Landscape-level analysis of

Transcription

1 1. ICRAF Landscape-level analysis of 2 CIFOR 3. AARD 4. Brawijaya abatement costs in three provinces of Indonesia Meine van Noordwijk 1, Sonya Dewi 1, Daniel Murdiyarso 2, Suseno Budidarsono 1, Andree Ekadinata 1, Fahmuddin Agus 3, Kurniatun Hairiah 4, and Brent Swallow 1

2 Total emissions (Giga ton/year) Very high per capita emissions including forest & peat emissions High Medium Low Population (billion) Other USA China Indonesia Russia India Japan European countries

3 Planet People Profit

4 Questions 1. How large have emissions been in the past 15 years? where did they occur? is Indonesia indeed number 3 in the world and is our per capita emission higher than Europe? 2. Are emissions linked to economic growth? are they necessary to get out of poverty and meet Millennium Development Goals? 3. What fraction of emissions could be reduced if carbon markets are allowed to function? 4. What part of avoidable emissions will be covered by REDD schemes as currently discussed?

5 Conclusions 1. On 16% of the land we found evidence of 400 Mt of CO 2 emissions => the 2.5 Gt estimate for Indonesia may be about right, putting Indonesia s per capita emissions above those in Europe. 2. Most emissions are linked to economic growth, but most at a very low rate; these emissions do not get Indonesia out of poverty. 3. At least 80% of emissions could be reduced if carbon markets are allowed to function, reducing a couple of percent of global emissions. 4. However, less than half of avoidable emissions will be covered by REDD schemes currently discussed.

6 Change in NPV/ Carbon emissions $/t CO Market and ecological failure: these type of emissions can be avoided if carbon markets function Net Carbon Emissions X% of Carbon market price Political +Economic + ecological failure: if these type of emissions can be avoided it provides direct benefits Emissions linked to real economic growth

7 Three provinces: 16% of Indonesia s land area 7% of Indonesia s peat

8 C-stocks t/ha Hypothesis on landscape dynamics Kuznetz curve East Kalimantan Jambi Lampung Time, national land-use-change trajectories

9 C-stocks t/ha Hypothesis on landscape dynamics Kuznetz curve East Kalimantan Jambi Lampung Time, national land-use-change trajectories

10 Our study covers the range of forest cover vs population of Indonesia Other districts Human population density, km -2

11 Method Remote sensing data interpretation and spatial analysis Time-averaged C- stock of land use systems Private and social profitability: Net Present Value of land use 3.67 * Time series at pixel level Time 1 Land use/ cover C-stock Net present value Time 2 Land use/ cover C-stock Net present value LULCC matrix timeaveraged C-stock= CO 2 emission NPV= economic gain NPV before -NPV after Cstock after -Cstock before in $ / t CO 2 eq

12 Aboveground Carbon stock, t/ha Natural forests Logged-I Late sec. Logged-h secondary semak belukar alang2 Time-averaged carbon stock = C-accumulation rate * C-residence time 250 = 2.5 * 100 = average C-stock over the life cycle = average over a landscape mosaic of all phases (if system is stable) 120 = 3 * 40 Complex agroforests sisipan 90 = 3 * 30 Simple agroforests 50 = 5 * 10 Plantations Homegardens 0 10% 10 33% 33 67% % Fraction of tree basal area derived from planted trees

13 East Kalimantan > 2005 Emissions mostly due to logging : 13.8 t CO 2 / ha / year, 92.3% below 5$/t CO 2 Forest Forest to to grassland grassland Logged over forest to plantation 1000 Logging Logging Abatement costs ($/tco -eq) (log scale) N e t c u m u la tive e m is sio n s (t C O 2 -eq/ha/year)

14 Logged over forest to rubber Forested peat to annual cropping and shrub Forested peat to oil palm Logged over peat to rubber Forested peat to settlement Jambi (peat lands included) : 31.2 t CO 2 / ha / year, 92.7% below 5$/t CO Net cumulative emissions (t CO 2 -eq/ha/year) Abatement costs ($/t CO2 ) (log scale)

15 Logged over forest to shrub Logging Logged over forest to oil palm Logged over forest to rubber Rubber Rubber af af to to rubber rubber Jambi (peat lands excluded) : 7.3 t CO 2 / ha / year, 63.6% below 5$/t CO 2 Oil palm and rubber on mineral soils Net cumulative emissions (t CO 2 -eq/ha/year) Abatement costs ($/t CO2 -eq) (log scale)

16 Logged over forest to plantation 1000 Rubber Rubber af af to to rubber rubber Forest Forest to to grassland grassland Logging Logging Forest to annual cropping Forest to coffee af Logging oil palm Logged over forest to rubber 100 Logged over forest to shrub Logging Logged over forest to Abatement costs ($/t ($/tco2 -eq) (log scale) Lampung : 3.6 t CO 2 / ha / year, 82.2% below 5$/t CO Net cumulative emissions (t CO 2 -eq/ha/year) Net cumulative emissions (t CO 2 -eq/ha/year) Net cumulative emissions (t CO 2 -eq/ha/year) Abatement costs ($/t CO2 -eq) (log scale)

17 < 0 $ 0 to 1 $ 1 to 5 $ 5 to 15 $ > 15 $ Gt CO2 % of CO 2 emission of Indonesia Net 16 Potential abatement costs in 3 provinces (m t CO2-eq/year) High Access- Mineral Soil Low Access-Mineral Soil High Access-Peat Low Access-Peat < 0 $ 0 to 1 $ 1 to 5 $ 5 to 15 $ > 15 $ Abatement costs ($/tco2-eq)

18 F o r e s te d p e a t to a n n u a l c r o p p in g a n d s h r u b F o r e s te d p e a t to o il p a lm L o g g e d o v e r p e a t to r u b b e r F o r e s te d p e a t to s e ttle m e n t L o g g e d o v e r p e a t to r u b b e r J a m b i ( in c l. p e a t la n d s ) F o r e s t t o g r a s s l a n d L o g g i n g L o g g e d o v e r f o r e s t t o p l a n t a t i o n Large differences in per ha emissions between the three provinces E a s t K a lim a n t a n L o g g e d o v e r f o r e s t t o s h r u b L o g g i n g L o g g e d o v e r f o r e s t t o o i l p a l m L o g g e d o v e r f o r e s t t o r u b b e r R u b b e r A F t o r u b b e r Jam bi (excl. peat) F o r e s t t o a n n u a l c r o p p i n g F o r e s t t o c o f f e e A F L o g g i n g L a m p u n g N e t c u m u l a t i v e e m i s s i o n s ( t C O 2 -e q /h a /y e a r) Abatement costs ($/t CO 2 -eq) Abatement costs ($/t CO 2 -eq) Abatement costs ($/tco 2 -eq) Abatement costs ($/t CO 2 ) (log scale) (log scale) (log scale) (log scale)

19 Large differences in per ha emissions between the three provinces Even in Lampung, avoided emission is still as important as new sequestration could be

20 This type of green will not be covered by REDD, as agroforests are excluded by definition

21 Last week In Europe 23 / t CO 2 eq was paid for certified emission reduction Planet Stricter emission reduction targets due to lower costs In Indonesia emissions were increased because of benefits of 0.23 / t CO2 eq People Profit Financial compensation above abatement costs Emission reduction at lower cost than current markets provide

22 Conclusions 1. On 16% of the land we found evidence of 400 Mt of CO 2 emissions => the 2.5 Gt estimate for Indonesia may be about right, putting Indonesia s per capita emissions above those in Europe. 2. Most emissions are linked to economic growth, but most at a very low rate; these emissions do not get Indonesia out of poverty. 3. At least 80% of emissions could be reduced if carbon markets are allowed to function. 4. Less than half of avoidable emissions will be covered by REDD schemes as currently discussed.

23 Issues for the negotiators Unless the word PEAT gets mentioned next to FOREST as x in the REDxD definition, large and avoidable emissions will not have an institutional home in the global rules to manage emissions With 2 Gigaton CO 2 eq per year of emission reduction options for 5$/ton in Indonesia alone, ER commitment should/can increase Comprehensive AFOLU accounting rather than REDD + A/R-CDM will reduce transaction costs and make emission reduction more efficient and fair

24 Thanks