2. Shorter title
Secondary information can go here
XX-XX Month, Year
• Additional information can run
• Underneath if necessary
Layout
Feasibility Study for a Community
REDD+ Project in India
30 September 2013 -
1. REDD+: Definition to Developments
2. Global Overview
3. WWF, the BBL, CCRs & REDD+
4. Carbon Stock:The Methodology
5. The Baseline Scenario
6. The Project Scenario
7. Financial Feasibility and
the Opportunity Cost Analysis
8. REDD+ Co-benefits
9. The MoEF & the Way Forward
3. Shorter title
Secondary information can go here
XX-XX Month, Year
• Additional information can run
• Underneath if necessary
Prologue
30 September 2013 -
The South Garo Hills has lost 5000 ha* of
forest between 2007 and 2009.
-State of Forest Survey Report 2011
* 2.7% of geographical area and 3.05% of the forest cover
4. Presentation to Company Name
1REDD+:
Definition to
Developments
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
5. • Sustainable Management of Forest
• Regeneration as ANR
‘+’ in REDD+
• Reducing emissions from deforestation
• Reducing emissions from forest degradation
• Conservation of forest
• Sustainable management of forests
• Enhancement of forest carbon stock
6. • There is no clarification on
A/R in REDD+ definition
• A few pilots include A/R
• We have not considered A/R
in financial feasibility analysis
• For livelihoods generation,
fuel wood and other benefits
A/R should be included
Confusion on Afforestation/Reforestation ..?
8. UN-REDD
• 2008; FAO-UNDP-
UNEP
• US$ 60 Million
funding
• 14 Pilot countries
and 28 partner
countries
FCPF (The
Forest Carbon
Partnership
Facility)
• 2008
• The World Bank
• US$ 447 Million
pledged
• 37 countries
FIP(The Forest
Investment
Program)
• Under Strategic
Climate Fund Of
CIF
• 2009, Multi-donor
trust fund (the WB
Admin.)
• 7 countries
UN-REDD, FCPF and FIP Countries (48) as on Feb 20, 2012
150+ pilots
REDD+ Platforms and Key Institutions
Source: UN-REDD, FCPF, FIP
9. Three Phases of REDD+ Financing
Performance Payment Phase (2013-20)
Result based actions leading
to emission reductions
UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral
Agencies , Govt.
Implementation Phase (2012 onwards)
Capacity Building, Institutional
strengthening, Investments
UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral
Agencies , Govt.
Readiness Phase (2010-12)
National Strategies & Action
plans
UN-REDD-FCPF, Bilateral
Agencies
10. REDD+ and COP 17 (Durban)
• Consensus on market-
based approach for REDD+
funding; private sector has a
major role
• Effective social,
environmental and
governance safeguards for
local communities and
biodiversity conservation
• How much of Green
Climate Fund for REDD+ ?
Source: Carbon Market Trends 2011
11. Presentation to Company Name
3WWF, the BBL,
CCRs and
REDD+
30 September 2013 -
SamrakshanTrust
12. WWF’s Gui di ng Pr i nci pl es on REDD+
Cl i mat e
Bi odi versi t y
Li vel i hoods
Ri ght s
Fai r & Ef f ect i ve
Fundi ng
Pilots/support in
• Peru
• Indonesia
• PNG
• Laos
• Vietnam
• DRC
• Cameroon
• Brazil
• Tanzania
• Cambodia
• Mexico
• Madagascar
• Guyana
• Nepal
13. Baghmara-Balpakaram Landscape (BBL)
• Good forest cover (88.6%) with D n D threats
• Community forest
• Biodiversity rich area; 700+ elephants, Habitat for Hoolock
Gibbon, Sloth bear, Chinese Pangolin etc. 270 bird species, 300
species of butterfly and 60 species of amphibians
• Good floral biodiversity; medicinal plants; Old Growth forest in
reserve area
Samrakshan/WWF-India
14. Deforestation & Degradation
• Slash and burn agriculture (jhum)
• Reduced jhum cycle from 10-15 yrs to
3-4 yrs
• Monoculture plantation- rubber, cashew,
areca nut
• Illegal logging; Bangladesh border area
• Fuel-wood
• Potential threat from mining
• Small agri-fields within forest
Bhomik/WWF-India
15. Land Tenure and Carbon Rights
• Meghalaya is a Sixth Schedule State
• Most of the forests, forest land with the
communities
• The right for the management of forest
with the Autonomous District Councils
(ADCs)
• In practice Nokma (Aking level) is the
decision making authority for the land use
• No explicit legislation on ‘carbon right’
Bhomik/WWF-India
16. Presentation to Company Name
4Carbon Stock:
The Methodology
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
17. Reference Area
22487 ha (19
Akings)
Methodology
Project Area
8072 ha (15
Akings)
Leakage Belt
1991 2000 2011
Three time-
point Historic
Image
Analysis
18. Methodology
• Land use change analysis of last 20 years
• Calculation of mean Deforestation Rate
• Stratification of the project area
• Very Dense ≥70%
• Moderately Dense ≥ 40-70%
• Open ≥10-40%
Remote
Sensing
• Initial plot samples for deriving the number. of
plots in each strata for sampling
• Stratified random sampling for the location of
sample plots
• On-Ground Biomass Inventory
• Marking of plots and inventory assessment
On-Ground
Biomass
Inventory
19. Biomass to Carbon
Above Ground Tree Biomass : Stem Volume* Wood Density* BEF
Below Ground Biomass : Above Ground tree Biomass*0.24
Deadwood and fallen tree : Stem Volume*Wood Density
Regeneration : IPCC Default Values *0.33
Total Biomass in a plot : AGB+BGB+DW
Biomass to carbon : Biomass*0.50
Total t Carbon/ha
Carbon in biomass (AGB+BGB+DW)+ tC in Regeneration
Source; IPCC-GPG , FAO, CIFOR
20. Presentation to Company Name
5The Baseline
Scenario
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India
27. Forest Carbon Standards
Climate, Community &
Biodiversity Standard
CarbonFix Standard
Plan Vivo
Social Carbon
Verified Carbon Standard
Methodology Status Methodology
VM0006
Version1.0
Approved Methodology for Carbon
Accounting in Project
Activities that Reduce
Emissions from Mosaic
Deforestation and
Degradation
VM0007
Version 1.1
Approved REDD Methodology
Module REDD
Methodology Framework
(REDD-MF)
VM0015
Version 1
Approved Methodology for Avoided
Unplanned Deforestation
Draft Draft Methodology for Carbon
Accounting of Grouped
Mosaic and Landscape-
scale REDD Projects
31. The Opportunity Cost Analysis
Opportunity costs are based on land use change, not on
land use
“…by conserving their present forests, countries and landowners
forgo the benefits of potentially more lucrative alternative land
uses, such as crops or livestock-this forgone revenue is known as
the opportunity cost of REDD+ “
-The World Bank
18%
14%
29%
7%
32%
Crops in Agriculture Income/ha
Rice Pineapple Ginger Turmeric Others
67%
10%
8%
15%
Crops in
Monoculture/Plantation/ha
Rubber Cashew Areca Nut Others
32. Assumptions in the Opportunity Cost Analysis
• All NPV calculations are based on the project life and land
use change for 30 years.
• Discount rate of 10%
• Only carbon revenue has been taken into account
•The land remaining fallow under 5 Yrs and 8 Yrs
agriculture cycle would provide fuel wood and grazing related
benefits and that have been taken into account
• Employment benefit of US$17/ha/Yr in agriculture and
monoculture has been incorporated in NPV projections.
35. Economics of REDD+ and Co-Benefits
• Conservation of forest biodiversity &
wildlife habitats
• Water regulation
• Soil conservation
• Timber and NTFPs
• Livelihood
• Governance
• Micro-climatic Benefits etc.
• The economic value of these benefits is
much higher than the carbon benefits
• Economic valuation is a difficult
exercise
• Opportunity Cost Analysis doesn’t take
these ecosystem services into account
Bhomik/WWF-India
36. Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM)
• Both financial and non-financial benefits
• Stakeholders are both landholders and landless
• Equity, the opportunity cost and social & environmental
safeguards need to be addressed
• Local institutions should have capacity to handle financial
and social issues
• Need to understand socio-cultural changes post-REDD+
• Synergy with national policy and legal regime
• In BBL a BSM should be devised after consultations with
community, CBOs and other stakeholders
37. Presentation to Company Name
9The MOEF and
the Way Forward
30 September 2013 -
BhomikShah/WWF-India