1

REDD, REDD+, REALU, CDM: wegwijs in de prominente rol van

bossen in het klimaatbeleidLeuven, 15 November 2011

Bruno VerbistKLIMOS

BE-REDD-I

2

REDD, REDD+, REALU, CDM: wegwijs in de prominente rol van

bossen in het klimaatbeleid• Hoe erg is het?• Mitigatie• CDM-REDD-REALU• Uitdagingen• Indonesië• Wie zal dit betalen?• Wat kan er aan gedaan worden?

3

Prominente rol van bos in het klimaatbeleid …?

4

Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions

Friedlingstein et al. 2010, Nature Geoscience; Gregg Marland, Thomas Boden-CDIAC 2010

2009:

Emissions:8.4±0.5 PgC

Growth rate: -1.3%

1990 level: +37%

2000-2008

Growth rate: +3.2%

2010 (projected):

Growth rate: >3%

CO

2em

issi

ons

(Pg

C y

-1) C

O2em

issions (Pg C

O2y

-1)

Growth rate

1990-1999

1 % per year

Growth rate

2000-2009

2.5 % per year

Time (y)

5

Fossil Fuel Emissions: Actual vs. IPCC Scenarios

Updated from Raupach et al. 2007, PNAS; Data: Gregg Marland, Thomas Boden-CDIAC

2010; International Monetary Fund 2010

Fos

sil F

uel E

mis

sion

(PgC

y-1)

5

6

7

8

9

10

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Full range of IPCC

individual scenarios

used for climate

projections

A1B Models Average

A1FI Models Average

A1T Models Average

A2 Models Average

B1 Models Average

B2 Models Average

Observed

Projected

Time (y)

6

Bron: NASA, 198x 1 Gt = 109 ton

7

8

1 ton CO2 = 556 m3

Klimaatconferentie, Bella Center, Kopenhagen, December 2009

9

Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience

CO2 Emissions from FF and LUC (1960-2009)

LUC emissions now

~10% of total CO2 emissions

CO

2em

issi

ons

(PgC

y-1)

Fossil fuel

Land use change

10

8

6

4

2

1960 20101970 1990 20001980

Time (y)

10

CO2 Emissions from Land Use Change

Friedlingstein et al. 2010, Nature Geoscience; Data: RA Houghton, GFRA 2010

1990s

Emissions: 1.5±0.7 PgC

2000-2005

Emissions: 1.3±0.7 PgC

2006-2010:

Emissions: 0.9±0.7 PgC

CO

2em

issi

ons

(PgC

y-1) C

O2em

issions (PgC

O2y

-1)

1990-1999

1.5±0.7 PgCy-1

2000-2009

1.1±0.7 PgCy-1

Time (y)

11

Emissions from Land Use Change (1850-2009)

R.A. Houghton 2010, personal communication; GFRA 2010

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Tropical

Temperate

CO

2em

issi

ons

(TgC

y-1)

Time (y)

12

Emissions from Land Use Change (1850-2009)

R.A. Houghton 2010, personal communication; GFRA 2010

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Latin America

S & SE Asia

Tropical Africa

CO

2em

issi

ons

(Tg

C y

-1)

Time (y)

13

Human Perturbation of the Global Carbon Budget

Global Carbon Project 2010; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS14

5

10

10

5

1850 1900 1950 2000

2000-2009(PgC)

atmospheric CO2

ocean

land

fossil fuel emissions

deforestation

(Residual)

Sin

kSou

rce

Time (y)

CO

2flu

x(P

gC y

-1)

2.3±0.4(5 models)

4.1±0.1

7.7±0.5

1.1±0.7

2.4

14

Fate of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions (2000-2009)

1.1±0.7 PgC y-1

+7.7±0.5 PgC y-1

2.4 PgC y-1

27%Calculated as the residual of

all other flux components

4.1±0.1 PgC y-1

47%

26%2.3±0.4 PgC y-1

Average of 5 models

Global Carbon Project 2010; Updated from Le Quéré et al. 2009, Nature Geoscience; Canadell et al. 2007, PNAS

15

Mitigation: a bit of history• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1988)• Climate Change Convention 1992 (Rio de Janeiro), ratif.

March 1994: birth of UNFCCC (United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change)

• Kyoto protocol (1997, COP-3):– Carbon market– Clean Development Mechanism (CDM; 1st project in 2001)– REDD is not accepted: issues of permanence, leakage, sovereignty

& politics

• 2001 – Bush withdraws from Kyoto-protocol negotiations– EU excludes CDM A/R from European Emissions Trading Scheme

(ETS)

• REDD promoted by Coalition of Rainforest Nations(Montréal, 2005, COP-11)

16

Indonesia blamed as major emitter in study byWorld Bank, DFID and PEACE, 2007.

Brazil, Indonesia , and Malaysia are among the top ten CO2-emitting countries in the world because of their emissions from deforestation and land use change land since 2000 (Olander et al., 2009).

For about 30 developing countries deforestation and degradation are the largest source of CO2 emissions (van der Werf et al., 2009)

17

Mitigation: a bit of history (cont’d)• Bali Action Plan (2007, COP-13)

– Approval of ‘policy approaches and positiveincentives’ for REDD

– NAMA’s: Nationally Appropriate MitigationAction (= Long term voluntary actions byDeveloping Countries) in 2010 > 100 submissions

• Kopenhagen – Cancun (2009, 2010; COP-15 &16)– REDD (Reducing Emissions of Deforestation

and forest Degradation) … fast start funding… UN-REDD preparatory activities

18

Klimaatmitigatie-Mitigatie werd ernstiger genomen na het Stern rapport (2006): ‘The economics of climate change’

-Rapport kreeg kritiek rond gehanteerde interne rentevoet en de snelheid van de klimaatsverandering

-In 2009 bleek dat het klimaat echter sneller opwarmt dan Stern had ingeschat.

-De Rentevoet discussie: Kan je een hoge rentevoet aanhouden als dat betekent dat je systeem ten onder gaat?

19

McKinsey MCKinsey

20

• CDM A/R(Kyoto, 1997; start in 2005)

• REDD+(Bali, 2007; Cancun, 2010)

Time

Carbon Stock

Time

BaselineBaseline

• Betaling: extra C-opslag (als bomengroeien)

• Betaling: C-opslag in bosboven een basisniveau

Carbon Stock

Voor bos: 2 mechanismen

21

What is REDD?

“Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and ForestDegradation in developing Countries” (Angelsen et al., 2008)

(i) developing mechanisms to make payments to developing countries for reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (comparedwith a reference level);

(ii) readiness activities which prepare countries to participate in the REDD mechanism (o.a. UN-REDD)

22

Some challenges …

23

REDD+ in Cancun§ 70. Encourages developing country Parties to contribute to mitigation

actions in the forest sector by undertaking the following activities, as deemed appropriate by each Party and in accordance with theirrespective capabilities and national circumstances:

(a) Reducing emissions from deforestation; (RED)(b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation; (D)(c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks; (+) (d) Sustainable management of forest; (+)(e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks; (+)

Agreement on safeguards regarding food security and protection of economic development, but finetuning still possible

Different opinions on:• Safeguards: MRV of Biodiversity• People’s rights: principle of Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) • No forest definition yet

24

REDD: Important concepts

• Leakage

• Permanence• Additionality

• Effectiveness (How much ton CO2-eq?)• Efficiency (How much ton CO2-eq per $ ?)

• Equity (Fair distribution of carbon benefits?)• Finance

• Scale

25

Linking local & global level

Safeguards

(Van Noordwijk, 2010)

26

Globally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (GAMA)

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA)

Locally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (LAMA)

27

F,P,N,H,S capital F,P,N,H,S capitalGoods&services Investment, payments

At every scale transition we need to consider:Realistic: Is it ‘additive ’ or non-linear scaling?Voluntary: Does the currency need to change?

If so, what exchange rate?Conditional: How to ‘derive’ flow from stock and

build up stock through flows?

Crossing borders:

Passport –legitimacy

Currency

Language

Timezone

Trans-action costs

F: Financial; P: Physical; N:Natural; H:Human; S:Social

28

Equity: Are rights being ‘safeguarded’?Promises:• The Facility… shall: … Comply with

the World Bank’s Operational Policies and Procedures, taking into account the need for effective participation of forest dependent indigenous peoples and forest dwellers in decisions that may affect them, respecting their rights under national law and applicable international obligations.Charter of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

• Norway has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and has ratified ILO Convention 169. Indigenous peoples' issues are high on the agenda in Norwegian development cooperation. It is a goal in itself to safeguard indigenous peoples' rights in Norwegian supported operational activities Ref: Letter to APA from Norwegian Government,

May 2010.

Practice:• FCPF still very unsure how to apply

safeguards: has been developing Strategic Environmental and Social Assessments for early phases but still not operational: meanwhile funds are being disbursed

• World Bank is not applying safeguards in managing Norwegian supported Guyana REDD Investment Fund but leaving it to ‘multiple delivery partners’to apply their divergent standards

• Norway waived standards on first US$30 million: fast-track funding

• Indonesia Letter of Intent for US$1 billion uncertain about how to address tenure

• FIP not addressing wider land claims in Peru

• In UNREDD, procedural rights (FPIC) being emphasised in place of substantive rights (tenure)

29

Who owns the forests?• 75% of world’s forests are controlled as State forests and private sector

also owns a lot (http://www.rightsandresources.org). • Many colonial and post colonial statutory laws ignore customary rights• However … international human rights laws recognise that people do

have rights based on custom (no act of the State required)

30

Uitbreiding staatsbos in West-Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesië

31

Forest definition: How do you understand the word forest in the context of the REDD

debate?o all land that has at least 10% tree canopy

cover, even if the trees have been plantedo all land that is managed by a forestry

institution, even if ‘temporarily unstocked’o only undisturbed closed canopy natural

foresto all of the above, depending on contexto the question is too difficult and irrelevant for

what we try to achieve

32

33

….are included under forest, as are

areas normally forming part of the

forest area which are temporarily

unstocked as a result of human

intervention such as harvesting or

natural causes but which are expected

to revert to forest;

[FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1]

Signs of deforestation?

34

Includes agroforests, oil palm plantations;

High density of rural poor

Clearfelling/ re-plant is accepted as forest; no time-limit on

‘replant’; Mainly State Forest Land; low density of rural poor

Forest with trees

Forest

Non-Forestwithout trees

Non-Forest withtrees

Forest without trees

Non-forest

Forest definitionbased on % tree cover

0%

100%

X %

What is a forest?

ALL-REDDI: average= 90 t C/ha

ALL-REDDI: average = 60 t C/ha

Forest definitionbased on a legalor institutionalperspective

X is often between 10-30%

35

Non-forestwith trees

Forest without trees

Forest withtrees

Non-forestmosaic

36

Indonesia Commitment on Climate Change Mitigation

COPENHAGEN 2009Indonesia committed

to 26% emission

reduction unilaterally plus additio

nal 15% through

international support by 2020

while retaining 7 % of economic

Growth.

LETTER OF INTENT INDONESIA-

NORWAY 2010

A two year suspension on all new

concessions for conversion of peat

and natural forest

37

38

For the whole of Indonesia so-called ‘Non-forests’ will provide wood underideal REDD conditions for 6 years before they are depleted … Only then

REDD will become effective…

39

Main findings ALLREDDI project Indonesia

1. 30 % of Indonesia’s forest emissions (total of 0.6 Gt carbon per year) occur outsideinstitutionally defined forests, and are notaccounted for under the current national policyfor Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+).

2. If current emission levels continue noforest left by 2063.

3. Carbon stocks outside of institutional forestsmay be depleted by 2032.

4. If carbon emissions from outside the institutionalforest are accounted for, it becomes clear thatthere are no net emission reductions in Indonesia.

(EkaDinata et al., 2010)

40

Challenge: AlternativeLU (mining, oil palm, …) could yield 15 bnUSD

vs.

REDD: 1 bn USD

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/16-2

41

42

Progress on integrating REDD in overall Indonesian policies

• The Presidential Work Unit for DevelopmentMonitoring and Control (UKP4):– Integration of REDD+ into the NAMA– Monitoring of REDD progress by Min. of Forestry

• National planning contains the 26% emissionreduction. All districts need to prepare theirplans (or LAMA’s) for their fair share of the mitigation targets. These should be intersectoralincl. agriculture and forestry (// REALU)

43

Progress on integrating REDD in overall policies

• Commitment at Rights & Resources Initiative meeting in July 2011 to taketenure conflicts at heart. Communityforestry area in Indonesia should increasefrom the current 100.000 ha to 5 mln ha. (http://www.rightsandresources.org)

44

Wie zal dit betalen?

• ODA: 119.8 bn US$ in 2008: (source: OECD-DAC)

• 4 Adaptation Funds GEF (> 1 bn US $ in 2010) + bilateral funding +

• Mitigation: 142 bn US$ in 2010 for CDM; (source:World Bank, 2011)

• REDD: 2-6 bn US$ in 2008 for forest carbon in voluntary markets; (source:reddplusdatabase.org; 10-11-2011)

At COP-16, Cancun, “ Green Climate Fund” pledge of 100 bn US$/yr by 2020 formitigation and adaptation. However, additionality & mode of operation are still unclear.

1

142

20.5 4

119.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

ODA Adaptation Mitigation REDD

Fund

s (b

n U

SD

)

45

Sustainable finance? Sustainable benefits?

• So far most REDD+ monies are from aid agencies

• READINESS planning (FCPF, UNREDD, bilaterals)

• READINESS implementation (FIP)

• ‘Carbon Funds’ (FCPF)• Monitoring, Reporting and

Verification (FAO)• Total aid sums pledged

far less than Stern and McKinsey say is needed

• However ‘phased approach’assumes global market will emerge and fund REDD+

• This requires UNFCCC agreement to achieve scale

• Meanwhile voluntary market still at highly experimental stage

• Long term market mechanism unclear esp. in relation to MRV and legality of trading. Who pays the transaction costs and overheads?

46

50% transaction costs

Direct emission reduction: efficiency

Sustainable development pathways: fairness

75% transaction costs

Direct emission reduction: efficiency

Sustainable development pathways: fairness

Expected by various stakeholders in Indonesia

‘desirable’ for various stakeholders in Indonesia

47

Linking climate change and development cooperation (Gupta, 2009)

5 stages:1. Ad hoc projects, making some changes2. Win-win projects

3. Climate proofed development projects foradaptation

4. Integrate mitigation into development projects

5. Mainstreaming: redesigning entire existingdevelopment cooperation portfolio

48

Large difference in effectivenesswhen CC mitigation was embedded/reconciliated withother policies

Source: WRI/UNDP/UNEP/World Bank, 2011. World Resources 2010–2011: Decision Makingin a Changing Climate—Adaptation Challenges and Choices, World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington DC.

49

Agroforestry in REALU of REDD++

50

Agroforestry: Potential for mitigation, adaptation & development

Akinnifesi et al. 2010.

TreatmentUnfertilized Maize 1.1 (36.5) 1.1 (61.7) 1.4 (65.6)Fertilized Maize 3.1 (27.9) 4.3 (32.2) 2.3 (36.9)Gliricidia without fertilizer

3.9 (27.1) 3.1 (38.4) 2.6 (21.7)

Gliricidia + 50% fertilizer

4.9 (24.8) NA 3.2 (11.7)

Table 1. Average yield values (t ha-1 yr-1)* and coefficients of variation (c.v. %) in parentheses for different nutrient management treatments at 3 sites in SSA.

*Means were based on n = 13 years for Malawi, 12 years for Zambia, and 12 years for Nigeria NA = not available

Yield stability analysis shows strong fertilizing AND stabilizing effects of agroforestry trees

BONUS BONUS

INSURANCE

51

Global status of trees on farms

Trabucco et al. 2009,ICRAF World AgroforestryConference, Nairobi

Trees on farms are a tremendously important source of ecosystem services but partially lack where dense communities badly need them

52

Conclusions• Linking mitigation, adaptation and development has clear

advantages, but pitfalls needs to be avoided• Interesting policy experiments in countries like Indonesia and

Vietnam at different scales, progress along a bumpy road:– Importance of uncontested land tenure– Importance of an effective coordinating intersectoral body at national

level– National pride as motivating factor: The 26% goals of Indonesia is

higher than the EU target!– Integration of fast-track REDD into slow-track NAMA

• Need to consider ecosystem carbon (beyond forest): REALU• NAMA’s and climate proofing as first steps to increase coherence

between sectors• Funding is still an issue (incl. the fund vs. carbon market discussion)• Importance of sustained coordinated efforts: Links with CIFOR,

ICRAF, Rights and Resources initiative, between donors, NGO’s, …

53

A Modest Proposal for Wealthy Countries to Reforest Their Land for the Common Good

Erik Meijaard & Doug Sheil

BiotropicaVolume 43, Issue 5, pages 524-528, 16 AUG 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2011.00802.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2011.00802.x/full#f1

54

BE-REDD-I

www.kuleuven.be/klimos

www.icraf.cgiar.org/sea

Met dank aan:

ICRAF: Meine van Noordwijk, Andree Ekadinata, Sonya Dew iGlobal Carbon ProjectKULeuven: Bart MuysForest Peoples Program: Marcus Colchester

KLIMOS wordt gesponsord door: BE-REDD-I wordt gesponsord door: