Biomass Maps in the World Bank s Land Use Climate Result-based Finance

Transcription

1 Biomass Maps in the World Bank s Land Use Climate Result-based Finance Andres Espejo aespejo@worldbank.org Forest Carbon Partnership Facility BioCarbon Fund September 25, 2018 CCI Biomass 1 st User Workshop

2 OUR OBJECTIVES Promote and reward reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased sequestration through better land management, climatesmart agriculture, and smarter land use planning and policies. Integrate sub-national development agenda with low-carbon pathways. Support forest countries to maintain and improve livelihoods, conserve biodiversity and leverage significant private and public sector finance to achieve transformational change. Demonstrate approaches that can be applied nationally i.e., national low-carbon strategies and global mechanisms of support such as REDD+.

3 WORLD BANK FOREST CLIMATE FUNDS ($2.3 BILLION) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2008) $1.1B Readiness $365M Carbon Fund $692M Forest Investment Program (FIP) (2009) MDBs $787M World Bank $399M Investments (grants, co-financing), Preparation Grants, Dedicated Grant Mechanism Investments inside and outside forests; institutional capacity, forest governance, and information Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL)(2013) Technical Assistance $98M Result-based payments $244M $340M (ISFL) $90M (Classic) BioCF Tranche 1 & 2 (CDM and voluntary markets) (2004) Result-based payments $83.3M ** For all MDB s Technical Assistance $6.3M

4 BUSINESS MODEL We provide: Enabling Environment Policy and strategy Capacity building Social inclusion Consultation Development Action Investments in low carbon development Sustainable management of forests Climate-smart ag Low-Carbon Development Benefits Poverty alleviation Shared prosperity Climate change mitigation and adaptation Grant Funding; Technical Assistance Results-Based Finance for Emission Reductions We crowd-in : Private and Public Finance, including IDA, IBRD,GEF financing

5 WORLD BANK FOREST CLIMATE FUNDS ($2.3 BILLION) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2008) $1.1B Readiness $365M Carbon Fund $692M Forest Investment Program (FIP) (2009) MDBs $787M World Bank $399M Investments (grants, co-financing), Preparation Grants, Dedicated Grant Mechanism Investments inside and outside forests; institutional capacity, forest governance, and information Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL)(2013) Technical Assistance $98M Result-based payments $244M $340M (ISFL) $90M (Classic) BioCF Tranche 1 & 2 (CDM and voluntary markets) (2004) Result-based payments $83.3M ** For all MDB s Technical Assistance $6.3M

6 WORLD BANK FOREST CLIMATE FUNDS ($2.3 BILLION) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (2008) $1.1B Readiness $365M Carbon Fund $692M Result based finance Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL)(2013) Technical Assistance $98M Result-based payments $244M $340M (ISFL) $90M (Classic) BioCF Tranche 1 & 2 (CDM and voluntary markets) (2004) Result-based payments $83.3M ** For all MDB s Technical Assistance $6.3M

7 WHERE WE WORK 22 countries with large scale climate-smart land-use programs 54 countries with REDD+ readiness support or projects Mexico Dominican Republic Nepal Lao PDR Vietnam Ethiopia Guatemala Nicaragua Cote d Ivoire Indonesia Costa Rica Colombia Ghana Cameroon Mozambique Madagascar Fiji Peru Chile Republic of Congo DRC Zambia

8 WHERE WE WORK LAND USE PROGRAMS 19 ER programs under FCFP Carbon Fund 3 ER programs under Carbon Fund - ISFL Mexico Dominican Republic Nepal Lao PDR Vietnam Ethiopia Guatemala Nicaragua Cote d Ivoire Indonesia Costa Rica Colombia Ghana Cameroon Mozambique Madagascar Fiji Peru Chile Republic of Congo DRC Zambia Carbon Fund

9 WHERE WE WORK LAND USE PROGRAMS ER Programs à Large scale programs Currently under Carbon Fund. 9

10 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FCPF CF AND ISFL Carbon Fund REDD+ Forestry sector Landscape AFOLU sector 10

11 GHG ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS ü Deforestation has to be accounted for. ü Forest degradation has to be accounted for if significant (>10% of total forest emissions) ü At least biennial monitoring of forest cover change ü Some countries are going for annual monitoring (not a requirement) ü Emission Factors may be fixed during the 5 year accounting period ü Uncertainties of ERs reported as relative margin of error at 90% confidence level ü Financial incentives to reduce uncertainties ü (*To come: countries allowed to make technical corrections to their Reference Levels, including Emission Factors) 11

12 EXPERIENCES IN BIOMASS ESTIMATION Four countries using remote sensing based products to derive the emission factors of their reference levels Only one country is proposing to update regularly EFs, yet * Country Deforestation Forest Degradation Enhancement of carbon stocks (AR) DRC Biomass map + Pseudo Biomass map + Pseudo Biomass map + Pseudo Costa Rica Secondary sources Secondary sources Secondary sources Enhancement of carbon stocks (FF) Biomass map + Pseudo Chile Mexico Vietnam Congo Biomass map + Pseudo Ghana Biomass map Secondary sources Mozambique Terrestrial inventory Model based inference Biomass map + Pseudo Proxy Biomass map Secondary sources Model based inference Madagascar Terrestrial inventory Terrestrial inventory Terrestrial inventory Nepal LiDAR block + pseudo LiDAR block + pseudo LiDAR block + pseudo LiDAR block + pseudo 12

13 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND EMERGING NEEDS Update of EFs Countries might be interested in improving the uncertainty of their emission and removal factors ISFL new user requirements Currently developing landscape programs which include nonforest IPCC categories à Need efficient ways to estimate carbon densities across IPCC categories/sub-categories Forest degradation In certain countries, difficulties to estimate carbon densities for degraded forest à Biomass maps could be a solution Fully integrated methods Currently exploring fully integrated methods that could provide GHG emissions and removals predictions at pixel level à Biomass maps could help 13

14 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND EMERGING NEEDS Identifying opportunities for restoration ( Natural Carbon Storage ) There is an easy need to identify opportunities for restoration interventions à increasingly an important issue! (Bonn challenge, NY declaration, ) MRV version 3.0 Direct estimation of carbon stock changes would reduce the length of MRV cycle and reduce transaction costs The WB through the FCPF is planning to launch beginning of 2019, a R&D pilot to test the direct estimation of carbon stock changes The findings of this pilot will serve to prepare a business case for an MRV system version

15 NEEDS ü Product: Aboveground biomass maps (minimum) and map of change (desired) ü Spatial coverage: National or sub-national ü Spatial resolution: At least 1 ha (minimum, desired), to test larger resolutions ü Temporal extent: Current (minimum); ca now (desired) ü Temporal resolution: Biennially (minimum); annually (desired) ü Accuracy: Enable the estimation of uncertainties of carbon densities (minimum) or of carbon stock change (in the case of desired product) ü Delivery mode: FTP or WMTS including metadata and user manual (minimum); tools enabling local calibration or validation/adjustment (desired) ü Other requirements: High sensitivity (e.g. permanent woody crops); Consistent estimates across estimation and reference periods; free and open access; transparent reporting; local ownership 15

16 THANK YOU