CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMCLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM (CDM ) PROSPECTS IN LAND USE, LAND USE CHANGE AND FORESTRY (LULUCF)

IN THE PHILIPPINES

Florencia B. Pulhin and Rodel D. LascoFlorencia B. Pulhin and Rodel D. LascoCollege of Forestry and Natural ResourcesCollege of Forestry and Natural Resources

University of the Philippines Los BañosUniversity of the Philippines Los Baños

CD4CDMCD4CDMClimate Change Information CenterClimate Change Information Center

Ateneo de Manila University Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, PhilippinesQuezon City, Philippines

04 November 200304 November 2003

Outline of Presentation

• Introduction • Potential Benefits of CDM• Candidate Forest Lands for CDM• Potential CDM Projects• Relevant Researches in the Philippines• Current Status and Examples of CDM

Projects Globally• Issues and Concerns• Recommendations

Philippine ForestsPhilippine Forests30 M ha total area – 15.8 M ha classified as

“forest lands”

• < 6 M ha covered with natural tropical forest vegetation

• the rest are in various stages of degradation and are primarily covered with grasses, bushes and agricultural crops

1990 national GHG inventory – forest lands are the largest contributor to GHG emissions among all sources in the Philippines

Vegetation 610Soils and detritus 15802190

Atmosphere750

61.9

60

1.6

0.5

Surface ocean 1020

Marine biota3

Fossil fuels and cement production

Intermediate and deep ocean

38,100

Surface sediment 150

90

92

5.5

4050 100

91.64

6

6

0.2

Dissolved organic carbon < 700

Changing land use

Global net primary production and respiration

The Global Carbon Cycle

PhotosynthesisBurning

CO2

Carbon pools in forest ecosystems

ABOVE-GROUND BIOMASS

UNDERSTOREY

NECROMASS

LITTER

ROOTS SOIL CARBON

TREES

LITTER

LITTER

Carbon pools in forest ecosystems

TOTAL CARBON =

ABOVE GROUND CARBON(TREE/UNDERSTOREY)

+

NECROMASS CARBON+

ROOT CARBON+

SOIL ORGANIC CARBON

Philippine Forests and Climate ChangePhilippine Forests and Climate Change

In terms of climate mitigation:In terms of climate mitigation:• Studies indicate that total C in the biomass of all

forest land use types is equal to 750 – 884 M tons

• Annual sequestration estimated at about 28.4 M tons C (excluding C contained in understorey vegetation, litter and soil which could comprise 25% of total aboveground biomass)

• Annual Philippine CO2 emissions is equivalent to 128.6 M tons

• Forest lands are able to sequester an equivalent of about 104 M tons to CO2 or 81% of total CO2 emitted by the whole country

Potential Benefits of CDMPotential Benefits of CDM

1.1. EcologicalEcological

• Deforestation and land degradation leading ecological problems in the Philippines

• 2-9 M ha. of degraded lands• > 100 years to reforest• Government with very limited resources• US $ 1 billion needed to reforest 2 M ha• CDM: source of new financing and technology for

forest development• CDM will advance sustainable development goals

Potential Benefits of CDMPotential Benefits of CDM

2.2. Promote long-term environmental Promote long-term environmental securitysecurity• Philippines as an archipelagic country very vulnerable to climate change

• Upland population among the more vulnerable sector

• By participating in CDM, country is acting on its interest

3.3. Link with biodiversity conservationLink with biodiversity conservation• Philippines one of the biological hotspots in the

world• CDM projects can help conserve biodiversity

Potential Areas for CDM1. Degraded land areas/grasslands: 3.5 M ha.

• Could easily meet requirements for additionality

2. Those that need to be permanently forested: 4.6 M ha.

• Critical watersheds• Forest reserves• IPAs sites

Example: Setting aside 100,000 ha. for CDM• Savings of US $ 62.5 M – equal to one year

of reforestation• Generate livelihood to upland communities

Potential CDM Projects1.1. Reforestation and tree plantationsReforestation and tree plantations

Could easily meet requirements for Could easily meet requirements for additionalityadditionality

2.2. Agroforestry and community forestryAgroforestry and community forestry Greatest socio-economic benefitsGreatest socio-economic benefits Risks may be greaterRisks may be greater

3.3. Dendrothermal power plantsDendrothermal power plants Less C released to the atmosphere by Less C released to the atmosphere by

substituting renewable biomass to fossil fuel substituting renewable biomass to fossil fuel

Relevant Researches in the Philippines

Carbon stocks assessment of various land uses Carbon stocks assessment of various land uses in the Philippinesin the Philippines

-1998 – used default values-1998 – used default values -1999 to present – generated local data using -1999 to present – generated local data using

plot and point- centered methodsplot and point- centered methods Impacts of land use change on carbon stocks Impacts of land use change on carbon stocks Improving GHG inventory in the LUCF sectorImproving GHG inventory in the LUCF sector Carbon stored in wood products Carbon stored in wood products

  

Forest Land Forest Land UseUse

Carbon content Carbon content of Biomass (%)of Biomass (%)

Total Above-Total Above-ground ground BiomassBiomass

(t/ha)(t/ha)

Rate of above-Rate of above-ground biomass ground biomass change (t/ha/yr)change (t/ha/yr)

Source of DataSource of Data

Protection forestProtection forest

Old-growth Old-growth

forestforest

Mossy forestMossy forest

PinePine

SubmarginalSubmarginal

44.7 (Visayas) 44.7 (Visayas) OGF 446 in OGF 446 in VisayasVisayas

Mossy forest 272 in Mossy forest 272 in LuzonLuzon

All others 50% of All others 50% of OGFOGF

2.1 in Visayas2.1 in Visayas Lasco Lasco et al et al., (1999)., (1999)

Lasco Lasco et alet al., (2000)., (2000)

Lasco Lasco et alet al., (2002)., (2002)

Second-growth Second-growth forest (SGF)forest (SGF)

43, 45 (Luzon)43, 45 (Luzon)

  

(Mean = 44)(Mean = 44)

279, 499 in Luzon279, 499 in Luzon

262 in Mindanao262 in Mindanao

  

(Mean =347) (Mean =347)

7.81 in Luzon7.81 in Luzon

5.2 in Mindanao5.2 in Mindanao

  

(Mean = 6.5)(Mean = 6.5)

Lasco Lasco et al.et al. (1999); (1999); Pulhin (2003)Pulhin (2003)

Kawahara Kawahara et alet al. . (1981)(1981)

BrushlandsBrushlands 45.3 for wood45.3 for wood

(Visayas) (Visayas)

65 in Visayas65 in Visayas 9.4 in Visayas9.4 in Visayas Lasco et al (1999)Lasco et al (1999)

GrasslandsGrasslands 44.5 (Visayas)44.5 (Visayas) 29 in Visayas29 in Visayas 0 (because regularly 0 (because regularly burned)burned)

Lasco Lasco et al.et al. (1999) (1999)

Carbon content, biomass density and biomass accumulation for LUCF in the Philippines (Lasco and Pulhin, 2000)

Forest Forest Land UseLand Use

Carbon content Carbon content of Biomass (%)of Biomass (%)

Total Above-ground Total Above-ground BiomassBiomass

(t/ha)(t/ha)

Rate of above-Rate of above-ground biomass ground biomass change (t/ha/yr)change (t/ha/yr)

Source of Source of DataData

Tree Tree plantationsplantations

45 (Luzon)45 (Luzon)

Visayas:Visayas:

39.2 for mahogany 39.2 for mahogany wood wood

43.3 for gmelina 43.3 for gmelina woodwood

45.0 for mangium 45.0 for mangium woodwood

(Mean = 43.1)(Mean = 43.1)

In Luzon:In Luzon:

S. .macrophyla: S. .macrophyla: 600600

P. malaanonan + A. Thurifera: P. malaanonan + A. Thurifera: 536536

P. malaanonan + D. grandiflorus: P. malaanonan + D. grandiflorus: 279279

A. auriculiformis:A. auriculiformis: 30 30

T. grandisT. grandis: 16: 16

G. arboreaG. arborea: 12: 12

P. kesiyaP. kesiya: 108: 108

P. kesiya + broadleaf sppP. kesiya + broadleaf spp.: 83.: 83

In Visayas:In Visayas:

Sweitenia.macrophylaSweitenia.macrophyla::

67, 1767, 17

G. arboreaG. arborea: 180, 70, 124: 180, 70, 124

A. mangiumA. mangium: 245, 57, 196: 245, 57, 196

A. auriculiformisA. auriculiformis: 64: 64

Acacia neriifoliaAcacia neriifolia: 87: 87

A. holosericeaA. holosericea: : 3434

A. crassicarpa: A. crassicarpa: 156156

A. aulacocarpa: A. aulacocarpa: 5656

In Luzon: In Luzon:

S. macrophylla: S. macrophylla: 7.57.5

P. malaanonanP. malaanonan + + A. A. thurifera: thurifera: 6.76.7

P. malaanonan + D. P. malaanonan + D. grandiflorus: grandiflorus: 3.53.5

A. auriculiformis: A. auriculiformis: 3.53.5

T. grandisT. grandis: 1.2: 1.2

G. arboreaG. arborea: 2.1: 2.1

P. kesiyaP. kesiya: 8.3: 8.3

P. kesiyaP. kesiya + broadleaf + broadleaf spp.: 6.4spp.: 6.4

In Visayas:In Visayas:

S. macrophyllaS. macrophylla: 8.4, 1.6: 8.4, 1.6

G. arboreaG. arborea: 18.8, 17.6, : 18.8, 17.6, 7.87.8

A. mangiumA. mangium: 41.6, 14.2, : 41.6, 14.2, 17.817.8

A. auriculiformis: A. auriculiformis: 15.915.9

Acacia neriifoliaAcacia neriifolia: 21.8 : 21.8

A. holosericea: A. holosericea: 8.68.6

A. crassicarpa: 39A. crassicarpa: 39

A. aulacocarpa: A. aulacocarpa: 14.114.1

Lasco Lasco et al.et al. (1999) Lasco (1999) Lasco et al et al. . (1998b)(1998b)

Kawahara Kawahara (1991)(1991)

Forest Forest Land UseLand Use

Carbon content of Carbon content of Biomass (%)Biomass (%)

Total Above-ground Total Above-ground BiomassBiomass

(t/ha)(t/ha)

Rate of above-ground Rate of above-ground biomass change biomass change

(t/ha/yr)(t/ha/yr)

Source of Source of DataData

Leucaena diversifolia: 0.66Leucaena diversifolia: 0.66

Casuarina cuminghiana: Casuarina cuminghiana: 33

C. equisitifolia: C. equisitifolia: 1616

Eucalyptus citrodora: Eucalyptus citrodora: 5252

E. cloeziana: 48E. cloeziana: 48

E. pellita:34E. pellita:34

E. tereticornis: 50E. tereticornis: 50

In MindanaoIn Mindanao

G. arboreaG. arborea:: 133 133

Paraserianthes falcataria: Paraserianthes falcataria: 82, 10882, 108 and 35and 35

S. macrophyllaS. macrophylla: 261: 261

(Mean =116)(Mean =116)

Leucaena diversifolia: 0.2Leucaena diversifolia: 0.2

Casuarina cuminghiana: 0.8Casuarina cuminghiana: 0.8

C. equisitifolia: C. equisitifolia: 3.93.9

Eucalyptus citrodora: Eucalyptus citrodora: 13.113.1

E. cloeziana: E. cloeziana: 12.112.1

E. pellita: E. pellita: 8.58.5

E. tereticornis: E. tereticornis: 12.512.5

In Mindanao: In Mindanao:

P. falcatariaP. falcataria: 6.0 and 9.8: 6.0 and 9.8

G. arboreaG. arborea: 10.8: 10.8

(Mean = 11.1)(Mean = 11.1)

AgroforestryAgroforestry 45 Gliricidia sepium45 Gliricidia sepium--based alley based alley cropping(Luzcropping(Luzon) on)

45 45 Gmelina arboreaGmelina arborea and cacao and cacao multistorey multistorey system system (Luzon)(Luzon)

Multistorey systemMultistorey system

(Luzon): 236(Luzon): 236

Alley cropping (Luzon): 68Alley cropping (Luzon): 68

Fallow system (Visayas): 32 Fallow system (Visayas): 32 (Mean = 112) (Mean = 112)

Improved fallow (Visayas): Improved fallow (Visayas): 6.06.0

Lasco Lasco et alet al. . (1998a,b)(1998a,b)

Kung’u (1993)Kung’u (1993)

Carbon stocks (MgC/ha) at various years after logging in SUDECOR, Mindanao

96.27

117.91

101.78

118.45

141.81

197.59

0

50

100

150

200

250

1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs ≥ 21 yrs 35 yrs

MgC

per

ha

Million tonsMillion tons COCO2 2 or or

COCO22

EquivalentEquivalent

1994 Inventory 1994 Inventory (Philippine (Philippine National National Communication, Communication, 1999)1999)

1997-1998 1997-1998 InventoryInventory

2001 2001 InventoryInventory

Pulhin Pulhin (2003)(2003)

Biomass Biomass growthgrowth

-111-111 -222-222 -218-218 --218218

HarvestsHarvests 4242 3131 3030 2929

Onsite and Onsite and off site off site burningburning

3636 2323 2929 2929

DecayDecay 3333 2323 2929 2929

Net Net AbsorptionAbsorption

<1 (0.126)<1 (0.126) -142-142 -127-127 -129-129

Table 17. Comparison of results of GHG inventories conducted in the Philippines

Current Status and Examples of CDM Projects Globally

Many organizations are interested in Many organizations are interested in financing forestry projects that sequester financing forestry projects that sequester carboncarbon

30-35 forestry projects existing with 30-35 forestry projects existing with commitment of US$ 350 M (IPCC, 2000)commitment of US$ 350 M (IPCC, 2000)

At least 19 countries (e.g. Malaysia, At least 19 countries (e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia, Costa Rica)Indonesia, Costa Rica)

Examples:

1. Scolel Te Pilot Project for Community Forestry and Carbon Sequestration, Chiapas, Mexico

• Objectives and Activities: Tropical forest and highland forest reforestation and community agroforestry on individual farmers’ small plots

• Land Area and Type: 2,000 ha within 13,200 ha (project size depends on funding received)

• Partners –various (credit unions, research institute, University of Edinburgh, International Automobile Federation, etc)

• Description of Activities: Consulted local village farmers re: candidate reforestation project, forest management, and agroforestry practices. The project designed a system of technical assistance to farmers by producing plans for each parcel, calculating carbon benefits, and developing a monitoring protocol. International Automobile Federation funded the first management plans. Project is designed to reduce degradation and conversion of remnant forest, and to enhance village land use sustainability and financial returns

• GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods: Cumulative net sequestration of 15,000-333,000 tC total over lifetime, using CO2 Fix model. Average carbon benefit is 26 tC/ha at 0.9 tC/ha/yr

• Projected Socioeconomic Benefits: Build local economy through sustainable agroforestry; improve welfare of women and villagers

• Projected Environmental Impacts: Conserve and increase forest biodiversity, reduce forest fragmentation and soil erosion, serve as buffer zone by slowing in-migration to the forest.

• Status of Project: 50 ha funded for initial implementation. Detailed studies at community and regional scale completed. Management, research, and financial institutions established.

• Cost Estimate and Efficiency: US$3.4 M projected total cost, with initial phase at US$0.5 million, and public and private financing. Efficiency calculated to be US$10 per tC.

Source: EPA/USIJI (1998), Tipper and de Jong (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998) as cited IPCC, 2000

Examples:Examples:2.2. INFAPRO: Innoprise-FACE Foundation Project, INFAPRO: Innoprise-FACE Foundation Project,

Sabah, MalaysiaSabah, Malaysia• Objectives and Type: Objectives and Type: 25,000 ha of selectively logged 25,000 ha of selectively logged

dipterocarp lowland tropical forest concession lands.dipterocarp lowland tropical forest concession lands.• Partners: Partners: Innoprise Corporation (forestry arm of Sabah Innoprise Corporation (forestry arm of Sabah

Foundation, Sabah, Malaysia) and FACE (Forests Foundation, Sabah, Malaysia) and FACE (Forests Absorbing CO2 Emissions) Foundation of Dutch Absorbing CO2 Emissions) Foundation of Dutch Electricity Board, The Netherlands.Electricity Board, The Netherlands.

• Description of Activities: Description of Activities: Estimates it will sequester Estimates it will sequester approx. 4.3 Mt C over 60 years, largely using literature approx. 4.3 Mt C over 60 years, largely using literature data for the estimate. Permanent sample plots to measure data for the estimate. Permanent sample plots to measure stem growth are established; necromass, understory, and stem growth are established; necromass, understory, and soil data collectedsoil data collected..

• GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods: GHG Estimated Benefits and Methods: 707,000 tC over 707,000 tC over lifetime, using COlifetime, using CO22 Fix model. Average carbon benefit is Fix model. Average carbon benefit is 26 t C/ha,a t 0.9 tC/ha/yr.26 t C/ha,a t 0.9 tC/ha/yr.

Projected Socioeconomic Benefits: Generate US$800 M in timber, which will revert to the social programs of the Sabah Foundation. Build capacity through technical training, at all levels of project staff, and with local, regional and international organizations. Direct employment of more than 150 people.

Projected Environmental Impacts: Improve at least 25,000 ha of degraded logged forests.

Status of Project: The project is in the 7th year of its implementation phase, planned to last 25 years; project lifetime is 99 years. If CDM guidelines and crediting are not in place soon, implementation of this project may be halted.

• Cost Estimate and EfficiencyCost Estimate and Efficiency: : US$15 M total US$15 M total cost, with private financing. Efficiency calculated cost, with private financing. Efficiency calculated to be US3.50 per tC.to be US3.50 per tC.

Source: FACE Foundation (1998), Stuart and Source: FACE Foundation (1998), Stuart and Moura-Costa (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann Moura-Costa (1998), Witthoeft-Muehlmann (1998) as cited by IPCC (2000).(1998) as cited by IPCC (2000).

Issues and Concerns

2. Lack of technical expertise3. Failure to capture co-benefits due to:

• Lack of integrated area planning• Graft and corruption• Inadequate implementation guidelines• Lack of community participation

1. Overemphasis on plantations using exotics over indigenous species

4. Loss of opportunity to develop forests• Forests not available for other uses

5. Ensuring appropriate design, monitoring and evaluation

6.6. Forest carbon hard to measureForest carbon hard to measure• IPCC (1995): high level of confidence on

measurements of net C conserved• IPCC GPG (2003): will provide guidance for

projects

Issues and Concerns

7.7. Baselines and additionalityBaselines and additionality• Article 12.5 of the Kyoto Protocol:

“Reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity”

• “additional” implies a baseline or without project scenario

• To demonstrate that GHG benefits due to the project not incidental factors

• No standard method of determining baselines and additionality

• Data on carbon stocks will facilitate estimation Data on carbon stocks will facilitate estimation and verification of baselinesand verification of baselines

Issues and Concerns

Recommendations

Philippines must develop implementation Philippines must develop implementation mechanism and guidelines in preparation mechanism and guidelines in preparation for CDM implementationfor CDM implementation

Philippines must participate in CDM Philippines must participate in CDM considering its current budget for considering its current budget for rehabilitation is not enoughrehabilitation is not enough