Post on 21-May-2015
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
Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC
Policy failures
Source: REDD Cell, MOFSC
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
Total WS= 14037 ha 58 CFUGs
CF area= 5,996 ha
Total WS= 8002 ha 15 CFUGs
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