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


Land included

Role and benefits of

CBFM smallholders


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


Land included Role and benefits of CBFM

smallholders


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.


Policies same as above

33 33

REDD OpOon


Land included Role and benefits of

CBFM smallholders


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.


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!

Documents

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