Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Transcription

1 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Scope, objectives and approach for workshop, And early lessons from FCPF countries Ken Andrasko World Bank, Carbon Finance Unit, and FCPF Facility Management Team at Building REDD+ Reference Levels a WWF-FCPF Technical Workshop January 28 th and January 29th, 2013 Washington,DC

2 REDD+ Reference Level Setting is Key Unresolved Challenge. Objectives of the workshop: 1. Listen to country experience, and assess progress 2. Discuss roadblocks, issues, data needs among countries and experts 3. Think about how countries might develop RLs for FCPF Carbon Fund Emission Reductions Programs? or submission to the UNFCCC? 4. Identify next steps to assist countries & advance work on RLs for REDD: 1. Technical needs? 2. Capacity needs? 3. Policy or other needs?

3 Reference Level (RL) Problem Statement for FCPF Countries? 1. Define national interests in RL issue in UNFCCC negotiations, and domestically, and resolve them. 2. Construct a RL, reflecting drivers of deforestation, and REDD+ strategy programs, & be able to MRV it all. 3. Resolve national / subnational RLs and C accounting. 4. Identify if national circumstances exist to make case for RL other than historic trends projections. 5. Adapt IPCC GPG, GOLFC-GOLD & other methods to the REDD RL problem, including projections. 6. Consult RL with stakeholders, & reach program or national agreement.

4 Brazil s Amazon Fund: Historic Reference Scenario Using Annual + Default Data (top down) Carbon density data limited, so use conservative 100tC/ha as default.

5 Example: Simple Stratification + Downscale Modeling Central African Republic Proposes to Divide Country into 4 zones for Sub-national RL --> National RL, & to Use Regional Modeling 4 Biome Zones: (i)southwestern forest (ii)bangassou Forest or southeastern range (iii) pseudo steppe with acacias and grassland savannas (iv) transition between the humid forest and the Sahelian zone RL Approach: 1. Stratify and Model a simple scenario based on a few input data for each zone. 2. Verify it with national map of the probabilities of deforestation produced by GEOMOD (geospatial) 3. Develop national reference level using global economic model downscaled into CongoBIOM sub-regional model. 4. Compare bottom-up national reference level to a top-down national reference level. (i) (iv) (iii) (ii) Source: CAR R-PP available at 5

6 Example: Lao PDR s National REL Draft Uses Historical Rates of Change and Inventory Data ( ), Factoring in National Development Objectives Projected to 2020 Data: land cover assessments & NFI Average deforestation rate computed 0.8%/yr, & degradation 1.12%/yr Forest Inventory & Other Data: 1982 to 2002 Projection Results: annual emissions 95.3 m tco 2 e ( in 1982), 60.6 million tco 2 e (by 2010), and 51.1 million tco 2 e (by 2020) Combining it with development objectives, estimated annual emission for the period is 65 m tco 2 e Q: National development objectives: Is this national circumstances? Or: Is this BAU? Source: LAO PDR R-PP available at 6

7 Example of Geospatial + Modeling Approach: Amazonia High-Capacity Complex 60 W SimAmazonia Model Results: Opportunity 5 N 5 N Costs of Land for Soy, Logging, Cattle (Soares-Filho et al. 2006) 70 W 65 W 0 Boa Vista R 55 W RR Santarém Manaus R R AP Macapá R 50 W 0 Belém R 45 W São Luís R 5 S AM PA MA 5 S 10 S AC Rio Branco R 70 W Porto Velho 45 W R Palmas TO R RO 10 S 65 W > US$ 13 per ton MT 50 W US$ 8-13 per ton 15 S Cuiabá R 15 S US$ 3-8 per ton 60 W US$ 3-0 per ton US$ 0 per ton deforested Cerrado biome 55 W Paved road Unpaved road Opportunity Custo de oportunidade costs

8 Indonesia: Top-Down RL with Regional Consultation Target: ton CO2 e NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR REDD+ Agreed REL/RL Source: Stranas (Bappenas, 2010) ton CO2 e ton CO2 e ton CO2 e ton CO2 e ton CO2 e ton CO2 e REL is defined by National and clarified with local governments. ER will be designed based on Regional Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJM Daerah) and Province Spatial Plan (RTRW Provinsi) Sumber peta: Dirjen Planologi Kemenhut, 2009 Sumber data REL: Draft Stranas REDD Balitbang Kemenhut, 2010 Source: Slide from Rizaldi Boer, Indonesian analyst Area of emission sources Area of carbon sink

9 Many FCPF Countries Plan to Follow Rough Progression of Historic + Projections Activities: 1. Review & seek data needed (NFI, remote sensing) 2. Develop C density, deforestation, & forestation maps 3. Set scope of RL: Which regions, activities, gases 4. Rely on foreign experts to develop draft RL and MRV system then build in-country capacity. 5. Estimate historic emissions (land cover activity data X carbon density by forest stratum) 6. Set a crediting baseline below RL, reflecting domestic actions & international regime investments 7. Perform projection to inform national circumstances

10 Most FCPF Countries Plan Projections Projections being done for several reasons: Durban UNFCCC REDD RL text stresses historic approach But: 2/3 of FCPF countries plan projections. Explore modalities of setting RL, & defining national circumstances what are the arguments, and what difference could it make? Identify where to focus REDD programs & investments efficiently Help allocate national RL down to provinces... And manage it.

11 Stock de Carbono (Gg CO 2 ) Ongoing and planned activities under Costa Rica REDD + strategy (conceptual) (Costa Rica FONAFIFO slide, edited) Early Actions: Difficult to Seek Credit for: Proposed REDD Actions A to F: 900,000 Nuevas Actividades (31,000 Gg) REDD + 850, ,000 Acciones Tempranas Pre 2005 ( Gg) Acciones Tempranas Post 2005 (54000 Gg) Con PPSA 750,000 Mantenimiento Nivel PPSA (34,000 Gg) 700,000 Sin PPSA 650, Año Q1: What is BAU? Assume PES payments continue as BAU, or end? Q2: What if CR needs $500per year REDD $... & gets less $?

12 Summary of RL Trends from FCPF Some countries appear to be using national RL. Most countries plan to use some kind of nested approach, starting subnationally - - and eventually upscaling to national. 64% countries (16 out of 24) propose developing RL by analyzing historic trends, and projecting into the future somehow. Data & capacity for even simple historic approach is challenging for most countries! 12

13 Finale: Some Policy and Methods Issues & Questions 1. How can we reconcile subnational and national baselines set using different data, scales, and time periods? 2. What criteria should be used to determine what programs are in BAU? vs. new, creditable actions How to link RL to MRV system, nested at different scales, & account for leakage? 5. How to develop RL and MRV systems that handle all lands pertinent to a country s REDD+ Strategy? E.g., degraded lands, croplands being intensified, mining areas to be restored?

14 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Introductions of participants, and identification of priority challenges and needs Ken Andrasko World Bank, Carbon Finance Unit, and FCPF Facility Management Team at Building REDD+ Reference Levels a WWF-FCPF Technical Workshop January 28 th and January 29th, 2013 Washington,DC

15 Introductions Self-introductions of participants: 1 minute name, summary of experience, and duties re RLs REDD country attendees: Expectations for this workshop Start with REDD country attendees

16 Identification of priority challenges and needs. Some potential key questions to consider: 1. Relationship to UNFCCC: How should reference levels for the Carbon Fund (CF) or other initiatives relate to Reference Emission Levels/Reference Levels (REL/RLs) being created for the UNFCCC? 2. Performance and crediting: What should be the relationship between a country s emission reductions relative to the finance a country receives? Should the reference level incorporate a country s domestically supported emission reduction effort (i.e. crediting baseline)? How? 3. Additionality: How should additionality be addressed: via a conservative approach to the reference level? or should additionality tests be used? 4. Historical emissions: What reference period, reference region, and forest definition should be used to determine historical emissions? 5. Adjustments for national circumstances: How should national circumstances be reflected in the relationship between historical emissions and the reference level?

17 Key Questions 2 6. Transparency: What standard of transparency regarding data and methods should be required for the approval of a reference level? 7. Spatial resolution: Can a RL be based on quantity of emissions within a jurisdiction, or is it necessary to provide spatial resolution of where emissions occur? 8. Scope: Are separate reference levels necessary for different activities (e.g. deforestation, degradation, carbon stock enhancement ); or can these be integrated into a single reference level? 9. Updating: For how long should the reference level be valid? How updated? 10. Multiple scales: If a country s REDD+ system involves multiple scales (e.g. a nested system), should different approaches to reference levels and additionality be considered, or allowed, at different scales?

18 Procedures: Can We Agree on These? Short interventions: make the point, then stop. Parking Lot: we honor points by writing them in Parking Lot for later, if off-target now Respect other participants, ideas, and facilitators Commitment to the outcome Chatham House Rules: free expression of views inside room requires agreement on no attribution of comments to any individual outside of room Agenda: Quick review, and agreement