Rodel D. Lasco (ICRAF). Lessons learned from RUPES: The Carbon Market for A/R Projects. Presented at CCAFS Science Meeting, 1-2 December 2010

1. Lessons
learned
from
RUPES:
The
Carbon
Market
for
A/R
Projects
Rodel
D.
Lasco
World
Agroforestry
Centre
(ICRAF)
1
1

2. What
is
PES?
1. a
voluntary
transacDon
in
which
2. a
well-­‐defined
environmental
service
(or
a
land
use
likely
to
secure
that
service)
3. is
“bought”
by
a
(minimum
of
one)
buyer
4. from
a
(minimum
of
one)
provider
5. if
and
only
if
the
provider
conDnuously
secures
the
provision
of
the
service
(condiDonality).
Wunder 2005
RD
Lasco
2

3. Watershed
Protection
Biodiversity
Protection
Carbon
Sequestration
Landscape Beauty
RD
Lasco
Source: Francisco, 2005 3

4. • four
main
types
of
environmental
services:
– carbon
sequestraDon
and
storage
– biodiversity
protecDon
– watershed
protecDon
– protecDon
of
landscape
beauty
4

5. Tropical
Forests
and
the
Carbon
Cycle
IPCC, 2007
5

6. Global
emissions
(1850-­‐2000)
6
6
Murdiyarso et al., 2009

7. CDM
vs
REDD
A/R CDM
(sequestration)
REDD (emission
reduction)
RD Lasco 7
7
Van Noordwijk, 2007

8. Scope
of
REDD
RED CDM
REDD
REDD+
REDD++/REALU/AFOLU including all land uses
(eg agriculture)
8

9. (Painful)
LESSONS
FROM
CDM
(AND
REDD)
9
9

10. 1.
It
takes
Dme!
REDD
Kyoto
Marrakesh
(A/R)
COP
15
Mexico
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1990
97
2002
2007
08
09
2012
Post
2012
Kyoto
Base
year
1st
Commitment
Period
Under
Kyoto
Protocol
10

11. CDM
Projects
by
scope
as
of
22
Nov
2010
0.56% from A/R
(17 projects)
11

12. 2.
High
transacDon
costs
• Base
financing
for
tree
planDng
lacking
• TransacDon
cost
significant
(>
US$
200,000)
• Carbon
credits
not
sufficient
to
cover
total
cost
of
project
• No
CDM
project
has
been
approved
in
the
Philippines
12

13. Example:
5,000
ha
in
the
Philippines
13

14. Cost
Can be made profitable by
Including harvest from
products like wood and fruits!
14

15. 3.
Measuring
and
monitoring
of
carbon
benefits
(MRV)
• Pose
huge
challenges
especially
for
forest
degradaDon.
• difficult
to
monitor
because
available
data
are
limited,
highly
uncertain,
and
not
readily
detectable
from
exisDng
satellites
• The
IPCC
approach
can
be
used
• In
CDM,
approval
of
methods
cost
money
15

16. Gain-loss
Stock-difference approach
approach
16

17. 4.
Equitable
sharing
of
benefits
• Carbon
payment
must
be
shared
fairly
especially
to
local
farmers
and
land
mangers
• With
lijle
experience
in
handling
carbon
payments,
there
are
few
models
to
learn
from
• Small
farmers
could
be
eased
out
17

18. How
a
REDD
mechanism
may
look
like….
18
Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikof, 2008

19. 4.
ProtecDng
small
farmers
and
indigenous
peoples
rights
• The
rights
of
local
and
indigenous
peoples
may
be
threatened
under
REDD.
• The
rights
of
Indigenous
Peoples
necessary
for
success
of
REDD
• Some
contend
that
lijle
was
being
done
to
enable
the
parDcipaDon
of
indigenous
communiDes
• or
to
protect
the
right
to
free,
prior
and
informed
consent
(FPIC),
as
provided
in
the
UN
DeclaraDon
on
the
Rights
of
Indigenous
Peoples
19

20. 6.
Governance
• The
ability
of
naDonal
and
local
insDtuDons
to
manage
the
REDD
process
needs
to
be
addressed
through
a
capacity
building
program.
20

21. UNFCCC, 2009
21

22. 7.
PromoDng
co-­‐benefits
• Forests
produce
many
other
goods
and
services
other
than
carbon
which
must
also
be
protected.
• OpportuniDes
of
poor
country
parDcipaDon
• Link
with
other
internaDonal
convenDons
(CBD,
Ramsar)
• Local
co-­‐benefits
eg
watershed
protecDon
22

23. 8.
MulDple
stakeholders
• As
a
result
of
the
preceding,
there
are
many
stakeholders
concerned
with
how
forests
are
managed.
• Eg
small/large
farmers,
hydro-­‐power,
irrigaDon,
wood
industry,
(eco-­‐)tourism
• Their
interests
will
have
to
be
considered
in
any
C
project.
23

24. The
Philippines
and
REDD
24
24

25. The
vanishing
Philippine
forests…
Extent of Forest Cover Loss for the last 100 years
70 % 60 % 40 %
34 % 23.7 % 18.3 %
Source: Dolom, 2006; Adapted from Environmental Science for Social Change, 1999
25

26. 26

27. No
deforestaDon?
27
27

28. Most
likely
the
2nd
D…
18,000
Acosta, 2009
16,000
14,000
12,000
Closed
canopy
10,000
Open
canopy
Mangrove,
Natural
8,000
PlantaDon
6,000
Total
forest
Other
wooded
land
4,000
2,000
-­‐
1969
1988
2003
28

29. degradation
29

30. REDD
Assessment
Framework
REDD
Types
of
Land
Policies
and
OpOon
AcOviOes
included
Role
of
and
InsOtuOons
Included
benefits
to
smallholders
RED
REDD
REDD+
REDD++/
REALU
30
30

31. REDD
Types
of
Land
Role
and
OpOon
AcOviOes
included
benefits
of
Policies
and
InsOtuOons
Included
CBFM
smallholders
RED
NONE-­‐
Possibly
None
since
no
DENR
will
be
the
lead
unit
forest
area
none
land
will
involved
increasing
qualify.
Logging
banned
in
all
recently
so
primary
forests
(1
M
ha)
credit
for
Logging
allowed
in
second-­‐
RED
unlikely.
growth
forests
Protected
areas
law
(NIPAS)
Law
for
indigenous
peoples
lands
(IPRA)
31
31

32. REDD
Types
of
Land
Policies
and
OpOon
AcOviOes
included
InsOtuOons
Role
and
benefits
of
CBFM
Included
smallholders
REDD
There
is
7
million
CBFM
smallholders
DENR
will
be
the
lead
anecdotal
has
potenDal
beneficiaries
as
unit
involved
evidence
that
“guardians”
of
the
forest.
Policies
same
as
above
forest
They
can
help
protect
degradaDon
is
forests
from
loss
of
going
on
(eg
biomass
through
logging
illegal
cumng)
.
and
fuelwood
gathering.
They
can
also
assist
local
authoriDes
in
prevenDng
encroachment
of
migrants
in
natural
forests.
In
this
role,
smallholders
could
have
a
share
of
carbon
payments.
32
32

33. REDD
Types
of
Land
Policies
and
OpOon
AcOviOes
included
InsOtuOons
Role
and
benefits
of
Included
CBFM
smallholders
REDD+
Reducing
the
7
million
Same
as
above.
DENR
will
be
the
lead
rate
of
biomass
has
of
unit
involved
In
addiDon,
CBFM
degradaDon
in
forests
smallholders
can
DA
could
also
be
forests
9
million
implement
projects
that
involved
Enrichment
has
of
enhance
carbon
Policies
same
as
planDng
open
sequestraDon
such
as
above
lands
in
agroforestry,
ANR
“forest”
reforestaDon,
and
ANR
in
ReforestaDon/
lands
open
lands
under
their
agroforestry
management.
These
will
increase
carbon
payments
for
smallholders.
33
33

34. Gaps
and
Research
Needs
• With
exisDng
data,
it
is
relaDvely
easier
to
esDmate
the
potenDal
carbon
credits
from
loss
of
forests
or
deforestaDon.
• However,
the
Philippines
does
not
stand
to
gain
credit
from
reducing
deforestaDon
• There
is
hardly
any
informaDon
on
biomass
degradaDon
rates
in
Philippine
forests.
34
34

35. • Another
possible
indicator
is
fuelwood
gathering.
• major
need
is
to
study
the
rate
of
biomass
degradaDon
in
various
types
and
geographic
locaDons.
• One
way
to
do
this
is
to
check
forest
inventory
records
• Remote
sensing
techniques
coupled
with
GIS
should
be
explored.
35
35

36. • A
second
informaDon
gap
relates
to
drivers
of
biomass
degradaDon
in
Philippine
forests.
• These
are
crucial
in
craning
policies
and
measures
to
reduce
degradaDon.
• The
usual
culprits
are
well
known—illegal
cumng,
Dmber
poaching,
fuelwood
gathering.
• However,
empirical
data
are
wanDng.
36
36

37. • Should
carbon
payments
flow
to
the
country,
how
this
will
be
shared
to
local
communiDes
including
indigenous
people
has
not
yet
been
invesDgated.
•
The
capacity
of
the
DENR
as
well
as
other
local
government
units
to
implement
and
monitor
REDD
at
the
naDonal
and
local
level
is
sDll
weak.
37
37

38. PotenDal
implicaDons
to
Agriculture
Carbon
Projects
• Carbon
credits
from
land
use
changes
can
take
Dme
to
develop
• Technical,
social,
economic
and
governance
concerns
must
be
addressed
• Relying
on
carbon
benefits
alone
not
profitable
38

39. Thank
you!
39
39