Redd pilot

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

Kathmandu, Nepal

REDD+ for climate

change mitigation and

adaptation

Rationale

• Regulatory policies of the past have failed to halt

deforestation

• 1.6% deforestation rate per annum

• Carbon emission from land use in developing countries still

a concern – voluntary participation by countries

• Standing trees are less valuable than felled timber

• Additional incentives required for not cutting down trees in

forests

• Aimed at developing countries

RED to REDD++ (REALU/AFOLU)

REDD

REDD+

REDD++

deforestation only

degradation

carbon enhancing

+

+

all land use changes

(AFOLU)

+

• current framing of REDD refers to only a partial accounting of land

use change, without clarity on cross-sectoral linkages and rights

• hampered by methodological problems of leakage, definition,

transitions

RED

What does REDD+ deal with?

• REDD+ recognized (reducing deforestation, degradation, conservation, SFM, enhancement)

• Polluters (in advanced countries) pay for conservation and sustainable forest management (in developing countries)

• REDD+ is an incentive based mechanism agreed at the global level

• Source of finance for conservation (through IBM under UNFCCC)

• Biodiversity conservation and improved livelihood are co-benefits (mitigation-adaptation interface)

3 major COPs

• COP 13: Bali Action Plan:

– “…Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing

emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and

the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of

forest carbon stocks in developing countries…”

• COP 16 Cancun: REDD+ activities in 3 steps:

– Development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures, and

capacity-building,

– Implementation of national policies and measures and national strategies or

action plans, technology development and transfer and results-based

demonstration activities

– Result based actions on ground that should be measured, reported and verified

(MRV).

• COP 17 Durban: mandates

– Information on SAFEGUARDS and develop modalities for MRV

– Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity

– Respect for knowledge and rights of local and indigenous peoples

– Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders

Drivers of Deforestation

Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC

Drivers of Forest Degradation


Policy failures


GHG emissions in some HKH countries (areas located

outside HKH region are included).

CO2 emission in HKH countries

Successful Community Forestry

under conducive policy environment

1978 2005 Namdu, Nepal

Piloting REDD+ Payment System

through seed grant distribution in

Community Forestry in Nepal

June 2009 – May 2013

Institutions and governance

Capacity Building

Carbon monitoring

Project components

Total WS= 5750 ha 31 CFUGs

CF area= 1,888 ha


CF area= 5,996 ha


CF area = 2,382ha

Project Areas

Forests in three watersheds

Watershed

(District)

Watershed

[ha]

Forest in

watershed

[ha]

Total

Community

Forest [ha]

Forest

area [ha]

Dense Sparse

Charnawati

(Dolakha) 14,037 7,492 5,996 3,899 2,097

Kayarkhola

(Chitwan) 8,002 5,821 2,381 1,902 479

Ludikhola

(Gorkha) 5,750 4,869 1,888 1,634. 252

Total 27,789 18,182 10,266 7,437 2,829

Socio-demography data

Watershed

(District) CFUGs

CFUG

Households Population Major ethnic groups

Charnawati

(Dolakha) 58 7870 42609

Tamang, Chhetri,

Brahmin, Thami, Dalit

Kayarkhola

(Chitwan) 16 4146 23223 Chepang, Tamang

Ludikhola

(Gorkha) 31 4110 23685

Magar, Gurung, Tamang,

Dalit, few Brahmin and

Chhetri

Total 105 16144 89517

Stakeholder

engagement Awareness raising

Forest carbon measurement

Alternative energy

Piloting Forest Carbon

Fund

Project activities

Carbon sequestration data

Average carbon

tonnes/ha

Watershed Area (ha) Range (ha) 2010 2011 2012

Charnawati 5996 1.5-819.4 206.95 209.29 212.03

Kayarkhola 2382 34.5-329.2 288.44 289.83 291.19

Ludikhola 1888 5.2-270.7 209.12 214.43 217.33

Total 10266 226.3 228.92 231.37

Increase 2.62 2.68

Source: REDD+ project, 2012

REDD+ payment basis

In 2012, additional USD 100 per CFUG was

given to reduce disparity between groups.

40% payment for carbon

stock and increment

60% payment for

social safeguards

Payments in 3 watersheds

Charnawati $ 7.4/ha

Kayarkhola $ 10.4/ha

Ludikhola $ 13.8/ha

Expenditure Status in %

Expenses activities Dolakha Gorkha Chitwan Average

1. Livelihood improvement activities 53.8 50.3 48.5 50. 9

2. Capacity building (awareness,

workshop) 9.7 9.4 8.3 9.1

3. Forest carbon monitoring (training

LRPs for forest inventory) 7.2 4.3 27.7 13.1

4. Alternative energy schemes 11.9 15.0 13.5 13.5

5. Others (Forest mgmnt activities +

enrichment plantation) 17.4 21.0 1.9 13.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Co-financed by CFUGs (% in total

invested amount) 43.9 2.3 69.9 49.2

How was REDD money used?

District Fund

Advisory Committee

Community

Forest User

Group

Watershed

REDD Network

Project Management Unit

Note: Dot Arrow represents report, data and information

Bold Arrow represents subsidy and incentive

Verification Agency Fund disbursement - joint

signature (ICIMOD, FECOFUN

and ANSAB)

1 Secretariat

2 Data registration and

management

Monitoring Committee

(MC)

Forest Carbon Trust Fund

Advisory Committee

Government, CSO,

Collaborator, IPOs

Trust Fund mechanism

Identify and periodic assessment of drivers of forest degradation,

initiate forest enhancement activities

Establish baseline of forest carbon and

periodic monitoring

Setting indicators/crite

ria (social, biophysical)

Operate trust fund REDD

payment disbursement

Review, adjust and adapt

Develop Project Designed

Document (PDD)

Frame Measurement, reporting and

Verification (MRV) system

Standardize measurement

methodologies and guidelines

Set up pilot trust fund and regulate REDD+ payment

Linking Payment to C-enhancement

• Community forestry: an example of effective decentralized

system to respond to local factors and also climate change.

• CF reinforces adaptive forest management

• REDD+: an opportunity to address poverty and social justice

(triple dividends: Climate, Community & Forests)

• Strengthened social bonding and engagement

• Efficient coupling: REDD network and forest groups

• Participatory carbon monitoring – reduced time and cost,

increased ownership and responsibility

• Co-financing in forest management and livelihoods

• Still unresolved: monitoring cost in small and fragmented CFs;

additionality; equity due unequal forest size and status;

enhancement vs. co-benefits

Reflections/Learning

The role of tree and forests

Trees for Products

Trees for Services

fruit firewood medicine income sawn wood fodder

soil

fertility

soil

erosion shade carbon

sequestration

watershed

protection biodiversity

Environmental services

Household

Average tangible benefits per HH (US$) 1,227

Average intangible benefits per HH (US$) 262

Ecosystem services

Tangible benefits (US$/ha/year) 974

Intangible benefits (US$/ha/year) 208

Downstream benefits (US$/ha/year) 26

Value of Kalika CF (US$/ha/year) 1208

Total value of Kalika CF services (US$/year) 257,198

REDD+ money for livelihoods (2012, US$) 738

Community Forest – benefits

Kalika Community Forest (Chitwan) 213 ha, 169 households

Example of participatory valuation of ecosystem services

Source: Field survey, August 2012, ICIMOD

Social safeguard

• Restrictions on forest access and use in favor of conservation or mitigation objectives can limit livelihood options

• Design of decision making and benefit-sharing arrangements can undermine vulnerable forest-dependent groups.

• Hence, community forestry should be undertaken with a sustainable livelihoods approach that focuses on the strengthening of adaptive capacity.

Thank you

Technology

Redd pilot