Approach to safeguards in REDD+ project designs

Transcription

1 Approach to safeguards in REDD+ project designs Henry Scheyvens, Area Leader, Natural Resources and Ecosystems Services Presented at International workshop of REDD+ social/environmental safeguards, October , Tokyo Organized by REDD+ Safeguard Research Project Consortium

2 Outline Part 1: IGES research on existing REDD+ project designs 1. Overview 2. Project designs reviewed 3. Elements common to REDD+ projects 4. Overall findings Part 2: Reflection on the UNFCCC safeguards for indigenous people and local communities: Drawing on IGES action research 1. IGES action research on engaging local communities in forest biomass assessment and monitoring 2. Process of engaging with and building capacity of communities 3. Measurement and mapping results examples (1) 4. Measurement and mapping results examples (2) 5. Measurement and mapping results examples (3) 6. Rationale for community involvement in biomass assessment and monitoring 7. Reflection on the UNFCCC participation safeguards

3 Part 1: IGES research on existing REDD+ project designs

4 1. Overview of the research Aims to present a succinct overview of REDD+ projects to provide an understanding of their designs and to enable comparison between them Covers 27 projects using a template that includes common issues for all REDD+ projects aiming to generate carbon credits Mostly uses material from PDDs and other project documents compiled as project profiles on IGES REDD+ database; some interviews with project developers conducted Editors: Henry Scheyvens and Miho Sagara

5 2. Project designs reviewed Project name Acronym used in the review 1 Boden Creek Ecological Preserve BCEP 2 Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project NKMCAP 3 Oddar Meanchey Community Forestry REDD Project OMCFRP 4 Sofala Community Carbon Project SCCP 5 Reducing carbon emissions from deforestation in the Ulu Masen Ecosystem, Aceh, Indonesia UME 6 REDD+ project to reduce emissions from deforestation and increase sequestration through reforestation in mangrove RMF forests 7 Isangi Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation Project IREDDP 8 Umiam Sub-watershed REDD+ Project, East Khasi Hills District Meghalaya, India URP 9 Berau Forest Carbon Program BFCP 10 Halitina RED Project HRP 11 Juma Sustainable Development Reserve Project JSDRP 12 Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve REDD Project RRBP 13 Purus Project PP 14 Suruí Forest Carbon Project SFCP 15 Leuser Ecosystem REDD Project LERP 16 Forest Land Use and Climate Change in North Sulawesi in the Poigar Forest FLUCC 17 Budongo-Bugoma Landscape REDD+ Project BBLP 18 Merang REDD Pilot Project MRPP 19 April Salumei REDD Project ASRP 20 Kamula Doso Improved Forest Management Carbon Project KDIFMP 21 Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership KFCP 22 Mawas Peatlands Conservation Project MPCP 23 Biocorridor Martin Sagrado REDD+ Project BMSRP 24 The Kasigau Corridor REDD Project Phase Ⅰ- Rukinga Sanctuary KCRP 25 Madre de Dios Amazon REDD Project MAP 26 Pax Natura REDD Project PNP 27 Paraguay Forest Conservation Project, San Rafael PFCP

6 3. Elements common to REDD+ projects An organisation or a group of organisations that can provide the necessary inputs to design and implement the project Project approval A source of financing to design, prepare and begin implementing the project Ownership of carbon rights A strategy to combat the drivers of deforestation A credible reference emissions level A credible projection of likely emissions if the project was implemented An independent expert review process to validate the estimation of climate benefits Implementation and monitoring of the project A verification process to issue carbon credits An arrangement to market and retire the credits

7 4. Overall findings 4.1 Size REDD+ projects come in all sizes: Project designs that look most likely of actual implementation have an average area of 168,218 ha, with a coefficient of variation of 134%, indicating a large range in project sizes. The largest project covers 750,000 ha (UME), and the smallest just over 1,000 ha (PFCP). Larger projects tend to be for areas that are under the management of state authorities and may include multiple forms of tenure. Mid-size projects include timber concessions, and private conservation and indigenous reserves. The projects less than 10,000 ha are projects where individual households or communities have tenure for small areas of land that contain forest patches or woodlots

8 4.2 Tenure REDD+ projects are being designed for a variety of tenure arrangements, and that no one type dominates Roughly one third of the projects are for land managed by state agencies and one third for land that individual households or communities manage according to informal customary tenure arrangements or formal arrangements.

9 4.3 Project proponents and others involved in project development The initiative for many of the projects is coming from outside the host countries. The lead is typically from international NGOs, carbon project developers, donors, or corporations. Nevertheless, local and national governments do have key roles in many of the projects International NGOs REDD+ financing as a way to achieve their biodiversity or other objectives. The number of projects initiated by corporations interested in offsetting is small. In a few cases, indigenous people s organisations are among the project initiators.

10 4.4 Drivers of DD Most of the 27 project designs are dealing with multiple DD drivers and thus set out multiple REDD+ strategies. ~75% of the projects are located in areas where local people, not companies or other outside investors, are seen as the main deforestation agents

11 4.5 Proposed countermeasures In many projects, countermeasures focus on engaging local communities and address lack of household capacity and lack of economic choices for communities as underlying drivers of deforestation Some strategies aim to provide roles to communities in protecting and enhancing forest carbon stocks Other strategies aim control use of forests and forest land by local people, and offer alternatives, such as PES, alternative livelihoods, increasing agricultural productivity, reducing the need for fuel wood or planting trees to provide a new fuel wood source. But feasibility analysis often lacking

12 4.6 Validation, verification, registration, issuance of credits CCBA and VCS are the two most popular schemes, and dual validation using both schemes is popular Plan Vivo scheme is geared to maximise community involvement in design, implementation and monitoring, and to minimise costs in running the scheme. In terms of auditing, it appears less rigorous than the CCB Standards and the VCS

13 4.7 Biodiversity safeguards Little evidence that proposed REDD+ activities will harm biodiversity in project areas Project designs targeting CCB standards certification must evaluate and mitigate possible negative off-site project impacts CCB standards require commitment to establishing a monitoring plan to quantify and document the changes in biodiversity from project activities, including types of measurements, sampling method, and frequency of measurement Some REDD+ sites will be more advantageous for biodiversity protection. Within the project site, the legal status of the forest with respect to conservation and the existing biodiversity values, and within or near the project site, the presence of reserves / protected areas are important factors.

14 4.8 Community and indigenous people s rights and participation Levels of community participation partly reflect tenure arrangements. When forests are under community tenure, the communities will necessarily have significant roles in project implementation, though in several projects outside of community tenure proponents are making efforts to involve communities in decision-making processes

15 Part 2: Reflection on the UNFCCC safeguards for indigenous people and local communities: Drawing on IGES action research

16 1. IGES action research on engaging local communities in forest biomass assessment and monitoring Objectives To develop and test approaches to engage local communities in monitoring their forest carbon stocks To explore the feasibility of REDD+ and other forest management options for communities at the research sites

17 2. Process of engaging with and building capacity of communities IGES trains local facilitation teams Facilitation teams train communitybased forest monitoring teams Guided by facilitators, community teams participate in land cover and land use mapping and set up and establish sample plots Facilitators and IGES process the data and feedback the results to the communities With support from IGES and facilitators, communities take decision on next steps

18 3. Measurement and mapping results examples (1) CCA Project sites Mondulkir i Province, Cambodia Yogyakart a and Central Java Provinces, Indonesia Forest type Deciduous forest Home gardens Estimation from community measurements 75.5 ±19.6 (SD) tc/ha (rectangular plots) 72.2 ±23 (SD) tc/ha (circular plot s) 34.2±20.6 (SD) tc/ha Estimates from professional surveys 73.8±8.6 (SE) tc/ha (Vathana, 2010) 35.3±21.2(SD) tc/ha Lampung Province (Roshetko et al. 2002) Community roles: Setting up sample plots Tagging trees Identifying species Measuring dbh Estimating height Filling in field sheets Madang Province, PNG Lowland and montane primary moist tropical forest 127.7±40 (SD) tc/ha 106.3±22.7 (SD) tc/ha (Fox et al., 2010)

19 4. Measurement and mapping results examples (2) Community involvement in mapping Boundary surveys Interpretation of land features in satellite images Providing sketch maps to assist with land use mapping Participation in ground surveys to assess map accuracy Creation of maps with agreed land use zones Boundary survey, Gnait clan forest Preliminary land cover map, Gnait clan forest

20 5. Measurement and mapping results examples (3) Sampling grid for map accuracy assessment, Awane clan forest Sketch map of current land use drawn by community Agreed land use plan, Urinite clan forest

21 6. Rationale for community involvement in biomass assessment and monitoring (Community-based forest biomass monitoring) REDD+ and Climate mitigation Local knowledge contributes to mapping and measurement, and understanding of historical drivers of land use change Communities better understand how payments for REDD+ are calculated, and what must be done to maintain payments Sustainable development Local people take on important roles in forest management and are rewarded for these roles Community capacity and institutions built

22 7. Reflection on the UNFCCC participation safeguards In any REDD+ activity, various types of local participation may be possible and desirable. Participation should not just be a box on a check list for REDD+ safeguards that is ticked off Designers of REDD+ activities should always consider how local communities can be engaged meaningfully in decision-making processes to ensure their full understanding and support for the activity

23 Thank you For more information: Henry Scheyvens Natural Resources and Ecosystems Area Institute for Global Environmental Strategies