REDD+ Feasibility Study in Meghalaya, India
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
2 gostaram•1,217 visualizações
This presentation is about the REDD+ Community Project's feasibility study undertaken by WWF-India in Megahlaya (India).
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a REDD+ Feasibility Study in Meghalaya, India
Semelhante a REDD+ Feasibility Study in Meghalaya, India (20)
Mais de Bhomik Shah
Mais de Bhomik Shah (8)
Último
Último (20)
REDD+ Feasibility Study in Meghalaya, India
- 1. SamrakshanTrust Bhomik Shah Building Community’s Capacity for a REDD+ Project in India Feasibility Assessment for a Community REDD+ Project
- 2. Shorter title Secondary information can go here XX-XX Month, Year • Additional information can run • Underneath if necessary Layout Feasibility Study for a Community REDD+ Project in India 30 September 2013 - 1. REDD+: Definition to Developments 2. Global Overview 3. WWF, the BBL, CCRs & REDD+ 4. Carbon Stock:The Methodology 5. The Baseline Scenario 6. The Project Scenario 7. Financial Feasibility and the Opportunity Cost Analysis 8. REDD+ Co-benefits 9. The MoEF & the Way Forward
- 3. Shorter title Secondary information can go here XX-XX Month, Year • Additional information can run • Underneath if necessary Prologue 30 September 2013 - The South Garo Hills has lost 5000 ha* of forest between 2007 and 2009. -State of Forest Survey Report 2011 * 2.7% of geographical area and 3.05% of the forest cover
- 4. Presentation to Company Name 1REDD+: Definition to Developments 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 5. • Sustainable Management of Forest • Regeneration as ANR ‘+’ in REDD+ • Reducing emissions from deforestation • Reducing emissions from forest degradation • Conservation of forest • Sustainable management of forests • Enhancement of forest carbon stock
- 6. • There is no clarification on A/R in REDD+ definition • A few pilots include A/R • We have not considered A/R in financial feasibility analysis • For livelihoods generation, fuel wood and other benefits A/R should be included Confusion on Afforestation/Reforestation ..?
- 7. Presentation to Company Name 2 Global Overview 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 8. UN-REDD • 2008; FAO-UNDP- UNEP • US$ 60 Million funding • 14 Pilot countries and 28 partner countries FCPF (The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility) • 2008 • The World Bank • US$ 447 Million pledged • 37 countries FIP(The Forest Investment Program) • Under Strategic Climate Fund Of CIF • 2009, Multi-donor trust fund (the WB Admin.) • 7 countries UN-REDD, FCPF and FIP Countries (48) as on Feb 20, 2012 150+ pilots REDD+ Platforms and Key Institutions Source: UN-REDD, FCPF, FIP
- 9. Three Phases of REDD+ Financing Performance Payment Phase (2013-20) Result based actions leading to emission reductions UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral Agencies , Govt. Implementation Phase (2012 onwards) Capacity Building, Institutional strengthening, Investments UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral Agencies , Govt. Readiness Phase (2010-12) National Strategies & Action plans UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral Agencies
- 10. REDD+ and COP 17 (Durban) • Consensus on market- based approach for REDD+ funding; private sector has a major role • Effective social, environmental and governance safeguards for local communities and biodiversity conservation • How much of Green Climate Fund for REDD+ ? Source: Carbon Market Trends 2011
- 11. Presentation to Company Name 3WWF, the BBL, CCRs and REDD+ 30 September 2013 - SamrakshanTrust
- 12. WWF’s Gui di ng Pr i nci pl es on REDD+ Cl i mat e Bi odi versi t y Li vel i hoods Ri ght s Fai r & Ef f ect i ve Fundi ng Pilots/support in • Peru • Indonesia • PNG • Laos • Vietnam • DRC • Cameroon • Brazil • Tanzania • Cambodia • Mexico • Madagascar • Guyana • Nepal
- 13. Baghmara-Balpakaram Landscape (BBL) • Good forest cover (88.6%) with D n D threats • Community forest • Biodiversity rich area; 700+ elephants, Habitat for Hoolock Gibbon, Sloth bear, Chinese Pangolin etc. 270 bird species, 300 species of butterfly and 60 species of amphibians • Good floral biodiversity; medicinal plants; Old Growth forest in reserve area Samrakshan/WWF-India
- 14. Deforestation & Degradation • Slash and burn agriculture (jhum) • Reduced jhum cycle from 10-15 yrs to 3-4 yrs • Monoculture plantation- rubber, cashew, areca nut • Illegal logging; Bangladesh border area • Fuel-wood • Potential threat from mining • Small agri-fields within forest Bhomik/WWF-India
- 15. Land Tenure and Carbon Rights • Meghalaya is a Sixth Schedule State • Most of the forests, forest land with the communities • The right for the management of forest with the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) • In practice Nokma (Aking level) is the decision making authority for the land use • No explicit legislation on ‘carbon right’ Bhomik/WWF-India
- 16. Presentation to Company Name 4Carbon Stock: The Methodology 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 17. Reference Area 22487 ha (19 Akings) Methodology Project Area 8072 ha (15 Akings) Leakage Belt 1991 2000 2011 Three time- point Historic Image Analysis
- 18. Methodology • Land use change analysis of last 20 years • Calculation of mean Deforestation Rate • Stratification of the project area • Very Dense ≥70% • Moderately Dense ≥ 40-70% • Open ≥10-40% Remote Sensing • Initial plot samples for deriving the number. of plots in each strata for sampling • Stratified random sampling for the location of sample plots • On-Ground Biomass Inventory • Marking of plots and inventory assessment On-Ground Biomass Inventory
- 19. Biomass to Carbon Above Ground Tree Biomass : Stem Volume* Wood Density* BEF Below Ground Biomass : Above Ground tree Biomass*0.24 Deadwood and fallen tree : Stem Volume*Wood Density Regeneration : IPCC Default Values *0.33 Total Biomass in a plot : AGB+BGB+DW Biomass to carbon : Biomass*0.50 Total t Carbon/ha Carbon in biomass (AGB+BGB+DW)+ tC in Regeneration Source; IPCC-GPG , FAO, CIFOR
- 20. Presentation to Company Name 5The Baseline Scenario 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 21. Baseline (BAU) Scenario (Land use change) Source: IGCMC, WWF-India
- 22. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 ForestCover(ha) Forest Cover Change in the Business as usual Scenario Bhomik/WWF-India
- 23. Business as usual (Baseline) Data Year Cumulative Deforestation (ha) Business as usual Forest Cover (ha) 2012 0 8072 2017 905 7167 2022 1708 6364 2027 2422 5650 2032 3055 5017 2037 3618 4454 2042 4117 3955 Description tC/ha Mean C stock in forest 313 Regeneration/year 15 Cropland/year 0.24 Shrubland/year 0.94 Monoculture/Plantation (Life cycle average) 40
- 24. Presentation to Company Name 6The Project Scenario 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 25. Project Scenario 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 ForestCover(ha) Cumulative Deforestation Avoided Forest Area Baseline Scenario Net Forest Under Project Scenario (ha)
- 26. Project Performance and Leakage Project Performance • 80% (1-5 years) Risk 20% • 90% ( 6th Year onwards) Risk 10% • Leakage -10% Net emissions reduction: Project Scenario-Project Performance Risk- Leakage- Fuel wood
- 27. Forest Carbon Standards Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standard CarbonFix Standard Plan Vivo Social Carbon Verified Carbon Standard Methodology Status Methodology VM0006 Version1.0 Approved Methodology for Carbon Accounting in Project Activities that Reduce Emissions from Mosaic Deforestation and Degradation VM0007 Version 1.1 Approved REDD Methodology Module REDD Methodology Framework (REDD-MF) VM0015 Version 1 Approved Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation Draft Draft Methodology for Carbon Accounting of Grouped Mosaic and Landscape- scale REDD Projects
- 28. 7Financial Feasibility and the Opportunity Cost Analysis 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 29. Activity Cost/Price (US$) Year/application PDD Cost 50,000 2012 Validation 20,000 2012 Project Activities at the beginning 60,000 2012 Project Activities each year 10,000 2013-2042 Verification 14,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Carbon Stock Adjustment 20,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Socio-environment monitoring 10,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Registration fee 0.05 Each Credit Issuance fee 0.1 Each Credit Brokerage fee 3% (of credit revenue) Carbon Credit Price 5.63 Non-Permanence buffer 10% Buffer Recovery (Every 5 years) 15% 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042 Discount Rate 10% Financial Data
- 30. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 CarbonCredits Credits Available Buffer Buffer Recovery 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 US$Millions REDD+ Project Carbon-Revenue Mean Annual Income Mean Annual Profit NPV US$ Carbon Revenue Financial Feasibility Average Profit/Year US$ 6,52,640 IRR 95% NPV US$ 4882048 Average Profit /Ha/Year US$ 81 Household/Yr US$1045 At present household Income: US$ 880/Annual
- 31. The Opportunity Cost Analysis Opportunity costs are based on land use change, not on land use “…by conserving their present forests, countries and landowners forgo the benefits of potentially more lucrative alternative land uses, such as crops or livestock-this forgone revenue is known as the opportunity cost of REDD+ “ -The World Bank 18% 14% 29% 7% 32% Crops in Agriculture Income/ha Rice Pineapple Ginger Turmeric Others 67% 10% 8% 15% Crops in Monoculture/Plantation/ha Rubber Cashew Areca Nut Others
- 32. Assumptions in the Opportunity Cost Analysis • All NPV calculations are based on the project life and land use change for 30 years. • Discount rate of 10% • Only carbon revenue has been taken into account •The land remaining fallow under 5 Yrs and 8 Yrs agriculture cycle would provide fuel wood and grazing related benefits and that have been taken into account • Employment benefit of US$17/ha/Yr in agriculture and monoculture has been incorporated in NPV projections.
- 33. 328 328 328 17 17 40 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 REDD+@US$3 REDD+@US$5.6 REDD+@US$7.5 Agriculture(5Yearcycle) Agriculture(8YearCycle) Monoculture(30YearDuration) tC/ha 1119 2119 2830 3319 3668 4656 14291 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 REDD+@US$3 REDD+@US$5.6 REDD+@US$7.5 Agriculture(5YearsCycle) Agriculture(8YearsCycle) Monoculture(30YearsDuration) REDD+withCo-benefits NPV (US$)/ha
- 34. 8REDD+ Co- Benefits and Benefit Sharing Mechanism 30 September 2013 -
- 35. Economics of REDD+ and Co-Benefits • Conservation of forest biodiversity & wildlife habitats • Water regulation • Soil conservation • Timber and NTFPs • Livelihood • Governance • Micro-climatic Benefits etc. • The economic value of these benefits is much higher than the carbon benefits • Economic valuation is a difficult exercise • Opportunity Cost Analysis doesn’t take these ecosystem services into account Bhomik/WWF-India
- 36. Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM) • Both financial and non-financial benefits • Stakeholders are both landholders and landless • Equity, the opportunity cost and social & environmental safeguards need to be addressed • Local institutions should have capacity to handle financial and social issues • Need to understand socio-cultural changes post-REDD+ • Synergy with national policy and legal regime • In BBL a BSM should be devised after consultations with community, CBOs and other stakeholders
- 37. Presentation to Company Name 9The MOEF and the Way Forward 30 September 2013 - BhomikShah/WWF-India
- 38. Thank you www.panda.org Email: bhomikjain@gmail.com +91-8860179180 © 2010, WWF. All photographs used in this presentation are copyright protected and courtesy of the WWF-Canon Global Photo Network and the respective photographers.