global comparative study on redd: an overvie 12 part … · global comparative study on redd: an...
TRANSCRIPT
Global Comparative Study on REDD: An overview
Module 1: Analysis of National REDD+ Policies
and Processes
GCS REDD+ research designed
Modules:
1. National REDD process and strategies
2. REDD demonstration activities
3. Monitoring and reference levels
4. Knowledge sharing
www.forestsclimatechange.org
Comparative analysis
Why: to identify structural and governance barriers for 3E REDD outcomes, and options for improvements
How: comparative analysis of individual research elements (country profile etc), qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)
Country case studies
Cross-country comparative analysis Fl
exib
le E
lem
ent:
Sp
ecif
ic P
olic
y St
ud
ies
to c
aptu
re e
mer
gin
g o
r co
un
try
spec
ific
issu
es
and
qu
esti
on
s, fo
cus
on
po
litic
al e
con
om
y st
ud
ies
M1: National strategy and processes
Country profile
Why: To reveal contextual conditions (drivers of deforestation, institutions, political economy, REDD
architecture as discussed) How: literature review, expert interviews
Discourse Media
Analysis Why:
To determine what kinds of actors are shaping public
debate. How: media-based analysis Strategy Assessment
Why: To assess the adequacy of proposed response measures to secure 3E outcomes?
How: situational analysis, R-PP scoring
Policy Network Analysis
Why: To analyse structural conditions in the policy arena, Actors, Perception, Power, Position
How: survey and in-depth interviews
The involvement of actors in shaping the discourse of REDD+ process (%)
Actor group Bolivia
n=60
Brazil
n=113
Cameroon
n=12
Indonesia
n=219
Nepal
n=17
Peru
n=8
Vietnam
n=32
State (national) 50 27 8 46 8 13 69
State (sub-national) 3 2 0 7 6 0 0
Corporate 10 4 0 3 6 0 3
Intergovernmental 8 7 17 8 6 25 28
Research (international) 0 11 42 5 6 25 0
NGO+ENGO (international) 10 17 0 16 0 25 0
Research (national) 3 13 25 6 12 0 0
Civil society actors (national) 15 20 8 10 47 13 0
Source: Di Gregorio and Brockhaus, forthcoming
Ow
ne
rsh
ip
(In
clu
siv
e/E
xclu
siv
e) Vietnam
Cameroon
Indonesia
Peru
Brazil
Convergence of discourse
High
High Low
Nepal
Convergence of discourse
Source: Di Gregorio and Brockhaus, forthcoming
M2: REDD demonstration activities
Comparison (Control)
Project site
(Intervention)
Before After
IMPACT
Intervention After
Control After
Intervention Before
Control Before
The “BACI” method Research
mode Number
of project sites
Intervention Control Total villages
Total house-holds
Villages HHs Villages HHs
Intensive 13 52 1,560 52 1,560 104 3,120
Extensive 6 24 - - - 24 -
Non-BACI 1 31 247 11 131 42 378
Total 20 78 1,807 63 1,691 170 3,498
M3: Monitoring and reference levels
Base period Or Historical reference
Crediting period = 35 years?
With REDD
Without REDD
F
ore
st
C-s
tocks
With REDD+
5 or 10 yrs?
Base Period Or Historical reference
With REDD
Without REDD
C-e
mis
sio
n G
t C
O2-e
q
With REDD+
5 or 10 yrs?
Crediting period = 35 years?
Capacity gap of 99 non-Annex 1
Category 1: national engagement in REDD+ processes Category 2: existing monitoring capacity Category 3: REDD+ challenges Category 4: remote sensing technical challenges
Source: Romijn et al. 2012
MRV capacity
• Reporting of REDD+ activities requires national forest monitoring systems (NFMSs) remote sensing and ground-based and national inventory approaches
• An NFMS may use the default (Tier 1) information provided in the IPCC guidelines
• MRV process could take stepwise approach with continuous improvements
• The most recently agreed or adopted IPCC methods should be used, as decided by the UNFCCC
Lessons learned • Transformational change at
the national level needs economic interests, discursive practices and shifts in power relations among the actors
• At subnational level, tenure security is an ultimate prerequisite to achieve 3Es in REDD+ implementation
• Level of capacity to monitor REDD+ depends on the exposure of countries to basic forest inventory and the advancement of remote sensing technologies
Step-wise approach for RL/RELs
Modules 1 & 3
How we came to the step-wise approach • CIFOR GCS and DECC/DEFRA side project (2011)
• Idea of a tiered approach for establishing RL/RELs (Aug. 11, initially by Huettner et al., 2009)
– Presented to SBSTA expert workshop (mid Nov. 11)
– Mentioned of “tiered” approach in conclusions
• UNFCCC COP17 side event hosted by UK to present approaches
• Adoption of stepwise approach in UNFCCC LCA decision on RL/RELs
• CIFOR policy brief to describe details for a proposed step-wise approach
Criteria for comparing country circumstances and strategies
Criteria for comparing country circumstances and strategies
Setting benchmark for result based payments
School of Economics and Business Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)
Modules 1 &3
A proposal for setting benchmark for result based payments
1. Business as Usual (BAU) deforestation
Historical deforestation
National circumstances, e.g. forest cover
Adjusted BAU
2. Costs, based on arguments of effectiveness and efficiency; set such that transfer = costs
3. Fair sharing, rich (> USD1 000/capita) countries pay some share of costs, poor countries are overcompensated
4. Tier approach, high uncertainty of underlying data impose a conservativeness factor
Element Historical
BAU Costs Fair sharing Uncertainty
Variables Hist.defor rate (FIB I)
Forest cover
BAU defor
(forest cover) (FIB II)
Defor after
REDD+
Emission
reductions
Opp. costs per
tCO2
Cost adjust
. factor
FIB III FS factor (based
on GDP)
FIB IV Cons. factor
FIB V
Example I: Poor, low deforetation, forest rich country
Parameter value (treshold) 50% 5.0 2.5 1,000
Area (1000 ha) 350 180, 000
746 298 448 522 556 445
Relative to forest or land area 0.19% 72.00% 0.41% 0.17% 0.25% 0.29% 0.15 0.31% 0.80 0.25%
Emission MtCO2 (100tC/ha) 128 274 110 164
Value (USD million) 821 411 0.50 500
REDD transfers (USD million) 821 411 - 473 - 269
Example II: Rich, high deforestation, low forest cover country
Parameter value 50% 5.0 2.5 1,000
Area (1000 ha) 1,000 70,000 846 338 508 592 503 453
Relative to forest or land area 1.43% 28.00% 1.21% 0.48% 0.73% 0.85% (0.35) 0.72% 0.90 0.65%
Emission MtCO2 (100tC/ha) 367 310 124 186
Value (USD million) 931 466 0.50 5,000
REDD transfers (USD million) 931 466 - 303 - 210
Tasks 3Es and co-benefits Return of results
Publications based on early research Equity & social co-benefits
Biophysical baseline & MRV workshops Effectiveness
Set-up, implementation, opportunity costs Efficiency & equity
Benefit sharing Efficiency & equity
REDD+ and biodiversity Environmental co-benefits
What we are doing now
More ground work Postdocs 1. Oliver van Straaten – Soil C in mineral
soils 2. Etik Handayani – Effects of fertlilzation on
soil GHG emissions in oil palm on peat 3. Ervan Rutishauser – Effects of land use
change on C stocks 4. Joko Purbupuspito – C dynamics in
mangroves 5. Arief Wijaya – Drivers of deforestation 6. Shijo Joseph – Reference level 7. Anita Kamalakumari – Emission factors 8. Matthew Warren – C peat swamp forests 9. Rupesh Bhomia – C dynamics in
mangroves
PhD and MSc students 1. Jenny Farmer – Heterotrphic respiration (OP) 2. Louis-Pierre Comeu – Heterotrophic
respiration (Acacia) 3. Sebastian Persch – Roots and LUC on peat 4. Jodie Hartill – LUC on non-CO2 GHGs (min) 5. Fitri Aini – LUC on non-CO2 GHGs (peat) 6. Nisa Novita – LUC on GHG emissions from
peat and upland systems 7. Sofyan Kurnianto – Modeling C accumltn 8. Oktarita Satria – N oxides on mineral soils 9. Veronique De Sy – Drivers of deforestation 10. Jose Gonzalez de Tanago – REL/RL 11. Sarah Carter
More ground work
Exploring EFs Stock-change approach
Flux difference approach
Exploring EFs
Global wetlands map – basic data
www.cifor.org/swamp
IPCC Guidelines – 2006
Source: IPCC (2006)
Thank you…..