REDD/REALU Site-level Feasibility Appraisal (RESFA)
Would a targeted effort to reduce emissions bring local livelihood benefits?
Land use and land cover change are an important part (about 20%) of the total human-induced emission of greenhouse gasses that lead to global climate change. While most of the attention has so far gone to reductions in the other 80% that relate to fossil fuel use (and some other industrial processes), no opportunity to reduce emissions can be left ignored, if targets are to be met such as keeping global warming below 2oC. Reducing land-based emissions usually requires two things: A) dealing with the direct drivers of land use change that reduce C storage, e.g. through forest conversion; and B) supporting sustainable livelihood options that are compatible with high C stock landscapes, with trees that provide goods and services. To get such efforts recognized, a further set of steps is needed, that we group here under monitoring, evaluation and transaction costs. Since the discussion on 'C markets' has started, there are high expectations that engaging in emission reduction and/or enhancing C storage can help provide funding for rural development. Much of that hope may be hype, but there are opportunities for real benefits if intentions are genuine and projects are designed well. The international rules are still under discussion.
Key questions in the assessment
- What is the current carbon stock of the system? What other environmental services does the system provide?
- What are the driving factors and threats that lead to reduction in carbon stock (increase in C-emission)?
- What is the dependency of the local people on the system?
- Is there a problem on tenure security and land claims?
- What are the possible scenarios and what is the potential carbon stock increase or decrease under these scenarios?
- What are the implications of these scenarios for livelihoods, institutions and equity? What are the opportunity costs, both financial and social? What about additionality, leakage and permanence issues?
- How can the benefits of REDD/REALU be shared or distributed equitably? Who will benefit and who will suffer?
REDD projects developed based on clear answers to these questions are likely to have a good chance of success.
REFSA Background
This way, all elements needed for an appraisal of the 8 steps are collected:
A. Direct emission reduction: DriLUC, RACSA and scenarios
B. Sustainable development pathways: livelihood analyses and scenarios
C. Transaction costs:
- C1. Additionality: scenarios
- C2. Leakage (leakage can be area, agent or product based: shifts in area allocation, movement of people into or out of the area, displacement of market value chains to other areas) : scenarios + livelihood analyses
- C3. Permanence (what is the expected emission trajectory after the project ends)
- C4. Accounting rules: RACSA + scenarios
- C5. Rights to co-invest and share in future net benefits: RATA and FERVA
- C6. Certification: all of the above, with analysis of uncertainty and gaps that require further replication or efforts.
Additionality arguments
There are many 'paper parks' and areas that are protected in theory, but not in practice. Yet, the use of funding for 'emission reduction' cannot be easily applied for protecting what is supposedly already protected. 'Reference emission levels' or baselines refer to the part of 'business as usual' that is accepted as a reflection of reality after the local agencies have taken up their responsibility. There now are estimates of the degrees of forest C stock loss under various types of forest protection status, and these can be used for arguing that more effective protection will reduce emissions. It generally is easier to argue the case if larger areas are considered that include the protected area plus surrounding landscape where people make a living. Emission reduction viewed at that larger scale can be compared with a business as usual scenario.
Leakage indicators
Four forms of leakage merit specific attention:
- Leakage through shifts in spatial planning: if spatial planning shifts pressures to convert high-C stock lands to other uses, the impact on these other lands needs to be considered, even if this is outside of the 'project' area. This applies at national, provincial and district scale land use planning exercises as well as logging or tree crop concessions. Only at national scale does 'leakage' change in character, as 'national sovereignty' considerations stop and markets take over.
- People-based leakage. If after implementation of a REDD/REALU program a landscape will provide livelihoods for less people, the project is responsible for where they go and the emission consequences they have. If it attracts more people and still achieves emission reduction, real progress is being made.
- Commodity-based leakage: if an area currently provides markets with goods that tend to reduce C stocks, e.g. charcoal or agricultural products, any project that reduces emissions as well as local commodity production is likely to shift pressures elsewhere. Only if total production is constant, or external demand reduced, can a project claim emission reduction. Otherwise, partial leakage needs to be accounted for.
- Cross-sectoral leakage: absorbing more labour in productive parts of the landscape, to avoid forms of leakage mentioned above, may well increase greenhouse gas emissions from an 'agricultural sector' within a landscape that is being assessed. Agricultural intensification can well be part of an emission reduction package, bit its emissions need to be accounted for as part of the project design, or as 'leakage' if outside of the project boundary.
Cross-scale institutions
In a country like Indonesia rules for engaging in REDD and similar projects are under development. They will involve various agencies such as forestry, environmental, agricultural and home affairs, linking government agencies from village to district to province and national scales. Multilayer institutions tend to be complex and often operate at high transaction costs. An assessment of formal and informal approaches to make the system workable is important, especially in this formative stage for REDD/REALU implementation. We can learn from previous efforts in A/R CDM where the rules were made too complex, and try to avoid this pitfall.
References
Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M and Mardas N. 2008. The Little REDD Book. A guide to governmental and non-governmental proposals for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. Global Canopy Programme. Oxford, United Kingdom.
van Noordwijk M, Suyamto DA, Lusiana B, Ekadinata A and Hairiah K. 2008. Facilitating agroforestation of landscapes for sustainable benefits: Tradeoffs between carbon stocks and local development benefits in Indonesia according to the FALLOW model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 126(2008):P. 98-112. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/publication?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=JA0285-08
van Noordwijk M, Purnomo H, Peskett L and Setiono B. 2008. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Indonesia: options and challenges for fair and efficient payment distribution mechanisms. Working Paper no 81:29p. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/publication?do=view_pub_detail&pub_no=WP0117-09
Site for RESFA
Printed Flyer - English
back to top