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 7 2013, Tokyo

Organized by REDD+ Safeguard Research Project Consortium

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

Part 1: IGES research on existing REDD+ project designs

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

http://redd-database.iges.or.jp/redd/

Editors: Henry Scheyvens and Miho Sagara

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

forests

RMF

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

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

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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.

• 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

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

action research

• 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

1. IGES action research on engaging local communities in forest biomass assessment and monitoring

2. Process of engaging with and building capacity of communities

IGES trains local

facilitation teams

Facilitation teams train community-based 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

3. Measurement and mapping results – examples (1)

CCA Project sites

Forest type Estimation from community measurements

Estimates from professional surveys

Mondulkiri Province, Cambodia

Deciduous forest

75.5 ±19.6 (SD) tC/ha (rectangular plots) 72.2 ±23 (SD) tC/ha (circular plot s)

73.8±8.6 (SE) tC/ha (Vathana, 2010)

Yogyakarta and Central Java Provinces, Indonesia

Home gardens

34.2±20.6 (SD) tC/ha

35.3±21.2(SD) tC/ha– Lampung Province (Roshetko et al. 2002)

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)

Community roles: • Setting up

sample plots • Tagging trees • Identifying

species • Measuring dbh • Estimating

height • Filling in field

sheets

4. Measurement and mapping results – examples (2)

Preliminary land cover map, Gnait clan forest

• 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

5. Measurement and mapping results – examples (3)

Sampling grid for map accuracy assessment, Awane clan forest

Agreed land use plan, Urinite clan forest

Sketch map of current land use drawn by community

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

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

Thank you For more information: Henry Scheyvens Natural Resources and Ecosystems Area Institute for Global Environmental Strategies scheyvens@iges.or.jp