1. REDD+ for climate
change mitigation and
adaptation
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
Kathmandu, Nepal

2. Rationale
• Regulatory policies of the past have failed to halt
deforestation
• 1.6% deforestation rate per annum
• Carbon emission from land use in developing countries still
a concern – voluntary participation by countries
• Standing trees are less valuable than felled timber
• Additional incentives required for not cutting down trees in
forests
• Aimed at developing countries

3. RED to REDD++ (REALU/AFOLU)
REDD++ all land use changes
+ (AFOLU)
REDD+ carbon enhancing
+
REDD degradation
+
deforestation only
RED
• current framing of REDD refers to only a partial accounting of land
use change, without clarity on cross-sectoral linkages and rights
• hampered by methodological problems of leakage, definition,
transitions

4. What does REDD+ deal with?
• REDD+ recognized (reducing deforestation,
degradation, conservation, SFM, enhancement)
• Polluters (in advanced countries) pay for
conservation and sustainable forest management
(in developing countries)
• REDD+ is an incentive based mechanism agreed
at the global level
• Source of finance for conservation (through IBM
under UNFCCC)
• Biodiversity conservation and improved livelihood
are co-benefits (mitigation-adaptation interface)

5. 3 major COPs
• COP 13: Bali Action Plan:
– “…Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and
the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of
forest carbon stocks in developing countries…”
• COP 16 Cancun: REDD+ activities in 3 steps:
– Development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures, and
capacity-building,
– Implementation of national policies and measures and national strategies or
action plans, technology development and transfer and results-based
demonstration activities
– Result based actions on ground that should be measured, reported and verified
(MRV).
• COP 17 Durban: mandates
– Information on SAFEGUARDS and develop modalities for MRV
– Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity
– Respect for knowledge and rights of local and indigenous peoples
– Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders

6. Drivers of Deforestation
Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC

7. Drivers of Forest Degradation
Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC

8. Policy failures
Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC

9. CO2 emission in HKH countries
GHG emissions in some HKH countries (areas located
outside HKH region are included).

10. Successful Community Forestry
under conducive policy environment
1978 Namdu, Nepal 2005

11. Piloting REDD+ Payment System
through seed grant distribution in
Community Forestry in Nepal
June 2009 – May 2013

12. Project components
Institutions and
governance
Carbon Capacity
monitoring Building

13. Project Areas
Total WS= 5750 ha
31 CFUGs
CF area= 1,888 ha
Total WS= 14037 ha
58 CFUGs
CF area= 5,996 ha
Total WS= 8002 ha
15 CFUGs
CF area = 2,382ha

14. Forests in three watersheds
Forest in Total Forest
Watershed Watershed area [ha]
watershed Community
(District) [ha]
[ha] Forest [ha] Dense Sparse
Charnawati
14,037 7,492 5,996 3,899 2,097
(Dolakha)
Kayarkhola
8,002 5,821 2,381 1,902 479
(Chitwan)
Ludikhola
5,750 4,869 1,888 1,634. 252
(Gorkha)
Total 27,789 18,182 10,266 7,437 2,829

15. Socio-demography data
Watershed CFUG
CFUGs Population Major ethnic groups
(District) Households
Charnawati Tamang, Chhetri,
58 7870 42609
(Dolakha) Brahmin, Thami, Dalit
Kayarkhola
16 4146 23223 Chepang, Tamang
(Chitwan)
Magar, Gurung, Tamang,
Ludikhola
31 4110 23685 Dalit, few Brahmin and
(Gorkha)
Chhetri
Total 105 16144 89517

16. Project activities
Forest carbon measurement
Alternative energy
Awareness raising Piloting Forest Carbon Stakeholder
Fund engagement

17. Carbon sequestration data
Average carbon
tonnes/ha
Watershed Area (ha) Range (ha) 2010 2011 2012
Charnawati 5996 1.5-819.4 206.95 209.29 212.03
Kayarkhola 2382 34.5-329.2 288.44 289.83 291.19
Ludikhola 1888 5.2-270.7 209.12 214.43 217.33
Total 10266 226.3 228.92 231.37
Increase 2.62 2.68
Source: REDD+ project, 2012

18. REDD+ payment basis
60% payment for 40% payment for carbon
social safeguards stock and increment
Payments in 3 watersheds
Charnawati $ 7.4/ha
In 2012, additional USD 100 per CFUG was Kayarkhola $ 10.4/ha
given to reduce disparity between groups. Ludikhola $ 13.8/ha

19. How was REDD money used?
Expenditure Status in %
Expenses activities Dolakha Gorkha Chitwan Average
1. Livelihood improvement activities 53.8 50.3 48.5 50. 9
2. Capacity building (awareness,
9.7 9.4 8.3 9.1
workshop)
3. Forest carbon monitoring (training
7.2 4.3 27.7 13.1
LRPs for forest inventory)
4. Alternative energy schemes 11.9 15.0 13.5 13.5
5. Others (Forest mgmnt activities +
17.4 21.0 1.9 13.4
enrichment plantation)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Co-financed by CFUGs (% in total
43.9 2.3 69.9 49.2
invested amount)

20. Trust Fund mechanism
Forest Carbon Trust Fund Government, CSO,
Advisory Committee Collaborator, IPOs
Project Management Unit
Fund disbursement - joint 1 Secretariat
signature (ICIMOD, FECOFUN 2 Data registration and Verification Agency
and ANSAB) management
District Fund Watershed
Monitoring Committee
Advisory Committee REDD Network
(MC)
Community
Forest User
Group
Note: Dot Arrow represents report, data and information
Bold Arrow represents subsidy and incentive

21. Linking Payment to C-enhancement
Identify and periodic assessment
Review, adjust of drivers of forest degradation,
and adapt initiate forest enhancement
activities
Operate trust
Establish baseline of
fund REDD
forest carbon and
payment
periodic monitoring
disbursement
Setting
indicators/crite
ria (social,
biophysical)
Standardize Frame Measurement,
Set up pilot trust Develop Project
measurement fund and regulate reporting and Designed
methodologies and REDD+ payment Verification (MRV) Document (PDD)
guidelines system

22. Reflections/Learning
• Community forestry: an example of effective decentralized
system to respond to local factors and also climate change.
• CF reinforces adaptive forest management
• REDD+: an opportunity to address poverty and social justice
(triple dividends: Climate, Community & Forests)
• Strengthened social bonding and engagement
• Efficient coupling: REDD network and forest groups
• Participatory carbon monitoring – reduced time and cost,
increased ownership and responsibility
• Co-financing in forest management and livelihoods
• Still unresolved: monitoring cost in small and fragmented CFs;
additionality; equity due unequal forest size and status;
enhancement vs. co-benefits

23. The role of tree and forests
Trees for Products
fruit firewood medicine income sawn wood fodder
Environmental services
Trees for Services
soil soil shade watershed biodiversity carbon
fertility erosion protection sequestration

24. Community Forest – benefits
Kalika Community Forest (Chitwan) 213 ha, 169 households
Example of participatory valuation of ecosystem services
Household
Average tangible benefits per HH (US$) 1,227
Average intangible benefits per HH (US$) 262
Ecosystem services
Tangible benefits (US$/ha/year) 974
Intangible benefits (US$/ha/year) 208
Downstream benefits (US$/ha/year) 26
Value of Kalika CF (US$/ha/year) 1208
Total value of Kalika CF services (US$/year) 257,198
REDD+ money for livelihoods (2012, US$) 738
Source: Field survey, August 2012, ICIMOD

25. Social safeguard
• Restrictions on forest access and use in favor
of conservation or mitigation objectives can
limit livelihood options
• Design of decision making and benefit-
sharing arrangements can undermine
vulnerable forest-dependent groups.
• Hence, community forestry should be
undertaken with a sustainable livelihoods
approach that focuses on the strengthening of
adaptive capacity.

26. Thank you