Benneker, C.

Chavarro-Rincon, D.C.

Guarin, G.P.

Karky, B.

McCall, M.K.

Pushkin,

Skutsch, M.

van Laake, P.E.

Verplanke, J.J.

English

Pushkin

Skutsch, Margaret

NARCIS 

A better way of dealing with degradation : overview of side event

University of Twente Research Information

1A better way of dealing withdegradation: overview of side eventThe Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectwww.communitycarbonforestry.orgPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing with degradation¨Bonn, June 1 2009ENDAKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgKyoto: Think Local Act Global project Research and capacity building From 2003:  financed by Netherlands Development Cooperation Consortium of research institutes:  UT, ITC, ENDA, Sokoine U, ICIMOD, CHEA, Treeconsult. Working in: Senegal, Mali, Guinea Bissau, Tanzania, Nepal, Uttarkhand (India), Papua New Guinea.2Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgCommunity forest management What can communities contribute under REDD? How could they benefit? What conditions would be required under REDD if communities are to contribute?Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.org PresentationsHow can degradation be operationalisedwithin REDD?What happens to carbon stock when communities manage their forests?Dealing with measurementsWhat does it cost?Can REDD learn from PES at community level?Some of the policy issues, international and national3Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.org KTGAL thanks Intercooperation and CIFOR for support and cooperation in this side eventYour titleHow can degradation be operationalised withinREDD?The Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectwww.communitycarbonforestry.orgPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing with degradation¨Bonn, June 1 2009ENDA4Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgDegradation: loss of biomass fromwithin forest while it remains forestKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgThe bad news first Emissions from degradation have probably beengreatly underestimated by IPCC The estimates include timber extractions visible in RS and registered in forestry statistics (mostlyin humid forest areas) They hardly include low level but widespreadextractions (particularly in dry forests andsavanna woodlands) which result from dailycommunity uses Most developing countries have no data onthese losses (not visible in RS, no forestinventories): no historical baselines are possible5Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgExample: data situation,Tanzania FRA 2005 data on deforestation are based on estimates made in 1987 on 1984 RS data and 1997 on 1995 RS data, using totally different forest & LU classifications The deforestation rate is approximated as a straight line 1% loss (412,000 ha/year) Stocking data based on a one-off, limited sample (36 ton/ha, clearly way too low) No data at all on loss of stock in forest remaining forest: no forest inventoriesKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgThe good news Simple, low cost management by communities(CFM, JFM etc), can easily halt degradation In addition, this management results in annualincreases in standing stock, restoring what waslost earlier (forest enhancement) And there are additional economic andenvironmental benefits for the communities Moreover, communities can easily be trained tomeasure and monitor the stock changesthemselves (cheaply, reliably).6Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgForest regenerating some years after burning has been terminatedKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgCorrollaries Gains due to forest enhancement are larger thangains due to reduced emissions, therefore: if carbon payments are to be an incentive, betterto credit the gains due to forest enhancement These can be much more easily measured andverified as don´t require a historical baseline Treat degradation savings as nominal or ´buffer´ Community measurement increases ´ownership´and legitimacy of carbon payment:  and may be the best way the state could gatherstatistics on stock change to substantiate claims7Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgPolicy conclusion:  treat degradation as forest management: combine ´thesecond D´ with ´REDD Plus´New planted forest, new agroforesty, rehabilitiation of degraded lands with woody species etc.CDM A/RCreating new forests and tree coverIncrease CO2 sequestrationA broad range of forest management strategies could be used to replace unsustainable uses of forest with sustainable ones: sustained timber yield management, community forest management, enrichment planting, PES on a per ton carbon saved basis.  Such instruments will reverse degradation and result in enhanced forest stock.REDD (the second D)Reducing degradationCommitting forest for carbon conservation, using law enforcement, new protected areas, PES contracts on area basis etc. REDD (the first D)Reducing deforestation Reduce forest CO2 emissionsForest management optionsPolicy instrumentMitigation objectiveMitigation optionEnhancing forestgrowth (restoringstock lost earlier)REDD PlusWhat happens to carbonstock when communitiesmanage their forests?The Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectwww.communitycarbonforestry.orgPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing with degradation¨Bonn, June 1 2009ENDA8Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgTypical management regimes: ´passive management´ Contract with Forest Dept. establishes rights andresponsibilities Per household quotas for sustainable off-take offirewood, fodder and poles Fines for transgressors Exclusion of non local users; patrolling Fire lines and fire watching Controlled grazing in forestKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.org14.94.15 sites over 2 yrsGuinea Bissau: 4.01.14 sites over 4 yrsSenegal: savanna woodland13.33.71 site over 4 yrsTanzania submontane evergreen2.40.75 sites 3-4 yrsTanzania: savannawoodland/lowland forest5.41.51 site over 3 yrsMali: savanna woodland1.80.51 site over 4 yrsNepal: temperate coniferous5.41.52 sites over 5 yrsNepal: broad leaf sub-tropical10.42.99 sites over 5 yrsUttarkhand, India; oak and pineCO2 tons/ha/yrC tons/ha/yrSamplingLocation9Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgIs community management strongenough to resist pressures from outside? In 4 of the 28 sites (14%), there wereillegal incursions (clearance for agriculture, timber felling) which communitymanagement could not deal with Resulting in loss of carbon in a given year(losses are included in our statistics ongrowth)Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgWhat happens without communitymanagement? 5 control sites All registered losses of carbon Between -0.3 and -1.7 tons carbon perha/yr Varies between ecotypes and as a resultof different population pressures10Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgStrength of our data The trend is clear Caution needed as regards the absolute values The variation around the mean is high, whichmeans larger sample size may be needed in many locations More control sites are needed to establish thedegradation rateDealing with MeasurementsThe Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing with degradation¨Bonn, June 1 2009ENDA11Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgMethodology Community Inclusion – Reducing Transaction Costs so that it becomes economically viable  for the community members to be as responsible as possible (… willing and able …) to develop the protocols and mechanisms (and associated training) so that the measurements can be acceptable in a formal carbon finance mechanism. the KTGAL programme provides additional evidence (… yes, they can …)Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgMethodology Local Participation in Measurements and Mapping The mapping and monitoring activities include:  determining the community and project boundaries, measuring initial carbon stock in carbon areas,  estimating baselines  monitoring carbon sequestration rates in areas mapping forest conditions and community management mechanisms,  supporting verification procedures. 12Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgField Guide for MeasurementsA Field Guide for Assessing and Monitoring Reduced Forest Degradation and Carbon Sequestration by Local Communities Part 1: for communities Part 2: for trainers (draft available online) Part 3: for policy makersKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgField Guide Contents (part 2) The project methodology What to use? How to collect data? Selection of the local community trainees and training Getting started with Mobile GIS Training on measurement of forest stock Main steps for carbon assessment How to analyze and report the data?  How to implement?13Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgField GuideKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgField Guide14Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgField GuideKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgCollection of geo-referenced data on DBH and tree height using smart phones15Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgMapping activities contributing to forest degradationKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgDelimitation and participatory mapping of forest strata16Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgMethodology strong benefits for capacity-building and management and planning initiatives by the communities: skills development and capacity-building with the community; better dealing with the carbon professionals; ownership of the data produced,  heightened community ‘ownership’ of the carbon project  using the mapped data for applying for other PES  utilising participatory techniques for other community purposes, What does it cost?The Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectwww.communitycarbonforestry.orgPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing with degradation¨Bonn, June 1 2009ENDA17Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgBenefit and costs under different scenariosKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgThe cost of carbon sequestration in Nepal18Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgCosts and Net Benefit of CFM in Tanzania at $5 per tCO2•Villages with large forest area break even well when the price per tCO2 is below $5 •Village with small forest area break even at $7.5 per tCO2Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgCost of carbon sequestration CFUGs/CFM derive greater non-monetary benefits than monetary benefits from managing community forests; and these benefits are the economic rationale for them to manage and conserve their forest at present.  For the local CFUG/CFM members, carbon trading is only attractive when forest resources are permitted under where gains from carbon management are additional to gains from CFM. Benefits from sustainable management keeps costs down. Size of the area of forest is a major variable determining net benefit level and the break-even price for tCO2. The larger the area the less the relative cost in managing the forest.  19CAN REDD LEARN from PES at COMMUNITY LEVEL?Charlotte Benneker & Michael McCallThe Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectwww.communitycarbonforestry.orgPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing withdegradation¨ Bonn, June 1 2009ENDAKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgPES and REDDFor global benefit and future generationsFor benefit of other actorsBeneficiariesTo ensure sustainable conservation of carbonTo ensure sustainability of environmental goods & servicesPurposeManagement of carbonManagement of areas (land units) & resourcesAction SpaceRendered by biomass (land) owners Rendered by communities or individuals ActorsFor reduced emissions PLUS sequestrationFor management and conservationGoalREDD paymentsPES payments20Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgEXPERIENCE OF CURRENT CARBON PES IN MEXICO Limited interest to participate in CONAFOR (FD) program on carbon PES % of projects approved for design low % of projects approved for implementation even lower No sales to international market from carbon PES program. Involved actors disillusioned with voluntary international carbon markets  Involved actors sceptical about government commitments  National voluntary carbon market opportunities, rare but growing – Banks. PEMEX, etc.Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgHOW IS REDD DIFFERENT FROM PES at COMMUNITY LEVEL?•Product oriented: payments only for carbon units, process is secondary (eg FSC)•Process oriented: provision of TA and financial aid in entire productio  chain (eg Fair Trade)•Relation carbon manager – buyer / beneficiary is distant•Direct beneficiary-to-community relationship. •No direct local benefitEnvironmental Services appreciated regionally•Conceptually difficult•Conceptually easy•Market chooses most efficient carbon management systems, indifferent to side-effects (such as plantations)•PES may select less carbon-efficient management systems, including Community Forestry •Focus on payments for carbon & biomass only•Focus on payments for multiple ES for sound forest management REDDPES21Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgHOW IS REDD DIFFERENT FROM PES AT COMMUNITY LEVEL?•Implementation and reward for REDD beyond community level.•Implemented and rewarded at community level •Long term commitment demanded•Short term, future unclear•Rules inflexible, based on international norms•Flexibility to adapt to local circumstances (land rights, culture, power relations etc)•Contracts include elements beyond community control (international market, leakage, etc.)•Communities can understand, oversee, respond to PES contracts. •Payments for carbon units•Payments for managed areas•Requirements complicated •Requirements simple and clearREDDPESKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgWHAT SHOULD REDD LEARN FROM PES AT LOCAL COMMUNITY LEVEL? Multi-functional - No unilateral focus on carbon.  Focus on improving existing forest land use (degradation) to provide multiple services (environmental, social and economic) that directly benefit communities  Regulations towards communities & farmers simple and straightforward, Contracts should concern elements people can be accountable for (not negotiation with international markets, not leakage etc.) 22Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgLOOKING FORWARD: REDD GOVERNANCE for COMMUNITIES at NATIONAL LEVEL International conditions for REDD payments ‘buffered’ by governments to adapt to local circumstances No single focus on economic efficiency and carbon units Tradeoffs (with poverty, biodiversity, etc) require political decisions fitting national & local conditions and not ‘blindly’ following international rules.  Sound forest management cannot depend 100% on international carbon payments in the future; therefore: sse carbon payments to establish local/regional/national strategies to finance multiple, integrated ES in the futureSome of the policy issuesat National LevelBy: Eveline TrinesThe Kyoto:Think Global Act Local projectPresented at the SBSTA30 Side Event: ¨A better way of dealing with degradation¨Bonn, June 1 2009ENDA23Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgDegradation:Loss of biomass from within forest while it remains forestSome of the CHALLENGES: Types of degradation Temporal and spatial diversity, nationally and internationally MRV challenges StakeholdersKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgREDD as national approach Dealing with local processes and local stakeholders (nested approach), or using a national grid? Regulating in UNFCCC context whilst respecting countries sovereignty  Can we learn from JI, Annex I model and IPCC inventory guidelines?24Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgPolicy development at National level: use REDD to invite changePrerequisites: Local stakeholders must benefit Data must be reliable Inventory method must be cost efficientKyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgMeasurements & BenefitsAssuming REDD+ is agreed at International level Must reflect climate change impacts: emissions and removals as the atmosphere observes them Reward those who create the environmental benefits: PES25Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgFinancial compensationTechnical assistance and capacity buildingLocal level Provincial National InternationalUNFCCCMulti-stakeholder institutionProvincial REDD officeLandowners / Forest managersServices-providing organisations or companiesEmission ReductionsData and ReportsData and reportsTechnical assistance Capacity buildingData and reportsTechnical assistance Capacity buildingData and reportsTechnical assistance Capacity buildingIncluding reps of gov’t, NGOs, aid agencies, etc. Example of a PES System:Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgK:TGAL demonstrates… Local communities are capable of ‘delivering’ reliable data in a cost efficient manner There are PES systems that facilitate the nested approach Fighting degradation can have major environmental and social benefits on all levels26Kyoto:Think Global Act Local www.communitycarbonforestry.orgThank you for your attention For more information please contact:KYOTO project teamDepartment of Technology and Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of TwentePO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The NetherlandsTelephone: +31 (0)53 489 3545info@communitycarbonforestry.orgwww.communitycarbonforestry.orgENDA

https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/319716815/vanlaake_bet.pdf

A better way of dealing with degradation : overview of side event

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

University of Twente Research Information