USAID LEAF Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV

NameAffiliationNameAffiliation Surin Onprom; Co-Lead Kasetsart University, Thailand Tran Thi Thu HaVietnam Forestry University Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University, Thailand Nguyen Dinh HaiVietnam Forestry University Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead RECOFTC Thailand Vo Mai AnhVietnam Forestry University Claudia Radel; Co-Lead Utah State University Tran Tuan VietVietnam Forestry University Sarah Hines; Co-Lead US Forest Service Cao Tien TrungVinh University, Vietnam Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn Chiang Mai University, Thailand Nguyen T. Trang ThanhVinh University, Vietnam Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria University Kebangsaan Malaysia Nguyen Thu HaUSAID Vietnam Forests & Deltas Mohd Rusli Yacob University Putra Malaysia Maeve NightingaleIUCN MFF Kaisone Phengspha National University of Laos Guada LagradaPACT MPE Phansamai Phengspha National University of Laos Le Van Trung DARD Lam Dong Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy National University of Laos Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh AIT Thailand Freddie Alei University of Papua New Guinea David GanzUSAID LEAF Bangkok Chay Kongkruy Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia Kalpana GiriUSAID LEAF Bangkok Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy Royal University of Phnom Penh, Cambodia Chi Pham Project Coordinator USAID LEAF Bangkok

I.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1.Introduction to Climate Change 1.2.The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context 1.3.Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) 1.4.Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics II.WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD 2.1.Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV 2.2.Governance Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights 2.3. Stakeholder Participation FPIC 2.4. Social Co-benefits 2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment Gender Analysis Tools Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index 2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment 2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG 2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability III.STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER 3.1.Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs 3.2.Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards 3.3.Developing National Level Safeguards

At the end of this section, learners will be able to:  Define REDD+ carbon accounting issues and explain why they are critical to ensuring the environmental integrity of REDD+  Describe the difference between Monitoring and MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification)  Compare the four different options for measuring carbon stock and change, and describe why at least two methods are important to creating robust carbon measurements  Explain why carbon monitoring is important in the context of REDD+

Session 1:  Understanding Forestry Offsets  Forest Carbon Accounting  Carbon Monitoring and MRV Session 2:  SES and Carbon Monitoring  Carbon stock measurement and methods Image credit: Forest Carbon Partnership

 Lecture  In-class discussion/exercise

Students should read the following:  National Forest Monitoring Systems: Monitoring and Measurement, Reporting and Verification (M & MRV) in the context of REDD+ Activities UN-REDD Programme. Available at: redd.org/Newsletter38/ForestMonitoringandMRVLaunch/tabid/ /Default.aspx  Larrazábal, A. McCall, M. K., Mwampamba, T. H., Skutsch, M The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD+: a review of experiences. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages

Session 1:  Understanding Forestry Offsets  Forest Carbon Accounting  Carbon Monitoring and MRV Session 2:  SES and Carbon Monitoring  Carbon stock measurement and methods Image credit: Forest Carbon Partnership

…1 ton CO 2 e …a tradable right to emit  Metric: stock (tons), not rate  Compensates for an emission elsewhere  Considered equivalent to a GHG reduction achieved at the source  Offsets and credits must be real, additional, verifiable, enforceable, and permanent  Safeguards and accounting rules help ensure that carbon offsets/credits are not smoke and mirrors. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory

VoluntaryCompliance MotivationsPre-compliance, public relations, individual action Regulation (cap) CreditsVERs (verifiable tons)CERs, CRTs (verifiable tons) Types of offsetsMethane Reduction, Fertilizer Reduction/No till, Forestry, NOx, HFCs Depends which sectors are capped/uncapped; forestry may be explicitly included (CAR, New Zealand) or excluded (European Union Emissions Trading System, EU ETS) Location/Size of MarketNational & International; forestry projects primarily international (REDD+) National & International; Market locations in EU, California; project locations global

 Reduce compliance costs  Reduce emissions in uncapped sectors  Provide an economic incentive to develop new technologies  Link various carbon markets  Facilitate transition to a low-carbon future  Certain forestry options & practices offer a lower cost of emissions abatement and/or co-benefits  “Do good” approach (voluntary markets) Image credit: The Economist (top) and World Wildlife Fund

 Baseline — What emissions would occur in the absence of a proposed project? And how are the emissions that occur after the project is performed going to be measured?  Additionality — Would the project occur anyway without the investment raised by selling carbon offset credits?  A. financial  B. legal  Permanence — Are some benefits of the reductions reversible?  Leakage – Does implementing the project cause higher emissions outside the project boundary?

Baseline or Reference Level - the reference against which project benefits are measured  The scenario of anthropogenic emissions by sources or anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases that would occur without the proposed project  The sum of the changes in carbon stocks in the carbon pools within the project boundary that would have occurred without the REDD+ project Additionality Environmental (climate) : Benefits in terms of GHG emission reductions; Project – baseline > 0 Policies and programs: Why we need CDM or REDD to make this happen? Existing plans, programs and policies Investment/financial: Not from “traditional” development assistance (CDM)

 The reversibility of carbon sequestration in biological systems  Buffer withholdings  Discounting credits  Insurance mechanisms  Penalties for intentional reversals  Timeframe commitment (project lifetime)  Monitoring commitment (continues post-project)

Impacts of project activities on GHG emissions outside the project Project-level:  Discount forestry GHG offsets/credits  Document explicitly what leakage has /has not occurred Sector-level:  Expand coverage to more entities, sectors, states/countries  Accept project leakage and adjust national targets appropriately Image credit: VCS Guidance for AFOLU Projects, 2008

 Important to monitor so that we know about the general trends  Important to measure, report, and verify so that we can create legitimate forest carbon offsets.

 There is information and general guidance but no specific definition of Monitoring and MRV in UNFCCC documents:  Monitoring – allows countries to assess a broad range of information about their forests, including information relevant to carbon / REDD+ activities  MRV – Measurement, Reporting, Verification – estimation and international reporting of national-scale forest emissions and removals  Specific to carbon/REDD+ activities, and a prerequisite to REDD+ engagement  Monitoring and MRV are complimentary

 REDD+  Deforestation (hard)  Degradation (harder)  Improving forest management (harder/hardest) + Conservation of Forest Stocks + Sustainable Management of Forests + Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks + And more? It depends!

National-level carbon accounting  Annex I Parties of the Kyoto Protocol  Under discussion for REDD in the post-2012 climate agreement Project-level carbon accounting  CDM afforestation/reforestation projects  Project in voluntary carbon markets Nested approach  Combination of national and sub-national (e.g. state, province, project) level carbon accounting  Proposal for an optional approach in REDD/+

 IPCC LULUCF Guidelines established several estimation methods for GHG emissions from forestry:  Tier 1: “default” emission factors and coarse activity data – land cover maps and IPCC emission factors  Tier 2: country-specific data and stock-change calculations: remote sensing and field data  Tier 3: models and inventory systems tailored to national circumstance and repeated over time Cost, sophistication, & accuracy

End of Session 1

Session 1:  Understanding Forestry Offsets  Forest Carbon Accounting  Carbon Monitoring and MRV Session 2:  SES and Carbon Monitoring  Carbon stock measurement and methods Image credit: Forest Carbon Partnership

Can you think of ways that monitoring and measuring carbon stock might relate to SES? Beginning of Session 2 Image credit: Forest Carbon Partnership

 Local communities may be able to participate in developing forest inventories  Tools needed are mostly simple and include: mobile GIS unit, tape measure or calipers (to measure DBH), and hypsometer or extendable pole (to measure tree height)  Benefits of working with communities include indigenous knowledge and lower costs to the project developers  Benefits to the community might include training opportunities and jobs  Are there any drawbacks?

 Estimating carbon stocks and changes usually involve a combination of two or more options: 1. Remote sensing 2. Field-based measurement 3. Intensive–site measurement 4. Modeling  We’ll return to this slide… Investment & sophistication

 Allows for estimation of gross and net gains and losses – this is required for an accurate picture  Understand where and how a country is gaining and losing forest, as well as the sum of the changes.  Understand changes to forest quality, to create a complete picture  Comparing and combining estimates can improve accuracy and confidence in results

 Requests developing country Parties to establish robust & transparent national forest monitoring systems that:  Use a combination of remote sensing and ground-based forest carbon inventory approaches for estimating forest-related greenhouse gas emissions, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes  Provide estimates that are transparent, consistent, accurate, etc. [IPCC]  Are transparent and their results are available and suitable for review as agreed by the COP  National forest monitoring systems to be used to measure GHG emissions from forestry

 REDD+ will be implemented through policy approaches & positive incentives  REDD+ should be implemented in three phases (paragraph 73)  A country may only receive performance-based financial incentives in the third phase, when the National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS)must be fully operational… (in accordance with future decisions of the UNFCCC).  Countries should develop the following elements (paragraph 71):  A national strategy or action plan  Forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels – RELs/RLs (performance benchmarks)  A national forest monitoring system  A safeguards information system (seven REDD+ safeguards in Appendix 1)  Countries should address: drivers of deforestation and degradation, land tenure issues, forest governance issues, gender considerations and REDD+ safeguards

DatePhaseScopeFinancial Instrument ReadinessNational REDD Strategies and Action Plans, demonstration projects Voluntary contributions Eligibility: Demonstrated cross-sectoral commitment to REDD strategy development within the national government. Examples: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank (FCPF) and United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD) “readiness” funding onwards ImplementationImplementation of National REDD Strategies including baselines, MRV, indigenous/local participation Global facility (unitary fund, or clearinghouse that records eligible bilateral and multilateral contributions relative to binding commitments). Eligibility: Demonstrated cross-sectoral commitment to REDD strategy implementation within the national government. Continued access dependent upon performance, including proxy indicators of emission reductions and/or enhanced removals. Example: Brazil’s Amazon Fund Performance Payment Quantified changes in GHG emissions and/or removals Transition from global facility to integration with compliance markets. Eligibility: Compliance-grade MRV and emissions/ removals accounting relative to agreed reference levels.

 Allows for market and non-market options to finance performance-based actions  Measurement, Reporting & Verification (MRV) of forestry GHG emissions is necessary to receive results-based funding  Provides information on setting up safeguards  Provides information on setting up forest reference emission levels and reference levels (RELs/RLs)

 Estimating carbon stocks and changes usually involve a combination of two or more options:  Remote sensing  Field-based measurement  Intensive–site measurement  Modeling  …We’ve returned to this slide, as promised!  Let’s discuss each option…  Which options do you think would provide for the most grassroots engagement and community participation? Investment & sophistication

 Aerial images – global data:  LANDSAT satellite  30+ years of data – great time series  Images are useful for classifying vegetation and estimating forest cover percent, leaf area index, and large-scale disturbances  Biomass can be derived by combining with field/modeling data  MODIS satellite  Daily temporal resolution yields more frequent cloud-free images in the tropics  Active sensors – high spatial resolution, but high cost limits to small areas:  LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging – can estimate biomass  SAR - Synthetic Aperture Radar – penetrates cloud cover

 LIDAR does what RADAR does, but with optical waves instead of radio waves  LIDAR is a great remote-sensing technique for forest biomass:  LIDAR has a more direct relationship with aboveground biomass than aerial photos or radar images  LIDAR can estimate values that foresters are familiar with and can measure in the field (height and cover)  LIDAR can expose forest structure in a way that other sensors cannot (e.g. canopy vertical distribution and gap structure)

 National Forest Inventory – “forest census”  Potential for measurement of more carbon pools  Allometric equations can be used to estimate biomass using measurements of tree diameter and height, extrapolated over larger areas with different species  Can provide a baseline from which future changes can be estimated, or successive inventories can provide a direct measurement of stock changes.  Opportunities for local engagement

 Discuss how remote-sensing vs. field-based measurements might come up with different measurements of forest area.  Hint: Is there a difference between “forest land” and “forest cover”?  How might forest land vs. forest cover be detected or perceived differently, depending on method used? Give examples.

 Detailed measurements can provide valuable physiological/ biogeochemical data to better understand carbon flux / energy exchange:  Intensified field data (dense network of plots, similar to broader Forest Inventory methods)  Flux tower to measure energy, water, and carbon exchange in a particular ecosystem/forest type  This information can help fine-tune our estimates, as well as reduce uncertainties.  Better understand down dead wood, forest floor, soil carbon pools

 Models allow researchers to integrate data across multiple spatial and temporal scales, thereby informing present science and identifying gaps for future research  Process models: derived from eco-physiological relationships  forest ecosystem responses  Empirical models: derived from forest inventories  forest management responses  Question: Model vs. Model!  Which model would be better at capturing climate-related changes? Which model may be better at capturing impacts from management?

Selected Land Variables and Measurement Methods VariableRemote SensingForest InventoryIncentive Sites Land coverXXX Leaf areaXXX DisturbanceXXX Live BiomassXX Stand structure(X)XX Species compositionXX Growth, removals, moralityXX Litter fallX Soil CO 2 fluxX RunoffX Dissolve Organic CX Net ecosystem Exchange of CO 2 X Source: Birdsey Estimating Carbon Budgets from Remote sensing, Inventories, and Intensive sites.

Under the UN-REDD Programme, NFMS can serve dual/simultaneous functions:  Monitoring: a domestic tool to assess a broad range of forest info, often:  to measure progress and outcomes of REDD+ activities (demonstration projects – phase 2, national policies and measures – phase 3)  MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification): estimation and international reporting of national-scale emissions and removals, based on some or all of the following:  Remote Sensing  Field-Based Measurement/National Forest Inventory (NFI)  Intensive Site Measurement  Modeling

 We’ve covered measurement, now let’s talk about reporting and verification. But before we do…  Refresher Pop Quiz: What are the four primary options for carbon measurement, and how many are generally required for accuracy?  Reporting – GHG inventory, and progress on UNFCCC commitments  Verification – independent, 3 rd party review

Source:

 National accounting of emissions requires significant and long-term capacity-building and funding in many nations  Thus a nested approach allowing for national and sub- national activities is often considered critical to REDD’s success  “Emission reductions accounted for at the subnational level would be reflected in the national REDD inventory; credits issued for subnational activities would be discounted from any allocated national carbon credits.” (Pedroni et al, 2009).  A country could start with project-level (sub-national) engagement; national accounting would be triggered after X years or Y% of forest is engaged in REDD activities/projects.

 An offset is a unit of CO 2 e that is reduced, avoided, or sequestered to compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere.  A credit is the tradeable right to emit one metric ton (tonne) of CO 2 e.  Accounting issues, such as baselines, additionality, permanence (reversals), and leakage, are important to consider when designing a project.  Monitoring and MRV are complimentary.  IPCC LULUCF Guidelines established several estimation methods for GHG emissions from forestry.  Estimating carbon stocks and changes usually involve a combination of two or more options.

1. Birdsey Estimating Carbon Budgets from Remote sensing, Inventories, and Intensive sites - video presentation given on 9/15/2011. Available at: 2. Birdsey, R., Angeles-Perez, G., Kurz, W. A., Lister, A., Olguin, M., Pan, Y., Wayson, C., Wilson, B., Johnson, K Approaches to monitoring changes in carbon stocks for REDD+. Carbon Management. 4(5): CIFOR, World Agroforestry Centre and USAID Forest and climate change toolbox [PowerPoint presentation]. Available fromhttp:// 4. Forest Carbon Accounting: Overview and Principles. UNDP, UNEP. Available at: energy/www-ee-library/climate-change/forest-carbon-accounting-overview--- principles/Forest_Carbon_Accounting_Overview_Principles.pdf 5. Gunn et al Carbon Credit Eligibility under Area Regulation of Harvest Level in Northern Minnesota. Forest Science, 57(6) 2011.

6. Larrazábal, A. McCall, M. K., Mwampamba, T. H., Skutsch, M The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD+: a review of experiences. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volume 4, Issue 6, Pages Lefsky Introduction to LIDAR – video presentation given on 9/12/2011. Available at: 8. Meridian Institute “Guidelines for REDD+ Reference Levels: Principles and Recommendations.” Prepared for the Government of Norway, by Arild Angelsen, Doug Boucher, Sandra Brown, Valérie Merckx, Charlotte Streck, and Daniel Zarin. Available at: 9. Meridian Institute “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): An Options Assessment Report.” Prepared for the Government of Norway, by Arild Angelsen, Sandra Brown, Cyril Loisel, Leo Peskett, Charlotte Streck, and Daniel Zarin. Available at:

10. National Forest Monitoring Systems: Monitoring and Measurement, Reporting and Verification (M & MRV) in the context of REDD+ Activities UN-REDD Programme. Available at: redd.org/Newsletter38/ForestMonitoringandMRVLaunch/tabid/106350/Default.aspx 11. Scriven, Joel. FAO, UN-REDD Programme, Decision 1/CP The Terrestrial Carbon Group Project Policy Brief #5: “Measuring and Monitoring Terrestrial Carbon as part of REDD+ MRV Systems: The State of the Science and Implications for Policy Makers.” Available at: climate_solution/Policy_Briefs_files/TCG%20Policy%20Brief%205%20Measuring%20an d%20Monitoring% pdf 13. UN-REDD National Forest Monitoring Systems & MRV. UN-REDD Programme Voluntary Carbon Standard Guidance for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects s.org/files/Guidance%20for%20AFOLU%20Projects.pdf