Catalyzed workshop. Informing on biodiversity safeguards for REDD+ (19 th January 2012) Background. Workshop summary

Transcription

1 Thematic Area: Biodiversity and climate change Project start date: 1 st October 2008 Status: Active Key contacts Barney Dickson barney.dickson@unep-wcmc.org Toby Gardner Department of Zoology tobyagardner@gmail.com Background The UNFCCC mechanism on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) presents significant opportunities for the conservation of forest biodiversity. But concerns remain about negative impacts on biodiversity if biodiversity safeguards are not adequately addressed. The UNFCCC has thus called on countries intending to establish REDD+ programmes to develop a system for providing information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected through the implementation of REDD+ activities (Decision 1/CP.16 p71d). This workshop considered in more detail what information needs to be provided in order to demonstrate whether and how biodiversity safeguards are being addressed. Discussions were informed by case studies from REDD+ pilot and voluntary projects. This report summarises presentations, key messages, and some more detailed insights on issues selected by break out groups. Workshop summary The workshop addressed key questions relating to the provision of information on biodiversity safeguards including: 1) What information should Parties be providing to demonstrate how biodiversity safeguards are being addressed and respected, relating to: Planning of REDD+ programmes and projects Implementation of REDD+ activities Monitoring and assessment of REDD+ 2) What existing understanding of biodiversity and forest management systems; and ongoing monitoring can support this and how can this be mobilised effectively? 3) What are the challenges and gaps (including need for new information, capacity, etc?) These discussions will be informed by experiences from country case studies relating to REDD+ pilots and voluntary projects.

2 Keynote presentations The policy context Barney Dickson, gave an introduction to the policy context and developments to date. The requirement for an information system on safeguards has been established by the UNFCCC, but not fully defined. However, there is potential for UNFCCC SBSTA to develop more detailed guidance in the future. There are possible links to financing given the COP17 decision that financing of results based actions should be consistent with safeguards. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has ongoing work to provide advice on biodiversity safeguards for REDD+, including on possible indicators to monitor the impact of REDD+ on biodiversity. There is a growing body of work on safeguards and the information needed to apply them (e.g. by the UN-REDD+ criteria and principles and Benefits and Risk Tool- BeRT; CCBA REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards; and operational guidelines for applying biodiversity safeguards in REDD+ initiatives). These processes are ongoing so there is a ready audience for further insights and tools. It is important to remember that in the Cancun safeguards there is a focus on maintaining natural forests. A possible framework for incorporating biodiversity concerns into the planning and assessment of REDD+ programmes Toby Gardner, University of Cambridge presented a possible framework for incorporating biodiversity concerns into the planning and assessment of REDD+ programmes [insert link?]. This work is grounded in several key principles- that progress can be made with available data, followed by improvements over time; that biodiversity should be considered in all stages of planning and assessment of REDD+ programmes and that cost savings could be made by linking biodiversity monitoring activities with those already underway to collect information on carbon. There is a wealth of information on distribution of biodiversity, threats to biodiversity and biodiversity responses to REDD+ type activities which can be used to prioritise and plan REDD+ programmes. To monitor outcomes of REDD+ activities relating to biodiversity is more difficult- you need information on measurable changes that can be explicitly linked back to management activities. Case Studies Gola Rainforest National Park, Sierra Leone (Jonathan Barnard, RSPB). This programme has been running since 1989 and the current REDD project development is being used as a pilot project to drive development of a national REDD+ programme and to help build capacity of government. Project monitoring has been established consisting of systematic surveys of large mammals, birds, vegetation growth and phenology; focal studies on key species; and more ad hoc surveys. This has strong involvement of local people. The project is also developing methodologies to capture threats and responses. However, the capacity of government to collate this information and use for national reporting is low. This would be a stumbling block in development of a national information system and significant financial and capacity support will be required to scale up what has been achieved at project-scale. Cambodia, Tom Clements, WCS. Tom outlined details of the REDD+ roadmap for Cambodia. This is based on two pillars i) better management of existing plans and ii) designing and implementing effective strategies to address drivers from outside forestry. There are a lot of demonstration projects. A challenge is now to scale-up these initiatives to the national level. Cambodia maintains a MIST Management Information System for patrol based data collection. This has an initial focus on presence/absence data for biodiversity but could be integrated with monitoring of land use change and management. There is a need for realism in expectations on information systems- there is a lack of capacity to deliver; and attempts to deliver national information systems are often problematic. Tom also emphasised the need to build on local expertise and experience.

3 Sapo National Park, Liberia, Josh Kempinski, FFI. Josh talked about the REDD+ pilot project in Sapo NP, and national planning for REDD+ in Liberia. At project level, there is good data on biodiversity in SAPO National Park and good capacity for monitoring. There is capacity for GIS and Remote sensing but this is dependent on local ground truth data and expensive satellite imagery. There is a challenge, however in dovetailing initiatives on the ground into national learning and the development of national REDD+ strategy options. National data sets are very weak, as is the capacity of the (very small) environment Department to develop a national safeguard monitoring system. Most capacity for safeguard monitoring thus exists in separate projects so it is very important that information systems can draw on project level data. Mexico, Toby Gardner on behalf of Rosa Maria Roman Cuesta (UN-REDD) and Michael Schmidt (CONABIO). Toby outlined Mexico s priorities in developing their national REDD+ programme and the role of CONABIO (Mexico s national commission on the knowledge and use of biodiversity) in technical development of remote sensing and degradation mapping for REDD+ development. Mexico has an extensive national forest inventory, complemented by a satellite data processing system. This will be extended to include biodiversity parameters. Existing biodiversity data is extensive but has a bias (taxonomic and geographic) and is not sufficiently dense or detailed for sub-national analysis needed for implementation. Mexico s main concern is forest degradation (rather than loss by clear felling). Therefore they are further defining the term as it relates to REDD+; and identifying parameters needed to quantify this process (e.g. vegetation composition; use; damages; functional diversity; relevant groups of plants and animals etc.) and measures to assess these. Assessment will be implemented at test sites throughout the country. Key messages from the discussion after the presentations The discussion of these presentations raised a number of key points and broad principles for thinking about information for monitoring and assessment of biodiversity safeguards: Progress can be made using existing data sets and monitoring programmes. Even in countries with very low capacity there is some information relevant to biodiversity safeguards e.g. spatial distribution on biodiversity and threats. There is a need for guidance to help countries identify what might be possible to achieve in the short term, and potential improvements over time. However, it is crucial to bear in mind the low capacity in many countries, and the variation in capacity (illustrated well by our set of case studies) across different countries developing REDD+ programmes. Many governments and environment departments lack the capacity to collate data and use this in national planning and reporting. There will be a need for capacity building and additional funding to help countries establish information systems. In many countries, the best data on biodiversity exists at project level, where there has been additional investment e.g. by NGOs. Thus more thinking is needed on how project level data can be mobilised and used to inform a national information system. With this in mind, monitoring by local people, and the role of civil society are vital and should be institutionalised and operationalised. At the same time, national needs for an information system should inform how project level, and local monitoring is done. Monitoring impacts of REDD+ activities (positive and negative) on biodiversity requires knowledge on causality of changes. It is not sufficient to collect information about changes in biodiversity. There is a need for measurable changes (e.g. in forest structure, landscape) that can be explicitly linked back to the management activities in question. This can be difficult where there are so many other variables in the system. It is important to identify elements of biodiversity that are critical indicators of what is happening on the ground- potentially some combination of diversity, endemism, threatened species etc. There is a need for specific guidance on indicators of biodiversity relevant in this context.

4 It is important to consider how monitoring and assessment for REDD+ could link in with CBD processes, including the 2020 targets and indicators (discussed further in section 4.1). Relevant information on safeguards will include information both on processes and outcomes related to REDD+ planning and implementation. For example, the requirement that REDD+ activities are not used for the conversion of natural forests but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests implies some questions around conversion rates, but also processes to prevent conversion and to incentivise conservation of natural forest. The requirement for REDD+ activities to be consistent with conservation of natural forests and biological diversity implies a focus on outcomes. There is also a need to consider the difference between doing no harm and enhancing biodiversity benefits. Fully evaluating the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity will need to consider impacts on other ecosystems (outside forests). However, it is unrealistic to expect REDD+ practitioners to be monitoring this. This requires more consideration of how to gather information on off-site impacts, particularly given the difficulty of using some methods (e.g. remote sensing) outside forests. This may have important implications for where the conservation community devotes its resources. Break out groups Break out groups considered three of the issues raised in more detail. Synergy with the 2020 biodiversity targets ( Aichi Targets). Since the intention is for the 2020 biodiversity targets to be translated for use at the national level, there are potential synergies between information needs for these targets, and needs for monitoring and assessment of REDD+ safeguards. Those involved in thinking about REDD+ information systems should engage with the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership responsible for developing the indicators for the targets, to further explore synergies and ensure consideration of the use of these indicators for climate change processes. Conversely, there are existing processes and indicators for carbon-based approaches that may help with development of the biodiversity indicators. The most relevant biodiversity targets are listed in Box 1. A number of these (and their indicators as they develop) will reflect state/status of biodiversity and ecosystems so could be useful to assess impact, though it will be difficult to attribute changes directly to REDD+ programmes. Some also relate to processes that are relevant to REDD+ safeguards Synergies with national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). The planning and implementation of REDD+ programmes should be informed by NBSAPs, including any relevant indicators that they use. An information system for REDD+ biodiversity safeguards should therefore include information on how planning of the REDD+ programme has engaged with and taken into account the NBSAP. This links with the safeguards requirement that REDD+ activities are consistent with the objectives of relevant international conventions and agreements. There has recently been a CBD series of NBSAP regional workshops. Some (e.g. Americas) are still outstanding and may present opportunities to discuss these synergies further. UNFCCC and CBD processes There was an immediate opportunity to engage with current UNFCCC and CBD processes on information systems for REDD+ safeguards, including speaking to country (government) contacts on the need for more guidance on information systems under the UNFCCC; and commenting on the draft CBD SBBSTA 16 paper Advice on the application of relevant REDD+ safeguards for biodiversity, and on possible indicators and potential mechanisms to monitor or assess impacts of REDD+ measures on biodiversity.

5 Box targets relevant to REDD+ biodiversity safeguards Target 5- By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forest is halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced. Target 7- By 2020, areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity Target 11- By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes. Target 14- By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and wellbeing, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities and the poor and vulnerable. Target 15- By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced though conservation and restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation to combating desertification. Photo credit: ESA - European Space Agency - The Amazon Basin, Brazil An information system relating to a) deforestation b) degradation and c) afforestation It was broadly agreed that information needs and priorities would differ between different types of REDD+ activities and more work was needed on the detail of this. The group went on to discuss some general considerations: What it is possible to achieve with monitoring will range from qualitative to quantitative depending on resource and capacity. As discussed previously, it is important to have information on links between implementation of REDD+ programmes, threats to biodiversity and actual changes on the ground. Biodiversity impacts are a function of REDD outcomes and their relationship to biodiversity + interventions used to achieve them + displacement of pressures on biodiversity. This can be applied to consider appropriate subsets of biodiversity impacts e.g. plantation management, impacts on species, impacts of pesticides Monitoring of biodiversity in REDD+ areas should involve screening for possible negative impacts of interventions, identification of likely victims ; and monitoring for possible displacements. Some similar system will be required for ecosystem services. To provide a realistic basis for the development of national information systems will require guidance for qualitative impact assessment and/or process based assessment of avoidance/mitigation.

6 Developing information systems relevant to planning and assessment at different spatial scales At the end of their discussions the group presented proposals for a cross-scale information system for REDD+ biodiversity safeguards. Fig 1. Summarises how information on both management performance and process, collected at local and national scales can contribute towards a multi-scale information system for assessing and reporting on REDD+ biodiversity safeguards. It proposes that direct performance assessment are in essence project scale activities, which could scale up, in combination with national scale proxy data from remote sensing and mapping work, to provide national assessments. Fig 1. How information on both management performance and process, collected at local and national scales can contribute towards a multi-scale information system for assessing and reporting on REDD+ biodiversity safeguards.

7 Additional points from the discussion included: Though reporting must clearly be at national level, relevant data will exist at project, sub-national, national and international. Community led monitoring will be crucial in REDD+ including to build a sense of ownership. Outcomes information should focus on project scale e.g. monitoring for local management; use of indicators to assess status of biodiversity locally. This is often better quality and precedes a national level platform. However, there can be some national level outcomes e.g. national forest assessments. There is potential tension between agendas at a project and national level, with potentially differing purposes at each scale which need to be considered when developing REDD+ information systems. National data sets will have specific requirements, but projects will have already pre-empted these for their own needs in many cases. Information will also have been interpreted in different ways when used at different scales. A dedicated vehicle will be needed for data transfer from project to national level. This cannot be top down, but should be a natural progression as fed up by various parties into a national level platform. New and innovative solutions for this include the development of mobile technologies for data storage and transfer. But any mechanism is likely to require additional capacity building and funding. If capacity in a country is very limited, they should start with developing the national level process and platform, then can move onto project level outcomes when able. There is a need for closer co-ordination and communication between authorities and agencies collecting data for different purposes. National oversight will be needed to encourage this. Workshop participants Name Melanie Heath Robert Munroe Roger Safford Sarah Smith Andrew Randall Joice Ferreria Chloe Hogdkinson Josh Kempinski Sarah Fordham Will McFarland Jonathan Barnard Barney Dickson Cordula Epple Val Kapos Beccy Willebore Chris Sandbrook Toby Gardner Tom Clements Organisation BirdLife International BirdLife International BirdLife International Cambridge Conservation Initiative Defra Embrapa Amazonia Oriental and University of Cambridge FFI FFI Global Canopy Programme ODI RSPB University of Cambridge, Plant Sciences University of Cambridge, Geography University of Cambridge, Zoology WCS Photo credits: Front cover: Kalyan Varma