View
470
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Credible baseline setting and accurate and transparent Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of results are key conditions for successful REDD+ projects. In this presentation, Edenise Garcia from The Nature Conservancy introduces the ‘stock-flow approach’ as a means for establishing efficient, equitable, and environmentally sound reference emissions levels for REDD+. She gives an example as to how this approach might work in the Central Xingu REDD+ Project, Para, Brazil. Edenise Garcia gave this presentation on 8 March 2012 at a workshop organised by CIFOR, ‘Measurement, Reporting and Verification in Latin American REDD+ Projects’, held in Petropolis, Brazil. The workshop aimed to explore important advances, challenges, pitfalls, and innovations in REDD+ methods — thereby moving towards overcoming barriers to meeting MRV requirements at REDD+ project sites in two of the Amazon’s most important REDD+ candidate countries, Peru and Brazil. For further information about the workshop, please contact Shijo Joseph via s.joseph (at) cgiar.org
Citation preview
Stock-Flow Approach to Sub-national RELs:
Example from Central Xingu
Bronson Griscom & Rane Cortez
Edenise Garcia
Science Coordinator – Amazon Conservation Program
March 8, 2012
Photo by Peter Ellis
What is a Stock-Flow Approach?
A mechanism that provides incentive payments to conserve forests in both historically high- and low-deforestation
regions while maintaining a level of environmental integrity through an actual impact on mitigation
A portion of payments for emissions reductions would be
put into a “stabilization fund” that would re-allocate payments based on forest carbon stocks
Incentive for maintaining forest carbon stocks
Here’s an example of how this could be applied
in Central Xingu REDD+ Project, Para, where
TNC is working…
Central Xingu Program Area, Southern Para
Potential Emissions Reductions by Zones in Central Xingu
(based on simple historic REL)
Source Data: Griscom & Kerkering, 2010, based on data from INPE, Asner et. al. 2005, Saatchi et. al. 2007
Carbon Stocks by Zones in Central Xingu
Source Data: Griscom & Kerkering, 2010, based on data from INPE, Asner et. al. 2005, Saatchi et. al. 2007
Reference Emissions Level (REL)
• Historic emissions baseline
• “Business as usual” projection
Accounting vs. Crediting
Basic Principles
Qualifier: This is just an example for technical discussion – many questions
remain to be resolved by Brazilian stakeholders before a municipality scale
REL approach is resolved.
a direct reflection of
carbon emissions
involves additional issues
of equity and political
negotiations
Basic Principles
• The design of RELs will affect:
– cost of obtaining the reductions (efficiency)
– distribution of REDD+ revenue across countries and regions (equity), and
– the ability of the REDD+ mechanism to produce credible emissions
reductions (environmental integrity),
• Trade-off between efficiency and equity (and integrity).
A stock-flow approach uses two instruments to minimize the
trade-offs:
Accounting REL determined as simple historic average emissions.
A “stock fund”
We propose that the REL is simply the
historic mean emissions.
Because:1) Transparency
2) Broaden applicability
3) More complex ≠ more accurate
Why?
Simple historic REL vs. RELs based
on linear trend analysis
Only three States with statistically significant historic linear
trends…
Comparison of:•Actual Deforestation (solid line)
•Modeled linear projection (dotted line)
•Simple Historic mean projection (dashed line)
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE - INTERNAL TNC DOCUMENT
Simple historic mean Error
Simple historic REL vs. RELs based
on linear trend analysis
OK, but then how do we include areas with low historic
emissions but high stocks, such as Indigenous Lands?
Answer: A “Stock Fund” to re-distribute a portion of incentives
from emissions reductions to areas with high stocks.
historic average REL
Em
issi
on
s(G
tCO
2/y
r)
+20ySTART +10y-10 y
crediting
allocation to
Stock Fund
>1% 10% 1% 27% 22% 39%Stocks:
•25% ERs
•10 “incentive
nuggets” per
ton CO2
Scenario:
Source Data: Griscom & Kerkering, 2010, based on data from INPE, Asner et. al. 2005, Saatchi et. al. 2007
Scenario 1: Simple Historic Mean REL, No Stock Re-Allocation
Central Xingu REDD+ Project Area
Indigenous Lands
would receive less
than 20% of
incentives, while
holding over 60%
of stocks
>1% 10% 1% 27% 22% 39%Stocks:
•25% ERs
Scenario:
•15% set aside for
Stabilization Fund.
•10 “incentive
nuggets” per
ton CO2
Scenario 2: Simple Historic Mean REL, 15% Stock Re-Allocation
Central Xingu REDD+ Project Area
>1% 10% 1% 27% 22% 39%Stocks:
Scenario:
•25% ERs
•30% set aside for
Stabilization Fund.
•10 “incentive
nuggets” per
ton CO2
Scenario 3: Simple Historic Mean REL, 30% Stock Re-Allocation
Central Xingu REDD+ Project Area
½ Municipality mean
Start 20 yrs
REL Zone Y
PA’s & IL’s: Low past deforestation
eligible for SF
develop.
Emissions Rate
Start 20 yrs
REL Zone X
Private Lands: High past deforestation
eligible for SF
Emissions Rate
Municipality Mean
Rules for Eligibility to Stock Funding
Advantages of Stock-Flow Approach
•Environmental Integrity.
•Focus stakeholder negotiations on decision
about trade-off between Equity and Efficiency.
•Can be adjusted to address leakage
issue.
•Relieves pressure to attempt to project
changes from historic rates.
thanks!
Edenise Garcia (egarcia@tnc.org)
Rane Cortez (rcortez@tnc.org)
Bronson Griscom (bgriscom@tnc.org)
Em
issi
on
s(G
tCO
2/y
r)
historic average Reference Emissions Level (REL)
+20ySTART +10y +30y-10 y +40y
country’s self-financed actions
and/or public $
crediting
Recommended