Lasco - Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects

1  1

Lessons  learned  from  RUPES:    The  Carbon  Market  for  A/R  

Projects  

Rodel  D.  Lasco  World  Agroforestry  Centre  (ICRAF)  

RD  Lasco   2  

What  is  PES?  

1.  a  voluntary  transacDon  in  which    2.  a  well-­‐defined  environmental  service  (or  a  

land  use  likely  to  secure  that  service)    

3.  is  “bought”  by  a  (minimum  of  one)  buyer    

4.  from  a  (minimum  of  one)  provider    

5.  if  and  only  if  the  provider  conDnuously  secures  the  provision  of  the  service  (condiDonality).  

Wunder 2005

RD  Lasco   3  

Watershed Protection Biodiversity Protection Carbon Sequestration Landscape Beauty

Source: Francisco, 2005

•  four  main  types  of  environmental  services:    –  carbon  sequestraDon  and  storage    –  biodiversity  protecDon    – watershed  protecDon    –  protecDon  of  landscape  beauty    

4  

5  

Tropical  Forests  and  the    Carbon  Cycle  

IPCC, 2007

6  

Global  emissions  (1850-­‐2000)  

6   Murdiyarso et al., 2009

7  RD Lasco 7

CDM  vs  REDD  

A/R CDM (sequestration)

REDD (emission reduction)

Van Noordwijk, 2007

8  

Scope  of  REDD  

RED

REDD

CDM

REDD+

REDD++/REALU/AFOLU including all land uses (eg agriculture)

9  9

(Painful)  LESSONS  FROM  CDM  (AND  REDD)  

1.  It  takes  Dme!    

|   |  |  |   |   |  |  1990                              97                    2002                                  2007        08        09                    2012  

Kyoto    Marrakesh  (A/R)                            COP  15  Mexico    

1st  Commitment  Period  Under  Kyoto  Protocol  

         Post  2012  Kyoto  Base  year  

10  

REDD

CDM  Projects  by  scope  as  of  22  Nov  2010  

11  

0.56% from A/R (17 projects)

12  

2.  High  transacDon  costs  •  Base  financing  for  tree  planDng  lacking    

•  TransacDon  cost  significant  (>  US$  200,000)  

•  Carbon  credits  not  sufficient  to  cover  total  cost  of  project  

•  No  CDM  project  has  been  approved  in  the  Philippines  

13  

Example:  5,000  ha  in  the  Philippines  

14  

Cost

Can be made profitable by Including harvest from products like wood and fruits!

15  

3.  Measuring  and  monitoring  of  carbon  benefits  (MRV)  •  Pose  huge  challenges  especially  for  forest  degradaDon.    

•  difficult  to  monitor  because  available  data  are  limited,  highly  uncertain,  and  not  readily  detectable  from  exisDng  satellites  

•  The  IPCC  approach  can  be  used  •  In  CDM,  approval  of  methods  cost  money  

16  

Stock-difference approach

Gain-loss approach

17  

4.  Equitable  sharing  of  benefits  

•  Carbon  payment  must  be  shared  fairly  especially  to  local  farmers  and  land  mangers  

•  With  lijle  experience  in  handling  carbon  payments,  there  are  few  models  to  learn  from  

•  Small  farmers  could  be  eased  out  

18  

How  a  REDD  mechanism  may  look  like….  

Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikof, 2008

19  

4.  ProtecDng  small  farmers  and  indigenous  peoples  rights  •  The  rights  of  local  and  indigenous  peoples  may  be  threatened  under  REDD.    

•  The  rights  of  Indigenous  Peoples  necessary  for  success  of  REDD  

•  Some  contend  that  lijle  was  being  done  to  enable  the  parDcipaDon  of  indigenous  communiDes  

•  or  to  protect  the  right  to  free,  prior  and  informed  consent  (FPIC),  as  provided  in  the  UN  DeclaraDon  on  the  Rights  of  Indigenous  Peoples    

20  

6.  Governance  

•  The  ability  of  naDonal  and  local  insDtuDons  to  manage  the  REDD  process  needs  to  be  addressed  through  a  capacity  building  program.    

21  UNFCCC, 2009

22  

7.  PromoDng  co-­‐benefits  

•  Forests  produce  many  other  goods  and  services  other  than  carbon  which  must  also  be  protected.    

•  OpportuniDes  of  poor  country  parDcipaDon  •  Link  with  other  internaDonal  convenDons  (CBD,  Ramsar)  

•  Local  co-­‐benefits  eg  watershed  protecDon  

23  

8.  MulDple  stakeholders  

•  As  a  result  of  the  preceding,  there  are  many  stakeholders  concerned  with  how  forests  are  managed.    

•  Eg  small/large  farmers,  hydro-­‐power,  irrigaDon,  wood  industry,  (eco-­‐)tourism    

•  Their  interests  will  have  to  be  considered  in  any  C  project.  

24  

The  Philippines  and  REDD  

24

25  Source: Dolom, 2006; Adapted from Environmental Science for Social Change, 1999

Extent of Forest Cover Loss for the last 100 years

70 % 60 % 40 %

34 % 23.7 % 18.3 %

The  vanishing  Philippine  forests…  

26  

27  

No  deforestaDon?  

27

28  

Most  likely  the  2nd  D…  

 -­‐    

 2,000    

 4,000    

 6,000    

 8,000    

 10,000    

 12,000    

 14,000    

 16,000    

 18,000    

1969   1988   2003  

Closed  canopy  

Open  canopy  

Mangrove,  Natural  

PlantaDon  

Total  forest  

Other  wooded  land  

Acosta, 2009

29  

degradation

30  

REDD  Assessment  Framework  

30

REDD  OpOon    

Types  of  AcOviOes  Included  

Land  included   Role  of  and  

benefits  to  smallholders  

Policies  and  InsOtuOons  

RED  

REDD  

REDD+  

REDD++/  REALU  

31  31

REDD  OpOon    

Types  of  AcOviOes  Included  

Land  included  

Role  and  benefits  of  

CBFM  smallholders  

Policies  and  InsOtuOons  

RED   NONE-­‐  forest  area  increasing  recently  so  credit  for  RED  unlikely.  

Possibly  none  

None  since  no  land  will  qualify.  

DENR  will  be  the  lead  unit  involved  

Logging  banned  in  all  primary  forests  (1  M  ha)  

Logging  allowed  in  second-­‐growth  forests  Protected  areas  law  (NIPAS)  

Law  for  indigenous  peoples  lands  (IPRA)  

32  32

REDD  OpOon    

Types  of  AcOviOes  Included  

Land  included   Role  and  benefits  of  CBFM  

smallholders  

Policies  and  InsOtuOons  

REDD   There  is  anecdotal  evidence  that  forest  degradaDon  is  going  on  (eg  illegal  cumng)  .  

7  million  has  

CBFM  smallholders  potenDal  beneficiaries  as  “guardians”  of  the  forest.  They  can  help  protect  forests  from  loss  of  biomass  through  logging  and  fuelwood  gathering.  They  can  also  assist  local  authoriDes  in  prevenDng  encroachment  of  migrants  in  natural  forests.  In  this  role,  smallholders  could  have  a  share  of  carbon  payments.  

DENR  will  be  the  lead  unit  involved  

Policies  same  as  above  

33  33

REDD  OpOon    

Types  of  AcOviOes  Included  

Land  included   Role  and  benefits  of  

CBFM  smallholders  

Policies  and  InsOtuOons  

REDD+   Reducing  the  rate  of  biomass  degradaDon  in  forests  

Enrichment  planDng  

ANR  

ReforestaDon/  agroforestry  

7  million  has  of  forests  

9  million  has  of  open  lands  in  “forest”  lands  

Same  as  above.  

In  addiDon,  CBFM  smallholders  can  implement  projects  that  enhance  carbon  sequestraDon  such  as  agroforestry,  reforestaDon,  and  ANR  in  open  lands  under  their  management.  These  will  increase  carbon  payments  for  smallholders.  

DENR  will  be  the  lead  unit  involved  

DA  could  also  be  involved  

Policies  same  as  above  

34  

Gaps  and  Research  Needs  •  With  exisDng  data,  it  is  relaDvely  easier  to  esDmate  the  potenDal  carbon  credits  from  loss  of  forests  or  deforestaDon.    

•  However,  the  Philippines  does  not  stand  to  gain  credit  from  reducing  deforestaDon    

•  There  is  hardly  any  informaDon  on  biomass  degradaDon  rates  in  Philippine  forests.    

34

35  

•  Another  possible  indicator  is  fuelwood  gathering.    •  major  need  is  to  study  the  rate  of  biomass  degradaDon  in  various  types  and  geographic  locaDons.    

•  One  way  to  do  this  is  to  check  forest  inventory  records    

•  Remote  sensing  techniques  coupled  with  GIS  should  be  explored.  

35

36  

•  A  second  informaDon  gap  relates  to  drivers  of  biomass  degradaDon  in  Philippine  forests.    

•  These  are  crucial  in  craning  policies  and  measures  to  reduce  degradaDon.    

•  The  usual  culprits  are  well  known—illegal  cumng,  Dmber  poaching,  fuelwood  gathering.    

•  However,  empirical  data  are  wanDng.    

36

37  

•  Should  carbon  payments  flow  to  the  country,  how  this  will  be  shared  to  local  communiDes  including  indigenous  people  has  not  yet  been  invesDgated.    

•   The  capacity  of  the  DENR  as  well  as  other  local  government  units  to  implement  and  monitor  REDD  at  the  naDonal  and  local  level  is  sDll  weak.    

37

38  

PotenDal  implicaDons  to  Agriculture  Carbon  Projects    

•  Carbon  credits  from  land  use  changes  can  take  Dme  to  develop  

•  Technical,  social,  economic  and  governance  concerns  must  be  addressed  

•  Relying  on  carbon  benefits  alone  not  profitable  

39  39

Thank  you!