Redd pilot
0 likes762 views
This document discusses REDD+, a mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. It notes that past policies have failed to stop deforestation, and additional incentives are needed to encourage forest conservation. REDD+ aims to provide payments from polluters in advanced countries to support conservation and sustainable forest management in developing countries. The document summarizes key COP meetings that advanced REDD+ and established safeguards. It also provides examples of a REDD+ pilot project in Nepal that measured forest carbon, distributed payments to communities, and found social and environmental co-benefits of the program.
![Forests in three watersheds
Forest in Total Forest
Watershed Watershed area [ha]
watershed Community
(District) [ha]
[ha] Forest [ha] Dense Sparse
Charnawati
14,037 7,492 5,996 3,899 2,097
(Dolakha)
Kayarkhola
8,002 5,821 2,381 1,902 479
(Chitwan)
Ludikhola
5,750 4,869 1,888 1,634. 252
(Gorkha)
Total 27,789 18,182 10,266 7,437 2,829](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/reddpilot-120925033934-phpapp01/85/Redd-pilot-14-320.jpg)
Redd pilot
- 1. REDD+ for climate change mitigation and adaptation International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development Kathmandu, Nepal
- 2. Rationale • Regulatory policies of the past have failed to halt deforestation • 1.6% deforestation rate per annum • Carbon emission from land use in developing countries still a concern – voluntary participation by countries • Standing trees are less valuable than felled timber • Additional incentives required for not cutting down trees in forests • Aimed at developing countries
- 3. RED to REDD++ (REALU/AFOLU) REDD++ all land use changes + (AFOLU) REDD+ carbon enhancing + REDD degradation + deforestation only RED • current framing of REDD refers to only a partial accounting of land use change, without clarity on cross-sectoral linkages and rights • hampered by methodological problems of leakage, definition, transitions
- 4. What does REDD+ deal with? • REDD+ recognized (reducing deforestation, degradation, conservation, SFM, enhancement) • Polluters (in advanced countries) pay for conservation and sustainable forest management (in developing countries) • REDD+ is an incentive based mechanism agreed at the global level • Source of finance for conservation (through IBM under UNFCCC) • Biodiversity conservation and improved livelihood are co-benefits (mitigation-adaptation interface)
- 5. 3 major COPs • COP 13: Bali Action Plan: – “…Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries…” • COP 16 Cancun: REDD+ activities in 3 steps: – Development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures, and capacity-building, – Implementation of national policies and measures and national strategies or action plans, technology development and transfer and results-based demonstration activities – Result based actions on ground that should be measured, reported and verified (MRV). • COP 17 Durban: mandates – Information on SAFEGUARDS and develop modalities for MRV – Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity – Respect for knowledge and rights of local and indigenous peoples – Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders
- 6. Drivers of Deforestation Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC
- 7. Drivers of Forest Degradation Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC
- 8. Policy failures Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC
- 9. CO2 emission in HKH countries GHG emissions in some HKH countries (areas located outside HKH region are included).
- 10. Successful Community Forestry under conducive policy environment 1978 Namdu, Nepal 2005
- 11. Piloting REDD+ Payment System through seed grant distribution in Community Forestry in Nepal June 2009 – May 2013
- 12. Project components Institutions and governance Carbon Capacity monitoring Building
- 13. Project Areas Total WS= 5750 ha 31 CFUGs CF area= 1,888 ha Total WS= 14037 ha 58 CFUGs CF area= 5,996 ha Total WS= 8002 ha 15 CFUGs CF area = 2,382ha
- 14. Forests in three watersheds Forest in Total Forest Watershed Watershed area [ha] watershed Community (District) [ha] [ha] Forest [ha] Dense Sparse Charnawati 14,037 7,492 5,996 3,899 2,097 (Dolakha) Kayarkhola 8,002 5,821 2,381 1,902 479 (Chitwan) Ludikhola 5,750 4,869 1,888 1,634. 252 (Gorkha) Total 27,789 18,182 10,266 7,437 2,829
- 15. Socio-demography data Watershed CFUG CFUGs Population Major ethnic groups (District) Households Charnawati Tamang, Chhetri, 58 7870 42609 (Dolakha) Brahmin, Thami, Dalit Kayarkhola 16 4146 23223 Chepang, Tamang (Chitwan) Magar, Gurung, Tamang, Ludikhola 31 4110 23685 Dalit, few Brahmin and (Gorkha) Chhetri Total 105 16144 89517
- 16. Project activities Forest carbon measurement Alternative energy Awareness raising Piloting Forest Carbon Stakeholder Fund engagement
- 17. Carbon sequestration data Average carbon tonnes/ha Watershed Area (ha) Range (ha) 2010 2011 2012 Charnawati 5996 1.5-819.4 206.95 209.29 212.03 Kayarkhola 2382 34.5-329.2 288.44 289.83 291.19 Ludikhola 1888 5.2-270.7 209.12 214.43 217.33 Total 10266 226.3 228.92 231.37 Increase 2.62 2.68 Source: REDD+ project, 2012
- 18. REDD+ payment basis 60% payment for 40% payment for carbon social safeguards stock and increment Payments in 3 watersheds Charnawati $ 7.4/ha In 2012, additional USD 100 per CFUG was Kayarkhola $ 10.4/ha given to reduce disparity between groups. Ludikhola $ 13.8/ha
- 19. How was REDD money used? Expenditure Status in % Expenses activities Dolakha Gorkha Chitwan Average 1. Livelihood improvement activities 53.8 50.3 48.5 50. 9 2. Capacity building (awareness, 9.7 9.4 8.3 9.1 workshop) 3. Forest carbon monitoring (training 7.2 4.3 27.7 13.1 LRPs for forest inventory) 4. Alternative energy schemes 11.9 15.0 13.5 13.5 5. Others (Forest mgmnt activities + 17.4 21.0 1.9 13.4 enrichment plantation) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Co-financed by CFUGs (% in total 43.9 2.3 69.9 49.2 invested amount)
- 20. Trust Fund mechanism Forest Carbon Trust Fund Government, CSO, Advisory Committee Collaborator, IPOs Project Management Unit Fund disbursement - joint 1 Secretariat signature (ICIMOD, FECOFUN 2 Data registration and Verification Agency and ANSAB) management District Fund Watershed Monitoring Committee Advisory Committee REDD Network (MC) Community Forest User Group Note: Dot Arrow represents report, data and information Bold Arrow represents subsidy and incentive
- 21. Linking Payment to C-enhancement Identify and periodic assessment Review, adjust of drivers of forest degradation, and adapt initiate forest enhancement activities Operate trust Establish baseline of fund REDD forest carbon and payment periodic monitoring disbursement Setting indicators/crite ria (social, biophysical) Standardize Frame Measurement, Set up pilot trust Develop Project measurement fund and regulate reporting and Designed methodologies and REDD+ payment Verification (MRV) Document (PDD) guidelines system
- 22. Reflections/Learning • Community forestry: an example of effective decentralized system to respond to local factors and also climate change. • CF reinforces adaptive forest management • REDD+: an opportunity to address poverty and social justice (triple dividends: Climate, Community & Forests) • Strengthened social bonding and engagement • Efficient coupling: REDD network and forest groups • Participatory carbon monitoring – reduced time and cost, increased ownership and responsibility • Co-financing in forest management and livelihoods • Still unresolved: monitoring cost in small and fragmented CFs; additionality; equity due unequal forest size and status; enhancement vs. co-benefits
- 23. The role of tree and forests Trees for Products fruit firewood medicine income sawn wood fodder Environmental services Trees for Services soil soil shade watershed biodiversity carbon fertility erosion protection sequestration
- 24. Community Forest – benefits Kalika Community Forest (Chitwan) 213 ha, 169 households Example of participatory valuation of ecosystem services Household Average tangible benefits per HH (US$) 1,227 Average intangible benefits per HH (US$) 262 Ecosystem services Tangible benefits (US$/ha/year) 974 Intangible benefits (US$/ha/year) 208 Downstream benefits (US$/ha/year) 26 Value of Kalika CF (US$/ha/year) 1208 Total value of Kalika CF services (US$/year) 257,198 REDD+ money for livelihoods (2012, US$) 738 Source: Field survey, August 2012, ICIMOD
- 25. Social safeguard • Restrictions on forest access and use in favor of conservation or mitigation objectives can limit livelihood options • Design of decision making and benefit- sharing arrangements can undermine vulnerable forest-dependent groups. • Hence, community forestry should be undertaken with a sustainable livelihoods approach that focuses on the strengthening of adaptive capacity.
- 26. Thank you