Research to Inform Design of a 3E

National REDD+ Architecture

Information: - Carbon - Non-carbon

benefits - Costs - Equity

perceptions

Analyses: - Policy Networks - MRV - Costs of policy

and measures - Operationalizing

Safeguards - Multi-level

Governance - Assessing sub-

national initiatives

- Role of rights and tenure

- Options for design of equitable benefit sharing mechanisms

REDD+ architecture

Effectiveness, efficiency and welfare of policies and measures in Brazil Amazon

• Implementation costs vary across space

• C&C policy can achieve high conservation gains at low costs to government but at high costs to land users

• PES incentives can improve equity outcomes of C&C

• Policy mix of ‘carrots’ (PES/ REDD+) with ‘sticks’ (C&C) can be fairer than when either instrument is applied in isolation

Borner, J., Wunder, S. and Marinho, E. (2015)

Deriving experiences from other sectors for negotiating benefit sharing options

• Cash may be more a more efficient and effective incentive than in-kind transfers, and better supports local wellbeing (CCT)

• Intermediaries play an important in managing cross-scale transactions (PES)

• Slow policy development at local levels has led to ad hoc arrangements where non-monetary benefits are predominant (MLG)

Efficiency

• There are risks of elite capture in local distribution of benefits (Vietnam)

• Legitimacy of BS arrangements vary – without which, potential benefits may manifest as burdens (MLG)

• Significant time, planning and compromises are involved in inclusive multi-stakeholder process (FLEGT)

• Dispute resolution mechanisms & transparency are key (FLEGT, Standards)

Equity

• Performance-based payments may not be able to compete with the opportunity costs in areas of high deforestation rates (PES)

• Conditionalities and stringent criteria for identifying target groups increase effectiveness but are costly (CCT)

• Allocation of rights may be more effective than performance or input based incentives in situations where incentives do not reflect true transaction and opportunity costs (CF)

Effectiveness

Loft et al. 2014; Wong 2014; Gebara et al. 2014; Kowler et al. 2014; Nawir et al. 2015.

Forthcoming: Arwida et al.; Tjajadi et al.; Yang et al.

THINKING beyond the canopy

IPCC emission factors for greenhouse gas

inventories in tropical peatlands Louis Verchot and Kristell Hergoualc’h

RIHN Visit 3 March 2016

THINKING beyond the canopy

GHG emissions in peatlands

Kristell

Hergoualc’h

Sebastian Persch

C-CO2 Emission Factors for Tropical Peatlands

Land use Category EF (tC ha-1 y-1)

Forest Land and cleared Forest Land (shrublands), drained

5.3

Plantation (long rotation) 15

Plantation - short rotation (Acacia) 20

Plantation - shallow drained (Sago) 1.5

Plantation – oil palm 11

Cropland 14

Cropland - rice 6.1

Grassland 9.6

Peat extraction 2.0

Why are the new EFs important to Indonesia?

Indonesian peatlands

50% of tropical peatlands (Page et al., 2011)

Among the largest C pools on earth

90% C stored in the peat (Murdiyarso et al., 2009)

GHG emissions from LUC & fires

Large amounts of CO2 lost from the soil

Peat C loss contribute more than 63% to

total C loss (Hergoualc’h & Verchot, 2011)

Lack of guidance for GHG accounting

especially for the soil e.g. IPCC guidelines (2006)