O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground?

1.749 visualizações

Publicada em

This presentation is a compilation of four that were given on 30 November 2011 at an official UNFCCC COP17 side-event organised by CIFOR: 'How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground?'. The event discussed early insights on the capability of REDD+ projects to deliver on their goal of sequestering forest carbon while providing a range of co-benefits. The information presented draws mainly on findings of CIFOR's Global Comparative Study on REDD+, and covers the status and challenges of REDD+ projects on the ground;
challenges encountered in establishing REDD+ in Africa;
the policy and economic context in which REDD+ projects is unfolding; and
the status of monitoring, reporting and verification in setting up REDD+.

Publicada em: Educação, Tecnologia
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground?

  1. 1. <ul><li>How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground? </li></ul><ul><li>An exploration of the social, political, & biophysical issues </li></ul><ul><li>Durban, South Africa </li></ul><ul><li>Wednesday, 30 November 2011 </li></ul>
  2. 2. CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+
  3. 3. <ul><li>REDD+ on the ground: </li></ul><ul><li>Global overview of projects </li></ul><ul><li>Erin Sills, NCSU & CIFOR </li></ul>
  4. 4. Information sources <ul><li>Global catalogue of projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online database of forest carbon projects in non Annex I countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distribution of projects </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Global Comparative Study on REDD+ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Studying 24 projects in 6 countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection based on interest in sharing lessons and alignment of project and research timelines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Insights on strategies; free, prior and informed consent (FPIC); and tenure </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Projects <ul><li>implement (and generate lessons) about strategies to reduce forest carbon emissions and increase removals </li></ul><ul><li>quantify and report changes in forest carbon stocks, and possibly transact forest carbon credits </li></ul><ul><li>operate in a geographically defined site(s) with predetermined boundaries in a non-Annex I country </li></ul><ul><li>REDD+ </li></ul><ul><li>generate most of their net reductions in carbon emissions by avoiding deforestation or degradation, or by enhancing carbon stocks in existing forest </li></ul><ul><li>Afforestation/Reforestation </li></ul><ul><li>generate net reductions in carbon emissions by planting trees outside of existing forest </li></ul>
  6. 6. www. forestsclimatechange .org
  7. 7. www.forestsclimatechange.org
  8. 8. www.forestsclimatechange.org
  9. 9. www.forestsclimatechange.org
  10. 10. www.forestsclimatechange.org
  11. 11. www.forestsclimatechange.org <ul><li>Seeking your input </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additional projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Corrections or new information on projects </li></ul></ul>
  12. 13. Site selection <ul><li>More likely to have projects if: </li></ul><ul><li>Higher forest carbon stock </li></ul><ul><li>Higher deforestation rate </li></ul><ul><li>Greater protected area </li></ul>
  13. 14. GCS research sites Continent Country REDD project site LATIN AMERICA BRAZIL Government of Acre (SEMA). Acre Instituto Centro de Vida. Mato Grosso. IPAM. State of Para. TNC. Sao Felix du Xingu Bolsa Floresta - Not part of BACI PERU BAM. Madre de Dios. CI. San Martin. AFRICA CAMEROON CED. South and East region. GFA. South West province. TANZANIA TaTEDO. Shinyanga. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG). Kilosa. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG). Lindi. HIMA. Care International. Zanzibar. JGI. Masito Ugalla Ecosystem. MCDI. Mpingo. ASIA INDONESIA Government of Aceh. Ulu Masen. Community Carbon Pool. FFI. West Kalimantan. KFCP. AusAid. Central Kalimantan. Rimba Raya . Infinite Earth. Central Kalimantan. Katingan Peatland. Starling Resources. Central Kalimantan. TNC Berau. East Kalimantan. VIETNAM SNV. Cat Tien . Lam Dong province.
  14. 15. <ul><li>Projects are testing a wide range of strategies to reduce forest carbon emissions and/or increase removals. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Traditional”: support for alternative livelihoods (integrated conservation and development projects - ICDP); clarification of land tenure; enforcement of restrictions on forest/land use </li></ul><ul><li>Direct payments: conditional, performance-based payments (payments for ecosystem services - PES) </li></ul><ul><li>In early 2010, 90% of proponents were planning both. </li></ul>Project Strategies
  15. 16. Project Strategies <ul><li>By end of this year </li></ul><ul><ul><li>9 out of 18 expect to be offering support for alternative livelihoods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>11 out of 18 expect to have increased enforcement of restrictions on forest use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 out of 18 expect to be offering conditional, performance-based benefits for stakeholders who change land and forest use </li></ul></ul>
  16. 17. Shifting Project Strategies <ul><li>Support for alternative livelihoods </li></ul><ul><li>viewed as most likely to have positive impact on livelihoods and on forest conservation </li></ul><ul><li>helps address concerns about leakages and permanence </li></ul><ul><li>reflects uncertainty about availability of carbon funds for PES </li></ul><ul><li>element of dual-track planning </li></ul>
  17. 18. Transparency <ul><li>Some proponents postponing dissemination of information about REDD+ </li></ul><ul><li>For good reasons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid raising expectations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid strategic behaviour </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But with potentially negative consequences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>FPIC requires informing local people </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Postponing FPIC risks projects becoming fait accompli without significant local input </li></ul></ul>
  18. 19. Tenure: right to exclude <ul><li>Exclusion rights are fundamental to conditionality and accountability in REDD+ </li></ul><ul><li>In 93% of 71 villages in and around REDD+ projects surveyed by GCS, local respondents believe they have the right to decide who can or cannot use local forests </li></ul><ul><li>But especially in Indonesia, not all villages have successfully exercised this right </li></ul>
  19. 20. Tenure: contrasting Brazil and Indonesia <ul><li>Brazil: coordination between NGO proponents, local government, and federal agencies ( Terra Legal initiative) </li></ul><ul><li>Indonesia: national laws for land and forest are internally inconsistent, do not recognise traditional rights, and prevent communities from obtaining tenure rights </li></ul><ul><li>Illustrate need and challenge of “polycentric governance” (Elinor Ostrom) </li></ul>
  20. 21. Recommendations for REDD+ tenure readiness <ul><li>integrate local and national efforts to clarify tenure </li></ul><ul><li>national policy actions including mapping and resolution of competing claims; and enforcement of regulations that recognise traditional local users of forest resources </li></ul><ul><li>clarify REDD+ policies and architecture to motivate proponents to fully engage local stakeholders in tenure resolution… and… </li></ul>
  21. 22. Recommendations for REDD+ tenure readiness <ul><li>(4) Prepare for complications by </li></ul><ul><li>learning from REDD+ projects and conducting visioning exercises to anticipate tenure flashpoints when REDD+ is scaled up </li></ul><ul><li>establishing conflict resolution mechanisms. </li></ul>
  22. 23. MAKING REDD WORK FOR COMMUNITIES AND FOREST CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA <ul><li>Experiences of establishing a REDD project in Tanzania </li></ul><ul><li>Presented by </li></ul><ul><li>Charles Meshack </li></ul><ul><li>Tanzania Forest Conservation Group </li></ul><ul><li>30 November 2011, Durban </li></ul>
  23. 24. <ul><li>Project Overview </li></ul><ul><li>5 year project, started September 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Partnership between two Tanzanian NGOs </li></ul><ul><li>Financed by Norway </li></ul><ul><li>36 communities at 2 sites </li></ul><ul><li>Total forest area: 215,000 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Located in two Biodiversity Hotspots </li></ul>
  24. 25. Project Goal and Purpose <ul><li>Project Goal: To reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania in ways that provide direct and equitable incentives to rural communities to conserve and manage forests sustainably. </li></ul><ul><li>Purpose: To demonstrate, at local, national and international levels, a pro-poor approach to reducing deforestation and forest degradation by generating equitable financial incentives for communities that are sustainably managing or conserving Tanzanian forests at community level. </li></ul>
  25. 26. Project Strategy <ul><li>Stage 1: Site selection based on forest area, deforestation rates, stakeholder interest and biodiversity criteria </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 2: Free, prior and informed consent with participating communities </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 3: Participatory identification, and implementation of strategies to reduce deforestation including participatory forest management, land-use planning, improved agriculture and other livelihood activities </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 4: Generate emission reductions; verify emission reductions according to VCS and CCB standards; and channel revenues back to the communities initially using project funds. </li></ul>
  26. 27. Challenges: Risks identified by communities at project outset <ul><li>Restrictions on access to land and forest products </li></ul><ul><li>Elite capture of REDD funds </li></ul><ul><li>Land grabbing </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict within communities over distribution of REDD funds </li></ul><ul><li>Increased human-wildlife conflict as habitat is better protected </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict associated with enforcement of restrictions on access to forest products </li></ul>
  27. 28. Challenges <ul><li>Uncertainty in national and international REDD policy Uncertainty on the form that REDD will take and the amount of funds that will be available increases risk for all stakeholders. </li></ul><ul><li>Disconnect between REDD and agricultural and investment policies and practices </li></ul>Payments for reducing forest degradation are not yet accessible Although degradation is a significant source of emissions in Tanzania, communities can not access REDD funds from the voluntary market for this as no VCS-approved method covers this.
  28. 29. Challenges <ul><li>At current prices potential REDD revenues do not cover the opportunity and transaction costs for some communities. </li></ul><ul><li>Changing planners’ attitudes towards land-use planning and participatory forest management: </li></ul><ul><li>REDD requires communities to protect forests that are at immediate threat from deforestation. This requires a different approach to more traditional land and natural resources management planning. </li></ul>Skills gap on integrating REDD and sustainable use in community-based forest management
  29. 30. Mkanga 1 Village Forest Reserve Only 45% of remaining forest is included in the Village Forest Reserve. This is the least accessible but highest carbon forest.
  30. 31. Implementing REDD on the ground: lessons learned <ul><li>REDD has the potential to reduce emissions and reduce poverty </li></ul><ul><li>Reliable, adequate and accessible finance is needed and should reach those who bear the opportunity cost of REDD as well as those implementing the strategies to reduce deforestation </li></ul><ul><li>REDD needs clear standards if it is to be effective and equitable </li></ul><ul><li>FPIC, social impact assessment, participatory planning are needed for REDD to be effective and equitable. </li></ul>
  31. 32. Implementing REDD on the ground: lessons learned <ul><li>More effort is needed to build linkages between REDD and the agriculture sector </li></ul><ul><li>There are similarities with traditional ICDPs but there are also significant differences which require a shift in attitudes and practice </li></ul><ul><li>MRV should be well integrated in the implementation of strategies to reduce deforestation at community level </li></ul>
  32. 33. For more information, please visit: www. tfcg . org/makingReddWork .html
  33. 34. How REDD is unfolding: national REDD+ policies and processes Maria Brockhaus, CIFOR
  34. 35. Background and challenges in national REDD+ since 2005 <ul><li>Among others ... </li></ul><ul><li>Coordination across sectors and administrative levels (in decentralised systems) </li></ul><ul><li>Tenure , financing systems, benefit sharing and participation </li></ul><ul><li>MRV systems and capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Scope, scale, permanence, leakage </li></ul><ul><li>Sovereignty and ownership over process and reform(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity and political will to address the drivers of forest carbon change (driven oftentimes by interests of powerful elites) and identifying an effective policy mix </li></ul><ul><li> how to realize policy change in and beyond the forestry sector? </li></ul>
  35. 36. Different national circumstances: Forest Transition and Policy Responses Forest cover Time Stage 1: Little disturbed forests Stage 2: Forest frontiers Stage 3: Forest-agricultural mosaics DRC PNG Brazil Bolivia Indonesia Cameroon Nepal Avoid leakage & deforestation in BAU Reduce deforestation Continue conservation Promote A/R Stage 4: Forest/plantations/agricultural mosaics Vietnam China
  36. 37. Analysis of National REDD+ Policies and Processes Country Profiles; Media-based Discourse Analysis; Policy Network Analysis; Policy Content Analysis; Specific Policy Studies  Qualitative Comparative Analysis
  37. 38. Some preliminary comparative results: context <ul><li>Political systems in case study </li></ul><ul><li>countries vary strongly </li></ul><ul><ul><li>regime types different (Vietnam, Nepal etc ) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>federal challenges (and opportunities) (Brazil, DRC, RI…) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ongoing processes of decentralisation and recentralisation of forest resources (RI, DRC..) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>colonial and post colonial impacts on land tenure vary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>weak governance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>National policies and measures facilitate D&D </li></ul>
  38. 39. <ul><li>Some preliminary comparative results: challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Common challenges of coordination, capacity, tenure, fire </li></ul><ul><li>Political economy factors and institutional path dependencies: strong vested interests, weak civil society </li></ul><ul><li>Policy formulation and implementation lags behind rhetoric </li></ul><ul><li>National “ownership” over the design process is key </li></ul>
  39. 40. Overcoming challenges and closing the gap between national and sub-national to achieve policy change … <ul><li>AGENTS OF CHANGE </li></ul><ul><li>Building robust coalitions and constituencies of change in national power dynamics to move beyond rhetoric </li></ul><ul><li>ANALYSIS </li></ul><ul><li>Tailored policy mix to respond to drivers of deforestation needs further quantification of sector contributions at national and sub-national scale </li></ul><ul><li>COORDINATION </li></ul><ul><li>Call for legislative reviews and coordination (and implementation) particularly for land-use related policies </li></ul><ul><li>POLICY LEARNING </li></ul><ul><li>Establish information flows and learning mechanisms to analyse past experiences and current pilot activities </li></ul>
  40. 41. How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground? An exploration of the social, political, and biophysical issues REDD - related MRV preparations at the national level Manuel Estrada
  41. 42. Objective of this presentation <ul><li>This presentation aims to briefly answer the following questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the current status of preparations of REDD MRV globally, and how does this vary by region? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the strong points of the state of preparedness of MRV systems? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the deficiencies? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What must be done to remedy those deficiencies? </li></ul></ul>
  42. 43. Methodology <ul><li>This presentation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Draws on some of the data and conclusions presented in the report “ An assessment of national forest monitoring capabilities in tropical non-Annex I countries: Recommendations for capacity building ” Prepared by Martin Herold - GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office - Friedrich Schiller University Jena for The Prince's Rainforests Project and The Government of Norway (2009). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The report is based on the assessment of key requirements for national REDD (“+” activities are not considered) MRV systems in 99 developing countries through qualitative indicators assessed using reports from FAO (FRA) , UNFCCC (Nat. Comm.) and WB (FCPF R-PINs). </li></ul></ul>
  43. 44. Methodology: Indicators Key requirement Indicator Description of categories Understanding of IPCC guidelines for reporting Completeness of national UNFCCC reporting Low : <50% Advanced : 50-99% Complete : 100% Forest area change monitoring capacity Forest area change time series & RS capabilities Very low : no forest cover map Limited : Forest cover map (external) Some : Multiple forest cover maps (external) Good : Forest cover map in-house OR multiple maps, latest before 2000 Very good : Regular forest area mapping most recent after 2000 Forest inventory for carbon stock assessment Forest inventory capacities (growing stock and/or biomass) Very low : no inventory available Limited : one inventory available (external) Some : Multiple inventories (external) Good : Inventories available (in-country) before 2000 Very good : Multiple inventories (in-country), most recent after 2000
  44. 45. Regional MRV capacity levels: Overall and by type
  45. 46. Monitoring and C stock capacities: Global overview with examples 38 13 16 21 11 5 21 3 31 39 67 33 73 26
  46. 47. Capacity gap: By region and type % of minimum requirements covered
  47. 48. Capacity gap: Global distribution (considering specific country challenges: fires, C in soil, degradation, cloud cover, availability and access to RS data) Source: GOFC-GOLD
  48. 49. Deficiencies <ul><li>General: Capacities are less established for forest inventories than for forest area change monitoring . Less than 20% of the countries have submitted a complete GHG inventory , and only 3 out of the 99 countries currently have capacities considered to be very good for both forest area change monitoring and for forest inventories. </li></ul><ul><li>Consistency: Estimations provided by many countries are based either on single-date measurement or on integrating heterogeneous data sources , rather than using a systematic and consistent measurement and monitoring approach. </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency: Expert opinions, independent assessments or model estimations are commonly used as information sources to produce forest carbon data; this could potentially lead to a lack of transparency. </li></ul><ul><li>Comparability: Few countries have experience in using the IPCC GPG as a common approach to estimation and monitoring. </li></ul><ul><li>Completeness: Very few countries are able to provide information on all five carbon pools or estimates from biomass burning. </li></ul><ul><li>Accuracy: There is limited information on sources of error and uncertainty levels of the estimates provided by countries, and approaches to deal with these in international reporting. </li></ul>
  49. 50. Remedies: <ul><li>Forest area change monitoring: </li></ul><ul><li>Countries with reduced capabilities require the development of basic capacities , including the access to and use of remote-sensing data to consistently monitor historical and future forest area changes . </li></ul><ul><li>For countries with good to very good foundations for area change monitoring, the following options should be considered: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>integrate existing data and information into consistent time-series </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand and quantify error sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure IPCC GPG-compliant area change estimation and reporting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>engage in South-South cooperation and technology transfer. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Carbon stock assessment: </li></ul><ul><li>For countries with low forest inventory capacities , the near-term objective would be the establishment of a national forest carbon inventory on IPCC GPG Tier 2 level (covering at least the above ground carbon pool). </li></ul><ul><li>For countries that already maintain forest inventories : efforts should focus on evolving towards a national forest C stock inventory (stratification by carbon density and activities affecting stocks, enhanced accuracy in REDD relevant areas, site measurement of C, time series, etc) </li></ul>
  50. 51. CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ Contact: [email_address]
  51. 52. <ul><li>We thank our donors! </li></ul>