Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses in Indonesia: linking REDD+ and NAMA approaches
25 February 2011, Bogor
Tree cover and demographic transitionsTree cover and demographic transitions in Indonesia and their consequences for emission reduction opportunities baseemission reduction opportunities, base-
lines and stratification of ‘pilots’
Meine an Noord ijk and Son a De iMeine van Noordwijk and Sonya Dewi
Where does agriculture start & forest end?
Yet, institutions see a dichotomy & contrast
10% State National ParkConservation +
Rights to define forest ~ 5 different ways of classifying forest:
Forest domain
ForestProtected Area
Restoration conces‐sion
watershed protection forest
Emis‐
53% Other + disputed
forest lands
sion
Community‐forest
Village forestProduction forest
sion GHG
C capture
Benefit‐sharing
Logging concession
l
Convertible forest
Plantation contract
Mixed agroforest,
Official conversion from forest to non‐forest land status: ‘planned
private forests, community
landscapes with trees
Non‐forest land uses (APL)
pdeforestation’
trees
1. By ecosystem 2. By vegetation 3. By land use 4. By ‘owner’ 5. By ‘co‐managementservice & its C‐stocks category regime’
( )
“The global REDD+ agreement is ready to go, it may not be perfect, but it is time to act now”p
But have we agreed onagreed on which trees are NOT a forest?
Tony La Vina
1. Undisturbed natural forest 2 Undisturbed + sust logged natural forest
Rainforest foundation
Conservation agency
Stakeholder:
2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest 4B 3 i b l i
Conservation agency
Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations 4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub Modis data
Ministry of ForestryUNFCCC definition
http://www.asb.cgiar.org/
REDD finance should be used for investmentNicholas Stern
REDD finance should be used for investment in alternative development pathways that
t i t f C t k thsupport maintenance of C stocks – rather than in protection of forests per se
Tree cover transition
Widening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared
In the 1990’s loss of natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C‐stock’/low economic value land; tree (crop)value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the loss of natural forest area
After 2000 planting of tree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss ofof concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C‐stock/low economic value land decreases
Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010
consequences for i i d• emission reduc-
tion opportunities, • base-lines and • stratification ofstratification of ‘pilots’
Agricultural intensification hypothesisASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994
systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…
More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total
agricultural productionagricultural production
Or… speed up forest conversionforest conversion to profitable agriculture
This may be true in
This is true in ‘open’
‘closed’ economies
‘open’ economies
From a ‘land sparing’ to a ‘land sharing’ di f l d ltif ti litparadigm of landscape multifunctionality
• Managing a gradient rather than dichotomyManaging a gradient rather than dichotomy
Realistic +
C diti l +Conditional +
Voluntary +
Pro‐poor
agreementsg
6/7
The REDD+(+) value chain & C rights1. Local development pathway & land use
2 ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains)2. ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains)
3. minus allowance for Cstock uncertaintyy
4. additional to Reference Emission LevelTransaction5. minus allowance for leakage
6 filtered by eligibility criteria
Transaction costs when seen from local 6. filtered by eligibility criteria
7. multiplied with price/investment levelperspective
p p
8. minus taxes and retribution C rights apply to steps 1…8
Unpacking carbon rights – beyond ‘forest’• Modify C stock of land (Cut trees , Plant trees , Use fire , Control fire , Drain , 542 3
1
, , , ,Rewet peat , Pest&Disease Control , InfGrowthRate , Remove topsoil/mining )98
76p g )
• Reduce C stock uncertainty
• Establish baseline/additionality10
11• Establish baseline/additionality
• Determine leakage (emission displacement) 12
11
• Define eligibility of emission reduction claim
• Negotiate price or investment regime 1413
g p g
• Impose tax and/or co‐invest public funds 15
Rights to Plot Village Landscape Country Global bodies
1 Cut/harvest1 Cut/harvest
2 Plant
3 Burn Land Land use plan-ning tenurial4 Control fire
5 Drain
6 Re‐wet peat
use rights ~
ning, tenurial reform, reducing
conflicts over 7 Pest control
8 Growth rates
9 Mine
tenure multiple rights
Bottom up participation9 Mine
10 Measure MRV MRV‐inst
11 REL standard LAAMA NAMA GAMA
Bottom up participation
12 Leakage NAMA
13 Eligibility filter REDD + safeguards
Top-down planning
14 C $ Fund‐based
15 Tax & coinvest REDD+strat
PES (Wunder, 2005)
CES Open market trade in ‘commoditized’ Increased ‘fairness’
Increased efficiency and flexibility in produ‐
ES are scalable with MRV in place
trade in commoditized ES produced by legal land users on demand
and opportunity to sup‐port interest of rural
. poor in situations with contested land
f y pcing well‐defined ESusing operational indicators for ‘scala‐ble’ ES; price based p
COS Compensate legal land users for skipping their opportunities to shift
land use to more pro‐fitable but less ES
contested landuse rights and ES
as emergent properties of
ble ES; price based on bargaining power & total supply
Legality of land use is clear and non‐contested
CIS Seek co‐investment by external and local
land use to more pro fitable but less ES friendly land use landscape
mosaics
CIS Seek co‐investment by external and local stakeholders to reduce legal, semi‐ and illegal threats
to ES, through support for collective action and building of social & human capital
External value of environmental services exceeds local appreciationClarify the relationship between land use options, productivity, profitability
and provision of environmental services (ES) – from the perspective of l l bli / li d i ifi l i l/ i k l dlocal, public/policy and scientific ecological/economic knowledge
Non‐linear baseline: tree cover transitions
http://www asbww.asb.cgiar.org//
Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, XXXX
http://www asbww.asb.cgiar.org//
Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010
Active small-scale conversion
Slow small-scale
conversion
sca econversion Javanese
Last block of 18,000 ha peat swamp forest as ‘protection Javanese
migrantsswamp forest as protection
zone’
Large-scale conversion for oil palm and HTIfor oil palm and HTI
Respect, Image,
Legend:
International rules, fund/market
Fairness/Transparency Efficiency/Clarity
Knowledge
Free and Prior Informed Consentch
ain
men
t
ons
fund/market
International border
N t d b li ti Informed Consent of sovereign decision makersva
lue
/
p
aym
rela
ti
Subnational sectors/areas private sector
Nested baselines, certi-fied emission reduction
Finance: invest-ment, payment
Certified EmissionC
RED
D
vest
men
t/Additionality ~ baselineLeakage/displacementru
st/th
reat
p
Certified Emission ReductionIn
g p
Tr
Local sectors/areas private sector
Monitoring C stocks &
Local sectors/areas:
Monitoring C stocks & project cycle aspects
communities, householdsSustainable livelihood Reducing direct drivers
support of emissions