Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This presentation is about the REDD+ Community Project's feasibility study undertaken by WWF-India in Megahlaya (India).
Citation preview
Sam
raks
han
Tru
st
Bhomik Shah
Building Community’s Capacity for a REDD+ Project in IndiaFeasibility Assessment for a Community REDD+ Project
Shorter titleSecondary 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
11 April 2023 - 2
1. REDD+: Definition to Developments2. Global Overview3. WWF, the BBL, CCRs & REDD+4. Carbon Stock:The Methodology5. The Baseline Scenario6. The Project Scenario7. Financial Feasibility and
the Opportunity Cost Analysis
8. REDD+ Co-benefits9. The MoEF & the Way Forward
Shorter titleSecondary information can go here
XX-XX Month, Year
• Additional information can run• Underneath if necessary
Prologue
11 April 2023 - 3
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
Presentation to Company Name
1REDD+: Definition to Developments
11 April 2023 - 4
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
• 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
• 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 ..?
Presentation to Company Name
2Global Overview
11 April 2023 - 7
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
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
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
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
Presentation to Company Name
3WWF, the BBL, CCRs and REDD+
11 April 2023 - 11
Sam
raks
han
Tru
st
WWF’s Guiding Principles on REDD+
Climate
Biodiversity
Livelihoods
Rights
Fair & Effective Funding
Pilots/support in• Peru• Indonesia• PNG• Laos• Vietnam• DRC• Cameroon• Brazil• Tanzania• Cambodia• Mexico• Madagascar• Guyana• Nepal
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
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
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
Presentation to Company Name
4Carbon Stock: The Methodology
11 April 2023 - 16
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
Reference Area22487 ha (19
Akings)
Methodology
Project Area8072 ha (15
Akings)
Leakage Belt
1991 2000 2011
Three time-point Historic
Image Analysis
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
Biomass to Carbon
Above Ground Tree Biomass : Stem Volume* Wood Density* BEFBelow Ground Biomass : Above Ground tree Biomass*0.24Deadwood and fallen tree : Stem Volume*Wood DensityRegeneration : IPCC Default Values *0.33Total Biomass in a plot : AGB+BGB+DWBiomass to carbon : Biomass*0.50
Total t Carbon/haCarbon in biomass (AGB+BGB+DW)+ tC in Regeneration
Source; IPCC-GPG , FAO, CIFOR
Presentation to Company Name
5The Baseline Scenario
11 April 2023 - 20
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
Baseline (BAU) Scenario (Land use change)
Source: IGCMC, WWF-India
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Forest Cover Change in the Business as usual Scenario
Fo
res
t C
ov
er
(ha
)
Bho
mik
/WW
F-I
ndia
Business as usual (Baseline) Data
Year Cumulative Deforestation (ha)
Business as usual Forest Cover (ha)
2012 0 80722017 905 71672022 1708 63642027 2422 56502032 3055 50172037 3618 44542042 4117 3955
Description tC/haMean C stock in forest 313Regeneration/year 15Cropland/year 0.24Shrubland/year 0.94Monoculture/Plantation (Life cycle average) 40
Presentation to Company Name
6The Project Scenario
11 April 2023 - 24
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
Project Scenario
Se
rie
s1
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Cumulative Deforestation Avoided Forest Area Baseline ScenarioNet Forest Under Project Scenario (ha)
Fo
res
t C
ov
er
(ha
)
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
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
VM0007Version 1.1
Approved REDD Methodology Module REDD Methodology Framework (REDD-MF)
VM0015Version 1
Approved Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation
Draft Draft Methodology for Carbon Accounting of Grouped Mosaic and Landscape-scale REDD Projects
7Financial Feasibility and the Opportunity Cost Analysis
11 April 2023 - 28
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
Activity Cost/Price (US$) Year/applicationPDD Cost 50,000 2012
Validation 20,000 2012Project Activities at the beginning 60,000 2012
Project Activities each year 10,000 2013-2042Verification 14,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032,
2037, 2042Carbon Stock Adjustment 20,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032,
2037, 2042Socio-environment monitoring 10,000 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032,
2037, 2042Registration fee 0.05 Each Credit Issuance fee 0.1 Each CreditBrokerage fee 3% (of credit revenue)
Carbon Credit Price 5.63
Non-Permanence buffer 10%
Buffer Recovery (Every 5 years) 15% 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, 2037, 2042
Discount Rate 10%
Financial Data
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
Credits Available Buffer Buffer Recovery
Car
bo
n C
red
its
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
REDD+ Project Carbon-Revenue Mean Annual Income
Mean Annual Profit NPV US$
Carbon Revenue
US
$
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
The Opportunity Cost Analysis
Opportunity costs are based on land use change, not on land use
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/Planta-tion/ha
Rubber Cashew
Areca Nut Others
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.
RE
DD
+ @
US
$ 3
RE
DD
+ @
US
$ 5.
6
RE
DD
+ @
US
$ 7.
5
Ag
ricu
ltu
re (
5 Y
ear
cycl
e)
Ag
ricu
ltu
re (
8 Y
ear
Cyc
le)
Mo
no
cult
ure
(30
Yea
r D
ura
tio
n)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350328 328 328
17 17
40
tC/ha
RE
DD
+ @
US
$ 3
RE
DD
+ @
US
$ 5
.6
RE
DD
+ @
US
$ 7
.5
Ag
ric
ult
ure
(5
Ye
ars
C
yc
le)
Ag
ric
ult
ure
(8
Ye
ars
C
yc
le)
Mo
no
cu
ltu
re (
30
Ye
ars
D
ura
tio
n)
RE
DD
+ w
ith
Co
-be
ne
fits
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
1119
21192830
33193668
4656
14291
NPV (US$)/ha
8REDD+ Co-Benefits and Benefit Sharing Mechanism
11 April 2023 - 34
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
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
Presentation to Company Name
9The MOEF and the Way Forward
11 April 2023 - 37
Bho
mik
Sha
h/W
WF
-In
dia
Thank you
www.panda.org
Email: [email protected]
+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.
