How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground?

How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground?An exploration of the social, political, & biophysical issues

Durban, South AfricaWednesday, 30 November 2011

CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+

REDD+ on the ground:Global overview of projects

Erin Sills, NCSU & CIFOR

http://www.ncsu.edu/

http://www.cifor.org/

THINKING beyond the canopy

Information sources

1. Global catalogue of projects– Online database of forest carbon projects in non

Annex I countries– Distribution of projects

2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+– Studying 24 projects in 6 countries– Selection based on interest in sharing lessons and

alignment of project and research timelines– Insights on strategies; free, prior and informed

consent (FPIC); and tenure

Projects• implement (and generate lessons) about strategies to reduce

forest carbon emissions and increase removals• quantify and report changes in forest carbon stocks, and

possibly transact forest carbon credits• operate in a geographically defined site(s) with

predetermined boundaries in a non-Annex I country

REDD+• generate most of their net reductions in carbon emissions by

avoiding deforestation or degradation, or by enhancing carbon stocks in existing forest

Afforestation/Reforestation• generate net reductions in carbon emissions by planting

trees outside of existing forest

www.forestsclimatechange.org

http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/redd-map/









• Seeking your input– Additional projects – Corrections or new information on projects



Site selection

More likely to have projects if:• Higher forest carbon stock• Higher deforestation rate• Greater protected area

GCS research sitesContinent 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.

Projects are testing a wide range of strategies to reduce forest carbon emissions and/or increase removals.1.“Traditional”: support for alternative livelihoods (integrated conservation and development projects - ICDP); clarification of land tenure; enforcement of restrictions on forest/land use2.Direct payments: conditional, performance-based payments (payments for ecosystem services - PES)

In early 2010, 90% of proponents were planning both.

Project Strategies


Project Strategies

By end of this year– 9 out of 18 expect to be offering support for

alternative livelihoods– 11 out of 18 expect to have increased

enforcement of restrictions on forest use– 3 out of 18 expect to be offering conditional,

performance-based benefits for stakeholders who change land and forest use


Shifting Project Strategies

Support for alternative livelihoods • viewed as most likely to have positive impact on livelihoods and on forest conservation• helps address concerns about leakages and permanence• reflects uncertainty about availability of carbon funds for PES• element of dual-track planning


Transparency

Some proponents postponing dissemination of information about REDD+

• For good reasons– Avoid raising expectations– Avoid strategic behaviour

• But with potentially negative consequences– FPIC requires informing local people– Postponing FPIC risks projects becoming fait

accompli without significant local input


Tenure: right to exclude

• Exclusion rights are fundamental to conditionality and accountability in REDD+

• 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

• But especially in Indonesia, not all villages have successfully exercised this right


Tenure: contrasting Brazil and Indonesia

• Brazil: coordination between NGO proponents, local government, and federal agencies (Terra Legal initiative)

• Indonesia: national laws for land and forest are internally inconsistent, do not recognise traditional rights, and prevent communities from obtaining tenure rights

• Illustrate need and challenge of “polycentric governance” (Elinor Ostrom)


Recommendations for REDD+ tenure readiness

(1) integrate local and national efforts to clarify tenure

(2) national policy actions including mapping and resolution of competing claims; and enforcement of regulations that recognise traditional local users of forest resources

(3) clarify REDD+ policies and architecture to motivate proponents to fully engage local stakeholders in tenure resolution… and…


Recommendations for REDD+ tenure readiness

(4) Prepare for complications by • learning from REDD+ projects and conducting visioning exercises to anticipate tenure flashpoints when REDD+ is scaled up • establishing conflict resolution mechanisms.

MAKING REDD WORK FOR COMMUNITIES AND FOREST CONSERVATION IN TANZANIA

Experiences of establishing a REDD project in TanzaniaPresented by Charles Meshack Tanzania Forest Conservation Group30 November 2011, Durban

http://www.tfcg.org/

Project Overview• 5 year project, started September 2009

• Partnership between two Tanzanian NGOs

• Financed by Norway

• 36 communities at 2 sites

• Total forest area: 215,000 ha

• Located in two Biodiversity Hotspots

Project Goal and PurposeProject 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.

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.

Project StrategyStage 1: Site selection based on forest area, deforestation rates, stakeholder interest and biodiversity criteriaStage 2: Free, prior and informed consent with participating communitiesStage 3: Participatory identification, and implementation of strategies to reduce deforestation including participatory forest management, land-use planning, improved agriculture and other livelihood activitiesStage 4: Generate emission reductions; verify emission reductions according to VCS and CCB standards; and channel revenues back to the communities initially using project funds.

Challenges: Risks identified by communities at project outset

• Restrictions on access to land and forest products

• Elite capture of REDD funds• Land grabbing• Conflict within communities over

distribution of REDD funds • Increased human-wildlife conflict

as habitat is better protected• Conflict associated with

enforcement of restrictions on access to forest products

ChallengesUncertainty 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.

Disconnect between REDD and agricultural and investment policies and practices

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.

ChallengesAt current prices potential REDD revenues do not cover the opportunity and transaction costs for some communities.

Changing planners’ attitudes towards land-use planning and participatory forest management:

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.

Skills gap on integrating REDD and sustainable use in community-based forest management

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.

Implementing REDD on the ground: lessons learned

• REDD has the potential to reduce emissions and reduce poverty

• 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

• REDD needs clear standards if it is to be effective and equitable

• FPIC, social impact assessment, participatory planning are needed for REDD to be effective and equitable.

Implementing REDD on the ground: lessons learned

• More effort is needed to build linkages between REDD and the agriculture sector

• There are similarities with traditional ICDPs but there are also significant differences which require a shift in attitudes and practice

• MRV should be well integrated in the implementation of strategies to reduce deforestation at community level

For more information, please visit:www.tfcg.org/makingReddWork.html

http://www.tfcg.org/makingReddWork.html





How REDD is unfolding: national REDD+ policies and processes

Maria Brockhaus, CIFOR

http://www.cifor.org/

Background and challenges in national REDD+ since 2005

Among others ... • Coordination across sectors and administrative levels (in

decentralised systems)• Tenure, financing systems, benefit sharing and participation

• MRV systems and capacity• Scope, scale, permanence, leakage

• Sovereignty and ownership over process and reform(s)• 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

how to realize policy change in and beyond the forestry sector?

Different national circumstances: Forest Transition and Policy Responses

Forestcover

TimeStage 1: Little disturbed forests

Stage 2: Forest frontiers

Stage 3: Forest-agricultural mosaics

DRC

PNGBrazilBoliviaIndonesiaCameroon

Nepal

Avoid leakage & deforestation in BAU

Reduce deforestation

Continue conservation

Promote A/R

Stage 4: Forest/plantations/agricultural mosaics

VietnamChina

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

Some preliminary comparative results: context

• Political systems in case study countries vary strongly

- regime types different (Vietnam, Nepal etc ) - federal challenges (and opportunities) (Brazil,

DRC, RI…) - ongoing processes of decentralisation and

recentralisation of forest resources (RI, DRC..)- colonial and post colonial impacts on land

tenure vary- weak governance

• National policies and measures facilitate D&D

Some preliminary comparative results: challenges

Common challenges of coordination, capacity, tenure, fire Political economy factors and institutional path dependencies:

strong vested interests, weak civil society Policy formulation and implementation lags behind rhetoric National “ownership” over the design process is key

Overcoming challenges and closing the gap between national and sub-national

to achieve policy change …

AGENTS OF CHANGE• Building robust coalitions and constituencies of change in

national power dynamics to move beyond rhetoricANALYSIS• Tailored policy mix to respond to drivers of deforestation

needs further quantification of sector contributions at national and sub-national scale

COORDINATION• Call for legislative reviews and coordination (and

implementation) particularly for land-use related policies POLICY LEARNING• Establish information flows and learning mechanisms to

analyse past experiences and current pilot activities

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

Objective of this presentationThis presentation aims to briefly answer the following questions:

1. What is the current status of preparations of REDD MRV globally, and how does this vary by region?

2. What are the strong points of the state of preparedness of MRV systems?

3. What are the deficiencies?4. What must be done to remedy those deficiencies?

Methodology

• This presentation:– 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).

– 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).

Methodology: IndicatorsKey

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 mapLimited: Forest cover map (external)Some: Multiple forest cover maps (external)Good: Forest cover map in-house OR multiple maps, latest before 2000Very 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 availableLimited: one inventory available (external)Some: Multiple inventories (external)Good: Inventories available (in-country) before 2000Very good: Multiple inventories (in-country), most recent after 2000

Regional MRV capacity levels:Overall and by type

Monitoring and C stock capacities:Global overview with examples

38 13 16 21 11

5

21

3

31

39

67 33

73

26

Capacity gap: By region and type%

of m

inim

um re

quire

men

ts c

over

ed

Capacity gap:Global distribution

(considering specific country challenges: fires, C in soil, degradation, cloud cover, availability and access to RS data)

Source: GOFC-GOLD

Deficiencies• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Comparability: Few countries have experience in using the IPCC GPG as a common approach to estimation and monitoring.

• Completeness: Very few countries are able to provide information on all five carbon pools or estimates from biomass burning.

• 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.

Remedies:Forest area change monitoring:• 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.

• For countries with good to very good foundations for area change monitoring, the following options should be considered: – integrate existing data and information into consistent time-series– Understand and quantify error sources– Ensure IPCC GPG-compliant area change estimation and reporting – engage in South-South cooperation and technology transfer.

Carbon stock assessment:• 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).

• 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)

CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+Contact: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

We thank our donors!

Education

How is REDD+ unfolding on the ground?