1 / 25

REDD+, MRV: Of tropical forests, carbon stocks, safeguards and standards

REDD+, MRV: Of tropical forests, carbon stocks, safeguards and standards. Robert Nasi. Monitoring, Reporting and Verification systems for carbon in soils and vegetation in ACP countries European Commission Brussels, square de Meeus, 26 January 2011.

xanto
Download Presentation

REDD+, MRV: Of tropical forests, carbon stocks, safeguards and standards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REDD+, MRV:Of tropical forests, carbon stocks, safeguards and standards Robert Nasi Monitoring, Reporting and Verification systems for carbon in soils and vegetation in ACP countries European Commission Brussels, square de Meeus, 26 January 2011

  2. Tropical forests store large amounts of carbon

  3. Source: Nasi et al., 2009

  4. Source: Nasi et al., 2009

  5. Deforestation and forest degradation

  6. Source: Nasi et al., 2009

  7. Constraints to MRV and RELs • Integration of historical deforestation data with knowledge of drivers of deforestation. • Unavailability of country- or region-specific factors for the IPCC GHG accounting equations. • Lack of data and understanding of human induced carbon stock changes in all five pools. • Institutional capacity to undertake the appropriate work necessary for setting national emission reductions targets, MR of forest related carbon emissions. • Lack of information on cost-accuracy tradeoffs between highly technical approaches and community-based measurement approaches.

  8. Objectives of CIFOR research • To develop equations and factors for better carbon accounting • To provide guidance to project developers on using a Tier 2 approach with country and site specific factors for the IPCC Greenhouse Gas Accounting Guidelines equations. • To assess approaches and synergies for integrating detailed project-level monitoringand national level estimation, accounting and reporting

  9. C-stocks in peatlands

  10. Assessment of C budgets in peat swamp forests and oil palm plantations • Oil Palm • Forest SRH 9.3 F 4.5 SRH 6.9 L 1.5 L 7.4 CH4 ~0 CH4 0.03 S&PR 1 R 3.6 R 1.5 S&PR 1 Cpeat OP =CIN peat –COUT peat = 5.0 – 14.8 = - 9.8 Mg C ha-1 y-1 Cpeat FOREST =CIN peat –COUT peat = 8.9 – 7.9 = 1.0 Mg C ha-1 y-1 Net C loss = 428 Mg C ha-1 over 25 years

  11. Preliminary results on peat soils • Soil respiration LF → BF-OP1y:  due to  root respiration BF-OP1y→ OP5y:  due to  both root respiration and peat decomposition (vicinity to drainage canal) 32.1 ± 7.4 Mg C ha-1 Coarse root biomass Logged forest: high root biomass in the soil top 10 cm Burnt forest: still many roots from previous forest (LUC 3 years ago) Conversion Logged forest – oil palm: Loss of 28 ± 7 Mg C ha-1 from roots

  12. Forests: more than carbon …or timber

  13. REDD+ and biodiversity Source: Venter et al., 2009

  14. REDD+ features and potential impacts on biodiversity conservation Source: Harvey et al. 2009

  15. Safeguards and standards? • Safeguards on REDD+ activities can become a major disincentive against their implementation • Voluntary forest and carbon certification schemes can be seen an alternative to a prescribed safeguards policy, • Voluntary nature • Achieve overall public acceptance by minimizing social, environmental and biodiversity risks • Must not pose too high transaction costs on their application. • This trade-offs between achieving legitimacy and economic efficiency of standards is a major difficulty of standard setting and has led to specialized standards by project type, scope and modality.

  16. From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010

  17. From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010

  18. Assessment of standards • 4 substantive criteria • Poverty alleviation • Sustainable forest management • Biodiversity conservation • GHG emission reductions • 2 procedural criteria • Certification • Monitoring and evaluation From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010

  19. Sustainable forest management FSC PEFC From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010

  20. Social-economical CCB CCB REDD+ S&E From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010 SOCIALCARBON

  21. Net GHG benefits CarbonFix VCS and ISO 14064 From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010

  22. “Different” Plan Vivo GCS From Merger, Dutschke and Verchot 2010

  23. Uptake? • FSC : 135 M ha • PEFC : 226 M ha • CCB : 26 CCBA projects • CCB REDD+ S&E : too early (June 2010) • CarbonFix : 1 project • VCS : 1 REDD met approved • ISO 14064 : no certificates by design • Plan Vivo : 4 projects • GCS : too early (still in dev.) • SOCIALCARBON : too early

  24. Conclusion • Standards could be a efficient way to address safeguards • Many existing standards for GHG are still “too young” • SFM type standards do no consider GHG • None of the considered standards is comprehensive • Either the most comprehensive are completed for the missing parts (but then what about the specificities?) • Or project proponents will need to search certification by more than one standard

  25. www.cifor.cgiar.org

More Related