Overview of REDD+ and NAMAs: Relationship and issues for consideration. John Costenbader

Transcription

1 Overview of REDD+ and NAMAs: Relationship and issues for consideration John Costenbader

2 Presentation Overview 2 1. Brief background a. Conceptual developments b. State of implementation 2. Harmonization scenarios 3. Country Examples Kenya Indonesia Chile 4. Conclusions

3 1. Brief background

4 1a. Conceptual developments 4 Promising beginnings REDD+ & NAMAs arose under Bali Action Plan (2007) Both expand mitigation options for developing countries, with optional support from developed countries Country-determined & voluntary; neither legally-binding on implementer albeit separate initiatives: Still under development in separate tracks of UNFCCC negotiations Distinct rules, methodologies, finance sources & modalities Separate communities of experts, vocabularies

5 1a. Conceptual developments 5 REDD+ Countries generally further in developing framework for REDD+ than NAMAs Three-phased approach, a more donor-structured process: Readiness; Policies & Measures; Full Implementation 2013 COP-19 Warsaw Framework decisions on: Finance; National Forest Monitoring Systems; Institutions; MRV; Reference Levels; Safeguards Warsaw COP agreed all REDD+ MRV actions should be consistent with MRV guidance for NAMAs

6 1a. Conceptual developments 6 NAMAs Much of NAMA negotiation at abstract level given broad variety of NAMA options (national or individual; unilateral, supported, or credited) 3 pillars of NAMAs: contribute to mitigation, in context of sustainable development, MRV-able NAMAs developed via bottom-up, learning by doing process NAMAs seem to be developing into country-driven approach that can complement more donor-driven REDD+ Most recent work around development of NAMA Registry to match developing country projects with developed country support

7 1a. Conceptual developments Design Elements Scale Scope Reference Levels/Basel ines MRV Safeguards NAMAs Anything from a project to subnational to national sectoral or full country. Any activity from any mitigation sector (project, program, policy or even an emissions reduction target) Unilateral/Supported: Indirectly referenced via information in BURs (in assessing actions) Credited: Ambitious RLs (credit Baselines/ threshold cap) Unilateral: Domestic MRV Supported: Domestic MRV and International ICA verification None yet GCF may parallel REDD+ safeguards REDD+ National-level accounting and crediting with subnational level processes allowed in interim Five REDD+ activities from forest sector accepted (projects, programs or policies) in line with 3 Phases approach National RLs required (subnational in interim). Methodologies subject to independent review and verification. Full national MRV: Remote sensing & ground measurements Transparent & consistent w/ RL. Reported through BUR. LULUCF expert technical analysis. Cancun Safeguards Periodic reporting on implementation 7

8 1a. Conceptual developments Finance NAMAs REDD+ 8 Multilateral NAMA Registry FCPF, UN-REDD, FIP Green Climate Fund (GCF) Green Climate Fund (GCF) Bilateral UK-Germany NAMA Facility Norway, UK, US, et al donors Private Sector Possible under individual NAMAs Voluntary carbon markets Voluntary sustainability initiatives Foreign Direct Investment International Carbon Markets Possible under individual NAMAs Possible where attribution Voluntary sustainability initiatives Markets likely needed to bridge finance gap; will require private sector caps Domestic Finance Unilateral NAMAs possible Underway

9 1b. State of implementation: REDD REDD+ projects in 52 countries in CIFOR REDD+ and Forest Carbon Project Database Source:

10 1b. State of implementation: NAMAs NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database Overwhelming majority still in concept phase Source:

11 1b. State of implementation: NAMAs NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database Overwhelming majority still in concept phase Source:

12 1b. State of implementation: NAMAs NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database Overwhelming majority still in concept phase Source:

13 2. National scenarios

14 2. National scenarios: No Integrated REDD+ NAMA NAMAs possible across entire landuse sector Separate NAMAs for those within & outside scope of REDD+ REDD+ NAMA capitalizes on both REDD+ and NAMA finance Bound to requirements and boundaries of REDD+ (scope, safeguards etc.) Non-forest activities (e.g., agriculture) covered under separate NAMA(s) Potentially diversifies funding sources

15 2. National scenarios: No REDD+ supplemented by Forest et al. NAMA(s) NAMAs & REDD+ developed in parallel Forest NAMA(s) covers activities not covered by REDD+ Forest NAMA follows REDD+ rules, coordinated by REDD+ agencies, but not restricted to country s REDD+ Phase (+) NAMA supplements REDD+ finance to fill gaps not met (-) Forest NAMA finance must meet stricter REDD+ rules; cannot mingle with other funds not bound by REDD+ rules

16 2. National scenarios: No Integrated AFOLU-NAMA with REDD+ as Sub-Sector One single NAMA across entire land-use sector integrates mitigation activities from agriculture, forest & other land use (AFOLU) sectors REDD+ a sub-sector within land-based NAMA structure Consistent carbon accounting and methodologies across AFOLU sector deduct REDD+ funded activities from landscape account (+) Holistic landscape approach can completely address drivers (-) High capacity & coordination needed across agencies

17 2. National scenarios: No Non-Integrated Options Countries may pursue exclusively REDD+ or NAMA financing for forest sector policies and measures (+) Most suitable for countries with agency coordination difficulties (-) Limited financial flexibility; limited landscape approach

18 3. Country examples

19 3. Country examples: Kenya 19 Simultaneous REDD+ & Forestry NAMA; ambitious, but unclear links National Climate Change Action Plan focuses on mitigation in forests: 90% of offset potential from forest sector, including 5 priority activities: agroforestry, forest restoration, reforestation, clean cookstoves & development of REDD+ MRV framework NCCAP lists activities to be funded under REDD+ or supported NAMA: Unclear rationale for NAMAs / REDD+ so far Risks from double counting (e.g., clean cookstoves) Potential double-funding same activity (REDD+ MRV system)

20 3. Country examples: Indonesia 20 Integrated AFOLU NAMA (Scenario #3) NAMA Framework builds on the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2007) Explicitly places REDD+ as a subsector within land-based NAMA: REDD+ funds target forest areas; NAMA finance targets non-redd+ activities National reporting (BAUs/RLs, MRV) aligns land-use NAMA w/ REDD+

21 3. Country examples: Chile 21 Complimentary Forestry and REDD+ NAMA (Scenario #2) Secured both REDD+ and NAMA finance for forest sector: separate initiatives but linked under Forest & Climate Change Strategy Supported Forest sector NAMA: NAMA funds to finance activities not funded under REDD+ readiness: Carbon trading platform; pilot reforestation and carbon stock enhancement activities Donors require clarity on coordination & harmonization between funding streams: FCPF required Chile to clarify NAMA/REDD+ links in its R-PP

22 4. Conclusions

23 4. Conclusions 23 Forest & land use NAMAs can provide important complement to REDD+ NAMAs provide country-driven, quick-start finance for any scope or scale activity types regardless of REDD+ phase Address wider scale of emissions across entire landscape Can supplement finance from REDD+ alone But potential to complicate and confuse both donors & implementers Donors unlikely to support approach in which funds sought from both sources for same activities or where boundaries unclear Implementing country needs to establish clear framework in order to administer

24 4. Conclusions 24 Clear delineation & connections between NAMA / REDD+ activities essential Need to define boundaries of forest NAMA vs. REDD+ funded approaches Clarify which rules, methodologies, safeguards applied where Integrated NAMA-REDD+ scenarios best for high capacity countries Institutional and administrative coordination capacity Technical capacity (RLs, MRV, NFMS, etc.) Financial management capacity Un-integrated initiatives best if less capacity May be good to focus on one approach initially, can add other later

25 Thank you 25 Download full report at: Asia John Costenbader Sr. Consultant, Carbon Markets & Forestry Office: +1 (202) Mobile: +1 (202) Fax: +1 (202) Skype: j.costenbader 1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 601 Washington, DC