Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Scope, objectives and approach for workshop,

And early lessons from FCPF countries

Ken Andrasko World Bank, Carbon Finance Unit, and

FCPF Facility Management Team

at “Building REDD+ Reference Levels” – a WWF-FCPF Technical Workshop

January 28th and January 29th, 2013

Washington,DC

REDD+ Reference Level Setting is Key Unresolved Challenge. Objectives of the workshop:

1. Listen to country experience,

and assess progress

2. Discuss roadblocks, issues,

data needs among countries

and experts

3. Think about how countries

might develop RLs for FCPF

Carbon Fund Emission

Reductions Programs? or

submission to the UNFCCC?

4. Identify next steps to assist

countries & advance work on

RLs for REDD:

1. Technical needs?

2. Capacity needs?

3. Policy or other needs?

1. Define national interests in RL issue in UNFCCC negotiations, and domestically, and resolve them.

2. Construct a RL, reflecting drivers of deforestation, and REDD+ strategy programs, & be able to MRV it all.

3. Resolve national / subnational RLs and C accounting.

4. Identify if “national circumstances” exist to make case for RL other than historic trends projections.

5. Adapt IPCC GPG, GOLFC-GOLD & other methods to the REDD RL problem, including projections.

6. Consult RL with stakeholders, & reach program or national agreement.

Reference Level (RL) Problem Statement for FCPF Countries?

Brazil’s Amazon Fund: Historic Reference Scenario Using Annual + Default Data (top down)

Carbon density data limited, so use conservative 100tC/ha as default.

5

Example: Simple Stratification + Downscale Modeling Central African Republic Proposes to Divide Country into 4 zones for Sub-national RL

--> National RL, & to Use Regional Modeling

(iii)

(i)

(ii)

(iv)

• 4 Biome Zones: (i)southwestern forest (ii)Bangassou Forest or southeastern range (iii) pseudo steppe with acacias and grassland savannas (iv) transition between the humid forest and the Sahelian zone • RL Approach: 1. Stratify and Model a simple scenario based on a few input data for each zone. 2. Verify it with national map of the probabilities of deforestation produced by GEOMOD (geospatial) 3. Develop national reference level using global economic model downscaled into CongoBIOM sub-regional model. 4. Compare bottom-up national reference level to a top-down national reference level.

Source: CAR R-PP available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/

6

Example: Lao PDR’s National REL Draft Uses Historical Rates of Change and Inventory Data (1982 – 2002), Factoring in National

Development Objectives Projected to 2020

• Data: land cover assessments 1982-2002 & NFI 1992-1999.

• Average deforestation rate computed 0.8%/yr, & degradation 1.12%/yr

• Results: annual emissions 95.3 m tCO2e ( in 1982), 60.6 million tCO2e (by 2010), and 51.1 million tCO2e (by 2020)

• Combining it with development objectives, estimated annual emission for the 2010-20 period is 65 m tCO2e

Source: LAO PDR R-PP available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/

Q: National development objectives:

Is this “national circumstances” ?

Or: Is this BAU ?

Forest Inventory & Other

Data: 1982 to 2002

Projection

2002 - 2020

Custo de oportunidade

R

RR

R

RRR

R

R

R

AMPA

MT

MA

TO

RR

RO

AC

AP

Belém

Macapá

Manaus

Palmas

Cuiabá

Santarém São Luís

Boa Vista

Rio Branco

Porto Velho 45°W

45°W

50°W

50°W

55°W

60°W

0°

5°S

10°S

15°S

0°

70°W 65°W

60°W

55°W

5°N5°N

65°W

5°S

10°S

15°S

70°W

deforested

Cerrado biome Paved road

Unpaved road

US$ 3-0 per ton

US$ 0 per ton

US$ 8-13 per ton

US$ 3-8 per ton

> US$ 13 per ton

Opportunity costs

Example of Geospatial + Modeling Approach: Amazonia High-Capacity Complex

SimAmazonia Model Results: Opportunity Costs of Land for Soy, Logging, Cattle

(Soares-Filho et al. 2006)

Indonesia: Top-Down RL with Regional Consultation

Target: 1.560.000.000 ton CO2 e

53.000.000 ton CO2 e

51.000.000 ton CO2 e

81.000.000 ton CO2 e

490.000.000 ton CO2 e 277.000.000

ton CO2 e

Sumber peta: Dirjen Planologi Kemenhut, 2009 Sumber data REL: Draft Stranas REDD Balitbang Kemenhut, 2010

REL is defined by National and clarified with local governments. ER will be designed based on Regional Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM Daerah) and Province Spatial Plan (RTRW Provinsi)

Area of emission

sources Area of carbon sink

Agreed REL/RL NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR REDD+

610.000.000 ton CO2 e

Source: Stranas (Bappenas, 2010)

Source: Slide from Rizaldi Boer, Indonesian analyst

1. Review & seek data needed (NFI, remote sensing)

2. Develop C density, deforestation, & forestation maps

3. Set scope of RL: Which regions, activities, gases

4. Rely on foreign experts to develop draft RL and MRV system … then build in-country capacity.

5. Estimate historic emissions (land cover activity data X carbon density by forest stratum)

6. Set a crediting baseline below RL, reflecting domestic actions & international regime investments

7. Perform projection to inform “national circumstances”

Many FCPF Countries Plan to Follow Rough Progression of Historic + Projections Activities:

• Projections being done for several reasons:

– Durban UNFCCC REDD RL text stresses historic approach… But: 2/3 of FCPF countries plan projections.

– Explore modalities of setting RL, & defining “national circumstances” – what are the arguments, and what difference could it make?

– Identify where to focus REDD programs & investments efficiently

– Help “allocate” national RL down to provinces . . . And manage it.

Most FCPF Countries Plan Projections

650,000

700,000

750,000

800,000

850,000

900,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Sto

ck d

e C

arb

on

o (

Gg

CO

2)

Año

Acciones Tempranas Pre 2005

(37.000 Gg)

Ongoing and planned activities under Costa Rica REDD+

strategy (conceptual) (Costa Rica FONAFIFO slide, edited)

Acciones Tempranas

Post 2005

(54000 Gg)

Mantenimiento Nivel PPSA

(34,000 Gg)

Nuevas Actividades

(31,000 Gg)

Sin PPSA

Con PPSA

REDD+

Early Actions: Difficult to Seek Credit for: Proposed REDD Actions A to F:

Q1: What is BAU? Assume PES payments continue as BAU, or end?

Q2: What if CR needs $500per year REDD $... & gets less $ ?

• Some countries appear to be using national RL.

• Most countries plan to use some kind of nested approach, starting subnationally - - and eventually upscaling to national.

• 64% countries (16 out of 24) propose developing RL by analyzing historic trends, and projecting into the future somehow.

• Data & capacity for even simple historic approach is challenging for most countries !

12

Summary of RL Trends from FCPF

Finale: Some Policy and Methods Issues & Questions

1. How can we reconcile subnational and national baselines set using different data, scales, and time periods?

2. What criteria should be used to determine what programs are in BAU ? vs. new, creditable actions . . .

4. How to link RL to MRV system, nested at different scales, & account for leakage?

5. How to develop RL and MRV systems that handle all lands pertinent to a country’s REDD+ Strategy?

E.g., degraded lands, croplands being intensified, mining areas to be restored?

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Introductions of participants, and identification of priority challenges and needs

Ken Andrasko

World Bank, Carbon Finance Unit, and FCPF Facility Management Team

at “Building REDD+ Reference Levels” – a WWF-FCPF Technical Workshop

January 28th and January 29th, 2013

Washington,DC

• Self-introductions of participants:

– 1 minute name, summary of experience, and duties re RLs

– REDD country attendees: Expectations for this workshop

• Start with REDD country attendees

Introductions

1. Relationship to UNFCCC: How should reference levels for the Carbon Fund (CF) or other initiatives relate to Reference Emission Levels/Reference Levels (REL/RLs) being created for the UNFCCC?

2. Performance and crediting: What should be the relationship between a country’s emission reductions relative to the finance a country receives? Should the reference level incorporate a country’s domestically supported emission reduction effort (i.e. crediting baseline)? How?

3. Additionality: How should additionality be addressed: via a conservative approach to the reference level? or should additionality tests be used?

4. Historical emissions: What reference period, reference region, and forest definition should be used to determine historical emissions?

5. Adjustments for national circumstances: How should national circumstances be reflected in the relationship between historical emissions and the reference level?

Identification of priority challenges and needs. Some potential key questions to consider:

6. Transparency: What standard of transparency regarding data and methods should be required for the approval of a reference level?

7. Spatial resolution: Can a RL be based on quantity of emissions within a jurisdiction, or is it necessary to provide spatial resolution of where emissions occur?

8. Scope: Are separate reference levels necessary for different activities (e.g. deforestation, degradation, carbon stock enhancement…); or can these be integrated into a single reference level?

9. Updating: For how long should the reference level be valid? How updated?

10. Multiple scales: If a country’s REDD+ system involves multiple scales (e.g. a “nested” system), should different approaches to reference levels and additionality be considered, or allowed, at different scales?

Key Questions 2

• Short interventions: make the point, then stop.

• Parking Lot: we honor points by writing them in Parking Lot for later, if off-target now

• Respect other participants, ideas, and facilitators

• Commitment to the outcome

• Chatham House Rules: free expression of views inside room requires agreement on no attribution of comments to any individual outside of room

• Agenda: Quick review, and agreement

Procedures: Can We Agree on These?