Overview of REDD+ and NAMAs: Relationship and issues for consideration John Costenbader
Jun 15, 2015
Overview of REDD+ and NAMAs:Relationship and issues for consideration
John Costenbader
13 April 2023
2Presentation Overview
1. Brief background
a. Conceptual developments
b. State of implementation
2. Harmonization scenarios
3. Country Examples• Kenya
• Indonesia
• Chile
4. Conclusions
1. Brief background
13 April 2023
41a. Conceptual developments
Promising beginnings …
• REDD+ & NAMAs arose under Bali Action Plan (2007)
• Both expand mitigation options for developing countries, with optional support from developed countries
• Country-determined & voluntary; neither legally-binding on implementer
… albeit separate initiatives:
• Still under development in separate tracks of UNFCCC negotiations
• Distinct rules, methodologies, finance sources & modalities
• Separate communities of experts, vocabularies
13 April 2023
51a. Conceptual developments
REDD+
• Countries generally further in developing framework for REDD+ than NAMAs
• Three-phased approach, a more donor-structured process:
• Readiness; Policies & Measures; Full Implementation
• 2013 COP-19 “Warsaw Framework” – decisions on:
• Finance; National Forest Monitoring Systems; Institutions; MRV; Reference Levels; Safeguards
• Warsaw COP agreed all REDD+ MRV actions should be consistent with MRV guidance for NAMAs
13 April 2023
61a. Conceptual developments
NAMAs
• Much of NAMA negotiation at abstract level given broad variety of NAMA options (national or individual; unilateral, supported, or credited)
• 3 pillars of NAMAs: contribute to mitigation, in context of sustainable development, MRV-able
• NAMAs developed via bottom-up, ‘learning by doing’ process
• NAMAs seem to be developing into country-driven approach that can complement more donor-driven REDD+
• Most recent work around development of NAMA Registry to match developing country projects with developed country support
13 April 2023
71a. Conceptual developments
NAMAs REDD+
Scale • Anything from a project to subnational to national sectoral or full country.
• National-level accounting and crediting with subnational level processes allowed in interim
Scope • Any activity from any mitigation sector (project, program, policy or even an emissions reduction target)
• Five REDD+ activities from forest sector accepted (projects, programs or policies) – in line with ‘3 Phases’ approach
Reference Levels/Baselines
• Unilateral/Supported: Indirectly referenced via information in BURs (in assessing actions)
• Credited: ‘Ambitious’ RLs (credit Baselines/ threshold cap)
• National RLs required (subnational in interim).
• Methodologies subject to independent review and verification.
MRV • Unilateral: Domestic MRV • Supported: Domestic MRV and
International ICA verification
Full national MRV:• Remote sensing & ground
measurements• Transparent & consistent w/ RL.• Reported through BUR. • LULUCF expert technical analysis.
Safeguards None yet GCF may parallel REDD+ safeguards
Cancun Safeguards Periodic reporting on implementation
Design Elements
13 April 2023
81a. Conceptual developments
NAMAs REDD+
Multilateral • NAMA Registry
• Green Climate Fund (GCF)
• FCPF, UN-REDD, FIP
• Green Climate Fund (GCF) Bilateral • UK-Germany NAMA Facility • Norway, UK, US, et al donors
Private Sector • Possible under individual NAMAs • Voluntary carbon markets• Voluntary sustainability initiatives
Foreign Direct Investment
• Possible under individual NAMAs • Voluntary sustainability initiatives
International Carbon Markets
• Possible where attribution • Markets likely needed to bridge finance gap; will require private sector caps
Domestic Finance
• Unilateral NAMAs possible • Underway
Finance
13 April 2023
91b. State of implementation: REDD+
• 338 REDD+ projects in 52 countries in CIFOR REDD+ and Forest Carbon Project Database
Source: www.forestsclimatechange.org/
13 April 2023
101b. State of implementation: NAMAs
• 107 NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database• Overwhelming majority still in concept phase
Source: www.nama-database.org
13 April 2023
111b. State of implementation: NAMAs
• 107 NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database• Overwhelming majority still in concept phase
Source: www.nama-database.org
13 April 2023
121b. State of implementation: NAMAs
• 107 NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database• Overwhelming majority still in concept phase
Source: www.nama-database.org
13 April 2023
2. National scenarios
13 April 2023
142. National scenarios: No. 1
Integrated ‘REDD+ NAMA’
• Separate NAMAs for those within & outside scope of REDD+
• NAMAs possible across entire land-use sector
• “REDD+ NAMA” capitalizes on both REDD+ and NAMA finance
• Non-forest activities (e.g., agriculture) covered under separate NAMA(s)
• Potentially diversifies funding sources
• Bound to requirements and boundaries of REDD+ (scope, safeguards etc.)
13 April 2023
152. National scenarios: No. 2
REDD+ supplemented by Forest et al. NAMA(s)
• Forest NAMA(s) covers activities not covered by REDD+
• NAMAs & REDD+ developed in parallel
• Forest NAMA follows REDD+ rules, coordinated by REDD+ agencies, but not restricted to country’s REDD+ Phase
• (+) NAMA supplements REDD+ finance to fill gaps not met
• (-) Forest NAMA finance must meet stricter REDD+ rules; cannot mingle with other funds not bound by REDD+ rules
13 April 2023
162. National scenarios: No. 3
Integrated AFOLU-NAMA with REDD+ as Sub-Sector
• REDD+ a sub-sector within land-based NAMA structure
• One single NAMA across entire land-use sector integrates mitigation activities from agriculture, forest & other land use (AFOLU) sectors
• Consistent carbon accounting and methodologies across AFOLU sector deduct REDD+ funded activities from “landscape account”
• (+) Holistic “landscape” approach can completely address drivers
• (-) High capacity & coordination needed across agencies
13 April 2023
172. National scenarios: No. 4
Non-Integrated Options
• Countries may pursue exclusively REDD+ or NAMA financing for forest sector policies and measures
• (+) Most suitable for countries with agency coordination difficulties• (-) Limited financial flexibility; limited landscape approach
13 April 2023
3. Country examples
13 April 2023
193. Country examples: Kenya
Simultaneous REDD+ & Forestry NAMA; ambitious, but unclear links
• National Climate Change Action Plan focuses on mitigation in forests: 90% of offset potential from forest sector, including 5 priority activities:
• agroforestry, forest restoration, reforestation, clean cookstoves & development of REDD+ MRV framework
• NCCAP lists activities to be funded under REDD+ or supported NAMA:
• Unclear rationale for NAMAs / REDD+ so far• Risks from double counting (e.g., clean cookstoves)• Potential double-funding same activity (REDD+ MRV system)
13 April 2023
203. Country examples: Indonesia
Integrated AFOLU NAMA (Scenario #3)
• NAMA Framework builds on the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2007)
• Explicitly places REDD+ as a sub-sector within land-based NAMA:
• REDD+ funds target forest areas; NAMA finance targets non-REDD+ activities
• National reporting (BAUs/RLs, MRV) aligns land-use NAMA w/ REDD+
13 April 2023
213. Country examples: Chile
Complimentary Forestry and REDD+ NAMA (Scenario #2)
• Secured both REDD+ and NAMA finance for forest sector: separate initiatives but linked under Forest & Climate Change Strategy
• Supported Forest sector NAMA: NAMA funds to finance activities not funded under REDD+ readiness:
• Carbon trading platform;
• pilot reforestation and carbon stock enhancement activities
• Donors require clarity on coordination & harmonization between funding streams: FCPF required Chile to clarify NAMA/REDD+ links in its R-PP
13 April 2023
4. Conclusions
13 April 2023
234. Conclusions
Forest & land use NAMAs can provide important complement to REDD+
• NAMAs provide country-driven, quick-start finance for any scope or scale activity types regardless of REDD+ phase
• Address wider scale of emissions across entire landscape
• Can supplement finance from REDD+ alone
But potential to complicate and confuse both donors & implementers
• Donors unlikely to support approach in which funds sought from both sources for same activities or where boundaries unclear
• Implementing country needs to establish clear framework in order to administer
13 April 2023
244. Conclusions
Clear delineation & connections between NAMA / REDD+ activities essential
• Need to define boundaries of forest NAMA vs. REDD+ funded approaches
• Clarify which rules, methodologies, safeguards applied where
Integrated NAMA-REDD+ scenarios best for high capacity countries
• Institutional and administrative coordination capacity
• Technical capacity (RLs, MRV, NFMS, etc.)
• Financial management capacity
Un-integrated initiatives best if less capacity
• May be good to focus on one approach initially, can add other later
13 April 2023
25Thank you
Download full report at:http://tinyurl.com/CF-NAMAs-REDD-SE-Asia
John CostenbaderSr. Consultant, Carbon Markets & ForestryOffice: +1 (202) 540 1984 | Mobile: +1 (202) 577 8030 | Fax: +1 (202) 540 2279Email: [email protected] | Skype: j.costenbader1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 601 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.climatefocus.com