Makira REDD Pilot Projectand

REDD Revenues

Christian Burren

WCS Madagascar

Presentation PlanPresentation Plan

REDD Project Context and Development National and local context of the Makira project Development and REDD feasibility

REDD Project implementation and management Creation of Makira protected area Management and co-management systems

REDD revenue generation and sharing Project certification Revenue sharing Ongoing discussions

Project Contextand

Development

National ContextNational Context

National Environmental Action Plan (PNAE) Durban Vision: Extension of Protected Areas

network from 1,7 to 6 million hectares Madagascar Action Plan engagement 7:

”taking care of the environment" Increase area under protection (6 categories) Reduce natural resources degradation Develop environmental reflex

REDD Readiness Preparation (R-PP submittedend 2010, currently suspended)

Local ContextLocal Context

Biggest humid forestcomplex in Madagascar(over 500 000 ha)

Exceptional biodiversity

Environmental services

Connectivity betweenexisting protected areas

Important human pressureon forest resources(agriculture, forestproducts, etc

Project DevelopmentProject Development

Project Objectives(USAID/PAGE): Biodiversity

conservation Reduced deforestation

and forest degradation Improved livelihoods of

local populations Test of alternative

funding sources (PES)

Approaches: Creation of new

protected area Sustainable use of

natural resources Implication of local

communities into forestand PA management

Additional funding andmotivation throughcarbon financing

REDD Feasibility Analysis (2004)REDD Feasibility Analysis (2004)

Reference area:350,000 ha

Carbon stock:286 tC/ha

Without Project (BAU):18,283 ha in 30 ans

With Project (REDD):8 797 ha dans 30 ans

Avoided Emissions:9,496,294 tons ofCO2-equivilents

350,000

345,000

340,000

335,000

330,000

325,000

320,000

With Project

Without Project

Project Implementationand

Management

Creation of the Creation of the Makira Makira Protected AreaProtected Area

New Protected Area:(372,470ha; 338,967ha forest)

Participatory delimitationand zoning: Protected Area (cat. 2)Protected Area (cat. 2) Controlled OccupationControlled Occupation Controlled UtilizationControlled Utilization

Système de suivienvironnemental

Temporary creation decreefor Makira in Dec. 2005

Setting up the Protection ZoneSetting up the Protection Zone

Protection Zone:(325,357ha; 183,783ha forest)

Management contracts withlocal communities

Nat. resources managem.capacity building

Implication in PA manage-ment (co-management)

Promotion of alternativerevenue sources

Natural Resources Management TransferNatural Resources Management Transfer

Legal Framework: GELOSE Law (all nat. resources, by resource) GCF Decree (forest resources, by forest zone)

Principles: State remains owner of natural resources Transfer of resources management to local

communities organized in associations Gives right to sustainable use of natural resources,

taxes if use is commercial

Elements: Contract, Dina, Management Plan (PAGES),Obligation clauses, association bylaws

GCF

GCF

GCFGCF

GCF

Makira Makira PA Co-Management SystemPA Co-Management System

Steering Committee:2 rep. WCS, 1rep. DGEF,3 rep. Federation (1/Région), 2 rep. DREF, 3 rep. Region, 1 rep. MAEP, (rep. Donors)

Secteur 1 Sector 3

Sector 6Sector 5Sector 4

GCF

GCFGCF

GCF

GCF

GCFReg

ion

1

Reg

ion

3Reg

ion

2

Protec

ted Area

COBA

Plat

form

GCF

GCF

Sector 2

GCF

GCF

GCF

COBA Platform

GCFGCF

Management Com.WCS MakiraForest AdministrationCOGE Federation

COGE Federation2 rep. per sector

COGE Platform2 rep. par GCF

Consulting CommitteeElected, local and trad. authorities, privatesector, NGOs, associations, devel. org.

REDD Revenue

Generation and

Sharing

REDD ActivitiesREDD Activities

Forest protection and sustainable management: Creation and management of the Makira PA Support to transfer of resources management Build management capacities of local communities

Rural development: Improved agriculture (water management, improved

capacities, improved techniques) Improved livelihoods (improved access to health and

education services, with specialized NGOs)

Alternative revenue generation: Carbon finance, rural microcredit (partnerships) Economic partnerships (eco-tourism, bio products)

Certification: Baseline Deforestation (BAU)Certification: Baseline Deforestation (BAU)

Spatial Project Boundaries:PA, RRD, RRL, LB

Temp. Project Boundaries:PP, HRP, BP, MP

Historic DeforestationAnalysis (1995-2000-2005)

Modelling of future defor.(Land Change Mod.) Calibration 1995 - 2000 Driver Variables Def. Risk Potential Validation 2000 - 2005 Deforestation Projections

Certification: Carbon Stock AnalysisCertification: Carbon Stock Analysis

Preliminary Inventory in4 strata (40 samples): Low Altitude IntactLow Altitude Intact Low Altitude DegradedLow Altitude Degraded Mid Altitude IntactMid Altitude Intact Mid Altitude DegradedMid Altitude Degraded

Final inventory in2 strata (132 samples): Low Altitude Forest Mid Altitude Forest

Certification: ValidationCertification: Validation and Verificationand Verification

Validation : Deforestation drivers

addressed by project Applied methodologies Baseline deforestation

scenario (BAU)

Leakage belt andmanagement

Ex-ante project scenario Monitoring system

Verification: Ex-post project

emissions Leakage emissions due

to activity displacement Avoided emissions

(compared to baseline) Non-permanence risk

and accuracy buffers Total VCUs

REDD Project CostsREDD Project Costs

Investment costs: Support to PA and resources management structures

(WCS, COBAs) Maintenance of deforestation reducing activities

Implementation costs: Monitoring (MRV) and evaluation costs Certification costs (VCS et CCB) Costs related to marketing of carbon credits

REDD Stakeholders and RolesREDD Stakeholders and Roles

Local communities in PA and protection zone: Local communities are main deforestation agent That’s where emission reductions are generated (50% of PA entry fees go to local communities (COAP))

REDD project promoter (WCS): Delegated manager of the protected area Responsible for validation and verification (MRV) Main actor for marketing (MCC)

National and local Government Owner of Makira protected area Owner and seller of carbon credits Responsible for national control and evaluation (12 to 15% go to government for forest resources)

REDD Revenue Distribution SchemeREDD Revenue Distribution Scheme

Distribution Scheme proposed for Makira

Revenues  fromcarbon  credit

sales

To localcommunities

for forest protection and sustainable nat.

Resources man.

50%

Fin.Managem. 2,5%

MRVCertificat.2,5%

CreditMarketing

5%

ToGoM for nat.REDD, contoland training

20%

ToDelegated

Manager for PAManagement

20%

REDD Revenue Distribution ProcessREDD Revenue Distribution Process

20% directly to GoM

80% distributed through designated foundation: COBAs or COBA Federation (50%) PA Manager (22.5%) and Marketing agent (5%) Financial Manager (2.5%)

Invested into projects contributing to: Biodiversity conservation (PA Management) Sustainable resources use (GCF) Rural development

Additional support to project development: Technical assistance Resources management plans

REDD Legal FrameworkREDD Legal Framework

REDD readiness preparation still ongoing inMadagascar, no legal framework exists

Legal framework is important to investors because itreduces risks and ensures quality

Current arrangements: Ministerial order creating the Makira protected area Ministerial order and contract designating WCS as

manager of Makira Agreement between MCC and the Ministry on marketing

of Makira emission offsets Term sheet on sale of emission reduction credits ERPA between State and end buyer

Ongoing DiscussionsOngoing Discussions

Designated foundation (Tany Meva, FAPBM…) andsteering committee for Makira ?

Benefits to regions and Communes ? Limited role in natural resources management Motivation for supporting the project

Equitable sharing between communities ? Forest area varies among COBAs Performance based arrangements

Ecological and financial monitoring Transparent registration procedures Integration of local communities