1

REDD INITIATIVES IN UGANDA

Dr. Grace Nangendo, Mr. Edward Ssenyonjo, Simon Nampindo

June 20, 2011

Why REDD is appropriate for Uganda?

Ecological conditions of Uganda are conducive for forestry business and offer high economic returns to investment

Uganda is losing forests at a rate of approx. 90,000 ha/yr.

2

3

Forest Cover Change (1990 – 2005)

In1900 Uganda was 45% forested, and by 2005 (14.9%)

Type Area 1990 (Ha.)

Area 2005 (Ha.)

Change (ha)

Annual change

(ha)

% change % annual change

Broad leaved

18,682 14,786 (3,896) (260) (21) (1.4)

Conifer 16,384 18,741 2,357 157 14 1.0

THF well stocked

651,110 600,957 (50,154) (3,344) (8) (0.5)

THF low stocked

273,061 191,694 (81,367) (5,424) (30) (2.0)

Woodland 3,974,508 2,777,998 (1,196,510) (79,767) (30) (2.0)

Total Forest cover

4,933,746(24)

3,604,176(18)

(1,329,570) (88,638) (27) (1.8)

Current Activities and Proposals on National REDD

Uganda is a member of the REDD+ Partnership launched in Oslo Norway in May 2010

Submitted the Project Identification Note (PIN) to Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank

Submitted the Draft REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) in June 2011to be discussed in Oslo (Funding request of $3.6Million)

4

National REDD preparedness Proposals

All requisite processes of the R-PP have been met– Formation of a Secretariat (FSSD), – Development of a Reference Scenario – Design of an MRV System, – Stake holder consultations; – Constitution of thematic working, and

national working group, national steering committee;

5

ONGOING PROJECTS AND PROPOSALS

Valuation of forestry sector’s contribution to Uganda’s economy (1990 – 2009) considering;– Physical stocks of wooded land – Physical stocks of biomass of standing trees – Physical flows of timber– Non timber forest products– Other forestry ecosystems services

Draft report has been completed in June 2011

6

REDD projectsUNEP-GEF PES project titled “ Developing an Experimental Methodology for Testing the Effectiveness of Payment for Ecosystems Services to enhance Conservation in Productive Landscapes in Uganda” –NEMA/CSWCT/NAHI

UNDP-GEF/WWF-WCS REDD in Murchison-Semliki Landscape

Forests for Global Benefits (Plan Vivo )project –Rwenzori NP, and Kalinzu Forests by ECOTRUST

7

Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) projects

NFA Nile Basin CDM Project in Rwoho Central Forest Reserve.

North Rwenzori and Kasagala Central Forest Reserve Carbon Projects – NFAFACE –Kibale and Elgon NP – UWA

Kachung CFR Reforestation CDM Project by Green Resources Ltd. and Lango Forest Company

8

Namwasa CFR Reforestation Initiative project by the New Forest Company Ltd. –in the process of being issued with Letter of Approval (LoA).

Kalagala Offset Voluntary Carbon Project – meant to offset effects of the Bujagali hydro power dam on River Nile.

Municipal Solid Waste Composting in nine Municipalities by NEMA.

9

NATIONAL MONITORING SYSTEMSNational Biomass Monitoring system by NFA. –over 5000 sample plots established on a national sampling grid.

Integrated Stock Survey and Management Inventory (ISSMI). –carried out in about 8 major Tropical High Forests (THFs).

National Land Cover/Use Mapping.

10

MAIN ISSUES FROM CURRENT ACTIVITIES

Administrative costs for implementation of REDD+ are anticipated to be enormous (e.g. government, and private forest owners).Land and carbon rights issues

Significant capacity required (technical, institutional, equipment).Data gaps (inadequacy, scope & scale limitations)

Lack of an elaborate MRV for REDD11

A REDD+project in the Murchison-Semliki landscape

Landscape parameters Standing forest (excl. Budongo & Bugoma): 122,876 ha; corridors alone: 3,000 haAverage annual deforestation: 8367 haAverage carbon density:– All trees: 406 tCO2e/ha– Only trees with a DBH>30cm: 333 tCO2e/ha

Current emission: 3.1 million tCO2e/yrTotal emissions by 2031: 46.1 million tCO2e

Where in the landscape

Northern sector:– Few forests left; still much deforestation;

carbon density is modestCentral sector:– Some forests left; deforestation high;

carbon density modest to relatively highSouthern sector: – Some forests left; deforestation high;

carbon density modest to relatively high

Northern sector

Central sector

Southern sector

What activities?Challenges: – Too many people depend on forests for

subsistence and cash income– Productivity of the field is relatively low

Ways to overcome challenge:– Improve crop yields to slowdown forest

turnover– Improve food/cash security (shaded crops)– Provide them an alternative livelihood

Opportunity cost

From the social-economic study of all households interviewed :

– 50% have an annual cash income less than $1500

– 32 % have an annual cash income between $1500 and $3500

– 19% have an annual cash income above $3500

Break-even pointsThis depends on

– The carbon price: $5 per tCO2e

– Amount of forest on the farmer’s land

– The carbon density of his forest

Annual income <$1500/yr1500 Usd Hectares of forest300tCO2e/yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

tCO

2e/h

a

100 -200 -100 0 200 100 300 400 500 600 700

150 -150 0 150 300 300 450 750 900 1050 1200

200 -100 100 300 500 500 700 1100 1300 1500 1700

250 -50 200 450 700 700 950 1450 1700 1950 2200

300 0 300 600 900 900 1200 1800 2100 2400 2700

350 50 400 750 1100 1100 1450 2150 2500 2850 3200

400 100 500 900 1300 1300 1700 2500 2900 3300 3700

450 150 600 1050 1500 1500 1950 2850 3300 3750 4200

500 200 700 1200 1700 1700 2200 3200 3700 4200 4700

Annual income <$3500/yr3500 Usd Hectares of forest700tCO2e/yr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

tCO

2e/h

a

100 -600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300150 -550 -400 -250 -100 50 200 350 500 650 800200 -500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300250 -450 -200 50 300 550 800 1050 1300 1550 1800300 -400 -100 200 500 800 1100 1400 1700 2000 2300350 -350 0 350 700 1050 1400 1750 2100 2450 2800400 -300 100 500 900 1300 1700 2100 2500 2900 3300450 -250 200 650 1100 1550 2000 2450 2900 3350 3800500 -200 300 800 1300 1800 2300 2800 3300 3800 4300

Ways to overcome challenge

Improve crop yields to slowdown forest turnover

Improve food/cash security (shaded cash crops)

Provide them an alternative livelihood

Feasibility document put together by Miguel Leal

Thank you