA Approaches
Similaire à REALU: Linking REDD+ and NAMA Approaches (20)
Plus de ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins
Plus de ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins (20)
REALU: Linking REDD+ and NAMA Approaches
- 1. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses in Indonesia: linking REDD+ and NAMA approaches 25 February 2011, Bogor Tree cover and demographic transitions in Indonesia and their consequences for emission reduction opportunities base opportunities, base- lines and stratification of ‘pilots’ Meine van Noordwijk and Sonya Dewi Meine an Noord ijk and Son a De i
- 3. Rights to define forest ~ 5 different ways of classifying forest: Conservation + 10% State National Park watershed Forest Protected Area protection Forest forest Restoration conces‐ Emis‐ domain sion sion 53% Other + Community‐forest GHG Production C capture disputed forest forest lands Village forest Benefit‐sharing Convertible Logging concession forest Plantation contract l Official conversion from forest to non‐forest land status: ‘planned p Mixed agroforest, deforestation’ private forests, Non‐forest land uses community landscapes with ( (APL)) trees 1. By ecosystem 2. By vegetation 3. By land use 4. By ‘owner’ 5. By ‘co‐management service & its C‐stocks category regime’
- 4. “The global REDD+ agreement is ready to go, it may p not be perfect, but it is time to act now” But have we agreed on agreed on which trees are NOT a forest? Tony La Vina
- 5. Stakeholder: 1. Undisturbed natural forest Rainforest foundation 2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 2 Undisturbed + sust logged natural forest Conservation agency 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest Forest ecologist 4B. as 3 + timber plantations 4B 3 i b l i Ministry of Forestry 4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops UNFCCC definition 4D as 4C + shrub Modis data
- 7. Nicholas Stern REDD finance should be used for investment REDD finance should be used for investment in alternative development pathways that support maintenance of C stocks – rather t i t fC t k th than in protection of forests per se
- 8. Tree cover transition Widening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared
- 9. In the 1990’s loss of natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C‐ stock’/low economic value land; tree (crop) value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the loss of natural forest area After 2000 planting of tree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss of of concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C‐ stock/low economic value land decreases Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010
- 11. consequences for • emission reduc- i i d tion opportunities, • base-lines and • stratification of ‘pilots’
- 13. Agricultural intensification hypothesis Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994 ASB findings in 1994 systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems… More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total agricultural production agricultural production Or… speed up forest conversion forest conversion to profitable agriculture This may be This is true in true in ‘open’ ‘open’ ‘closed’ economies economies
- 14. From a ‘land sparing’ to a ‘land sharing’ paradigm of landscape multifunctionality di fl d ltif ti lit • Managing a gradient rather than dichotomy Managing a gradient rather than dichotomy Realistic + Conditional + C diti l+ Voluntary + Pro‐poor agreements g 6/7
- 15. The REDD+(+) value chain & C rights 1. Local development pathway & land use 2. 2 ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains) ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains) 3. minus allowance for Cstock uncertainty y 4. additional to Reference Emission Level Transaction 5. minus allowance for leakage costs when seen from local 6. 6 filtered by eligibility criteria filtered by eligibility criteria perspective 7. multiplied with price/investment level p p C rights apply 8. minus taxes and retribution to steps 1…8
- 16. Unpacking carbon rights – beyond ‘forest’ 1 • Modify C stock of land (Cut trees , Plant 2, 3, 4, 5, trees , Use fire , Control fire , Drain , 6 Rewet peat , Pest&Disease Control , 7 8 InfGrowthRate , Remove topsoil/mining ) p g 9 ) • Reduce C stock uncertainty 10 • Establish baseline/additionality 11 Establish baseline/additionality • Determine leakage (emission displacement) 12 • Define eligibility of emission reduction claim 13 • Negotiate price or investment regime 14 g p g • Impose tax and/or co‐invest public funds 15
- 17. Rights to Plot Village Landscape Country Global bodies 1 Cut/harvest 1 Cut/harvest 2 Plant 3 Burn Land use plan- Land 4 Control fire ning, ning tenurial use reform, reducing 5 Drain 6 Re‐wet peat rights ~ conflicts over 7 Pest control tenure multiple rights 8 Growth rates 9 Mine 9 Mine Bottom up participation 10 Measure MRV MRV‐inst 11 REL standard LAAMA NAMA GAMA 12 Leakage NAMA 13 Eligibility filter Top-down planning REDD + safeguards 14 C $ Fund‐based 15 Tax & coinvest REDD+strat
- 18. PES (Wunder, 2005) Increased efficiency CES Open market and flexibility in produ‐ f y p Increased ‘fairness’ trade in commoditized trade in ‘commoditized’ cing well‐defined ES ES produced by legal and opportunity to sup‐ using operational land users on demand port interest of rural indicators for ‘scala‐ . poor in situations with ble ES; price based ble’ ES; price based ES are scalable with MRV in place p contested land contested land on bargaining COS Compensate legal land users for use rights and ES power & total skipping their opportunities to shift as emergent supply land use to more pro fitable but less ES land use to more pro‐fitable but less ES properties of friendly land use landscape mosaics Legality of land use is clear and non‐contested CIS CIS Seek co‐investment by external and local Seek co‐investment by external and local stakeholders to reduce legal, semi‐ and illegal threats to ES, through support for collective action and building of social & human capital External value of environmental services exceeds local appreciation Clarify the relationship between land use options, productivity, profitability and provision of environmental services (ES) – from the perspective of local, public/policy and scientific ecological/economic knowledge l l bli / li d i ifi l i l/ i k l d Non‐linear baseline: tree cover transitions
- 20. Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, XXXX
- 23. Active small-scale conversion Slow small- sca e scale Last block of 18,000 ha peat conversion swamp forest as ‘protection protection Javanese zone’ migrants Large-scale conversion for oil palm and HTI
- 26. Fairness/Transparency Efficiency/Clarity Legend: International rules, Respect, Image, fund/market Knowledge International border value chain ment Free and Prior relations paym Nested baselines, certi- N t db li ti Informed Consent fied emission reduction of sovereign decision makers Subnational sectors/areas private sector p Investment/ / Finance: invest- rust/threat CREDD ment, payment Additionality ~ baseline g p Leakage/displacement Certified Emission Tr Reduction Local sectors/areas private sector Monitoring C stocks & project cycle aspects Local sectors/areas: communities, households Sustainable livelihood Reducing direct drivers support of emissions