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: