Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses in Indonesia: linking REDD+ and NAMA approaches

25 February 2011, Bogor

Tree cover and demographic transitionsTree cover and demographic transitions in Indonesia and their consequences for emission reduction opportunities baseemission reduction opportunities, base-

lines and stratification of ‘pilots’

Meine an Noord ijk and Son a De iMeine van Noordwijk and Sonya Dewi

Where does agriculture start  & forest end?

Yet, institutions see a dichotomy & contrast

10% State  National ParkConservation + 

Rights to define forest  ~ 5 different ways of classifying forest:

Forest domain

ForestProtected Area

Restoration conces‐sion

watershed protection forest

Emis‐

53% Other + disputed 

forest lands

sion

Community‐forest

Village forestProduction forest

sion GHG

C capture

Benefit‐sharing

Logging concession

l

Convertible forest

Plantation contract

Mixed agroforest, 

Official conversion from forest to non‐forest land status: ‘planned 

private forests, community 

landscapes with trees

Non‐forest land uses (APL)

pdeforestation’

trees

1. By ecosystem  2. By vegetation       3. By land use          4. By ‘owner’   5. By ‘co‐managementservice                  & its C‐stocks category  regime’

( )

“The global REDD+ agreement is ready to go, it may not be perfect, but it is time to act now”p

But have we agreed onagreed on which trees are NOT a forest?

Tony La Vina

1. Undisturbed natural forest  2 Undisturbed + sust logged natural forest

Rainforest foundation

Conservation agency

Stakeholder:

2. Undisturbed + sust. logged natural forest 3. Closed canopy undisturbed + logged forest 4A. as 3 + agroforest    4B 3 i b l i

Conservation agency

Forest ecologist4B. as 3 + timber plantations  4C. as 3 + agroforest + timber plant’s + estate crops 4D as 4C + shrub  Modis data

Ministry of ForestryUNFCCC definition

http://www.asb.cgiar.org/

REDD finance should be used for investmentNicholas Stern

REDD finance should be used for investment in alternative development pathways that 

t i t f C t k thsupport maintenance of C stocks – rather than in protection of forests per se

Tree cover transition

Widening: area planted < area cleared Contracting: area planted > cleared

In the 1990’s loss of natural cover increased the amount of ‘low C‐stock’/low economic value land; tree (crop)value land; tree (crop) planting was 28% of the loss of natural forest area

After 2000 planting of tree (crop)s equals 90% of concurrent loss ofof concurrent loss of natural forest; the amount of low C‐stock/low economic value land decreases

Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010

consequences for i i d• emission reduc-

tion opportunities, • base-lines and • stratification ofstratification of ‘pilots’

Agricultural intensification hypothesisASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994Remote forest edge communities & Planet earth are closed     ASB hypothesis in 1992 ASB findings in 1994

systems, in between we have ‘open’ systems…

More intensive agriculture at forest margins can save forest at equal total 

agricultural productionagricultural production

Or… speed up forest conversionforest conversion to profitable agriculture

This may be true in 

This is true in ‘open’

‘closed’ economies

‘open’ economies

From a ‘land sparing’ to a ‘land sharing’ di f l d ltif ti litparadigm of landscape multifunctionality

• Managing a gradient rather than dichotomyManaging a gradient rather than dichotomy

Realistic +

C diti l +Conditional +

Voluntary +

Pro‐poor

agreementsg

6/7

The REDD+(+) value chain & C rights1. Local development pathway & land use

2 ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains)2. ΔCstocks due to Σ(losses&gains)

3. minus allowance for Cstock uncertaintyy

4. additional to Reference Emission LevelTransaction5. minus allowance for leakage

6 filtered by eligibility criteria

Transaction costs when seen from local 6. filtered by eligibility criteria

7. multiplied with price/investment levelperspective

p p

8. minus taxes and retribution C rights apply to steps 1…8

Unpacking carbon rights – beyond ‘forest’• Modify C stock of land (Cut trees      , Plant trees      , Use fire      , Control fire     , Drain      , 542 3

1

, , , ,Rewet peat       , Pest&Disease Control      , InfGrowthRate      , Remove topsoil/mining      )98

76p g )

• Reduce C stock uncertainty

• Establish baseline/additionality10

11• Establish baseline/additionality

• Determine leakage (emission displacement) 12

11

• Define eligibility of emission reduction claim

• Negotiate price or investment regime 1413

g p g

• Impose tax and/or co‐invest public funds 15

Rights to Plot Village Landscape Country Global bodies

1 Cut/harvest1 Cut/harvest

2 Plant

3 Burn Land  Land use plan-ning tenurial4 Control fire

5 Drain

6 Re‐wet peat

use rights ~ 

ning, tenurial reform, reducing

conflicts over 7 Pest control

8 Growth rates

9 Mine

tenure multiple rights

Bottom up participation9 Mine

10 Measure MRV MRV‐inst

11 REL standard LAAMA NAMA GAMA

Bottom up participation

12 Leakage NAMA

13 Eligibility filter REDD + safeguards

Top-down planning

14 C $ Fund‐based

15 Tax & coinvest REDD+strat

PES (Wunder, 2005)

CES  Open market trade in ‘commoditized’ Increased ‘fairness’ 

Increased efficiency and flexibility in produ‐

ES are scalable with MRV in place

trade in  commoditized  ES produced by legal land users on demand

and opportunity to sup‐port interest of rural       

.    poor in situations with contested land

f y pcing well‐defined ESusing operational indicators for ‘scala‐ble’ ES; price based p

COS  Compensate legal land users for skipping their opportunities to shift 

land use to more pro‐fitable but less ES

contested landuse rights and ES 

as emergent properties of 

ble  ES; price based on bargaining power & total supply

Legality of land use is clear and non‐contested

CIS Seek co‐investment by external and local

land use to more pro fitable but less ES friendly land use landscape 

mosaics

CIS  Seek co‐investment by external and local stakeholders to reduce legal, semi‐ and illegal threats 

to ES, through support for collective action and building of social & human capital

External value of environmental services exceeds local appreciationClarify the relationship between land use options, productivity, profitability 

and provision of environmental services  (ES) – from the perspective of l l bli / li d i ifi l i l/ i k l dlocal, public/policy and scientific ecological/economic knowledge

Non‐linear baseline: tree cover transitions

http://www asbww.asb.cgiar.org//

Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, XXXX

http://www asbww.asb.cgiar.org//

 

Meine van Noordwijk & Beria Leimona, 2010

Active small-scale conversion

Slow small-scale

conversion

sca econversion Javanese

Last block of 18,000 ha peat swamp forest as ‘protection Javanese

migrantsswamp forest as protection

zone’

Large-scale conversion for oil palm and HTIfor oil palm and HTI

Respect, Image,

Legend:

International rules, fund/market

Fairness/Transparency Efficiency/Clarity

Knowledge

Free and Prior Informed Consentch

ain

men

t

ons

fund/market

International border

N t d b li ti Informed Consent of sovereign decision makersva

lue

/

p

aym

rela

ti

Subnational sectors/areas private sector

Nested baselines, certi-fied emission reduction

Finance: invest-ment, payment

Certified EmissionC

RED

D

vest

men

t/Additionality ~ baselineLeakage/displacementru

st/th

reat

p

Certified Emission ReductionIn

g p

Tr

Local sectors/areas private sector

Monitoring C stocks &

Local sectors/areas:

Monitoring C stocks & project cycle aspects

communities, householdsSustainable livelihood Reducing direct drivers

support of emissions