Overview of REDD+ and NAMAs:Relationship and issues for consideration

John Costenbader

13 April 2023

2Presentation Overview

1. Brief background

a. Conceptual developments

b. State of implementation

2. Harmonization scenarios

3. Country Examples• Kenya

• Indonesia

• Chile

4. Conclusions

1. Brief background

13 April 2023

41a. Conceptual developments

Promising beginnings …

• REDD+ & NAMAs arose under Bali Action Plan (2007)

• Both expand mitigation options for developing countries, with optional support from developed countries

• Country-determined & voluntary; neither legally-binding on implementer

… albeit separate initiatives:

• Still under development in separate tracks of UNFCCC negotiations

• Distinct rules, methodologies, finance sources & modalities

• Separate communities of experts, vocabularies

13 April 2023

51a. Conceptual developments

REDD+

• Countries generally further in developing framework for REDD+ than NAMAs

• Three-phased approach, a more donor-structured process:

• Readiness; Policies & Measures; Full Implementation

• 2013 COP-19 “Warsaw Framework” – decisions on:

• Finance; National Forest Monitoring Systems; Institutions; MRV; Reference Levels; Safeguards

• Warsaw COP agreed all REDD+ MRV actions should be consistent with MRV guidance for NAMAs

13 April 2023

61a. Conceptual developments

NAMAs

• Much of NAMA negotiation at abstract level given broad variety of NAMA options (national or individual; unilateral, supported, or credited)

• 3 pillars of NAMAs: contribute to mitigation, in context of sustainable development, MRV-able

• NAMAs developed via bottom-up, ‘learning by doing’ process

• NAMAs seem to be developing into country-driven approach that can complement more donor-driven REDD+

• Most recent work around development of NAMA Registry to match developing country projects with developed country support

13 April 2023

71a. Conceptual developments

  NAMAs REDD+

Scale • Anything from a project to subnational to national sectoral or full country.

• National-level accounting and crediting with subnational level processes allowed in interim

Scope • Any activity from any mitigation sector (project, program, policy or even an emissions reduction target)

• Five REDD+ activities from forest sector accepted (projects, programs or policies) – in line with ‘3 Phases’ approach

Reference Levels/Baselines

• Unilateral/Supported: Indirectly referenced via information in BURs (in assessing actions)

• Credited: ‘Ambitious’ RLs (credit Baselines/ threshold cap)

• National RLs required (subnational in interim).

• Methodologies subject to independent review and verification.

MRV • Unilateral: Domestic MRV • Supported: Domestic MRV and

International ICA verification

Full national MRV:• Remote sensing & ground

measurements• Transparent & consistent w/ RL.• Reported through BUR. • LULUCF expert technical analysis.

Safeguards None yet GCF may parallel REDD+ safeguards

Cancun Safeguards Periodic reporting on implementation

Design Elements

13 April 2023

81a. Conceptual developments

  NAMAs REDD+

Multilateral • NAMA Registry

• Green Climate Fund (GCF)

• FCPF, UN-REDD, FIP

• Green Climate Fund (GCF) Bilateral • UK-Germany NAMA Facility • Norway, UK, US, et al donors

Private Sector • Possible under individual NAMAs • Voluntary carbon markets• Voluntary sustainability initiatives

Foreign Direct Investment

• Possible under individual NAMAs • Voluntary sustainability initiatives

International Carbon Markets

• Possible where attribution • Markets likely needed to bridge finance gap; will require private sector caps

Domestic Finance

• Unilateral NAMAs possible • Underway

Finance

13 April 2023

91b. State of implementation: REDD+

• 338 REDD+ projects in 52 countries in CIFOR REDD+ and Forest Carbon Project Database

Source: www.forestsclimatechange.org/

13 April 2023

101b. State of implementation: NAMAs

• 107 NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database• Overwhelming majority still in concept phase

Source: www.nama-database.org

13 April 2023

111b. State of implementation: NAMAs

• 107 NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database• Overwhelming majority still in concept phase

Source: www.nama-database.org

13 April 2023

121b. State of implementation: NAMAs

• 107 NAMAs & 23 feasibility studies in 37 countries in NAMA database• Overwhelming majority still in concept phase

Source: www.nama-database.org

13 April 2023

2. National scenarios

13 April 2023

142. National scenarios: No. 1

Integrated ‘REDD+ NAMA’

• Separate NAMAs for those within & outside scope of REDD+

• NAMAs possible across entire land-use sector

• “REDD+ NAMA” capitalizes on both REDD+ and NAMA finance

• Non-forest activities (e.g., agriculture) covered under separate NAMA(s)

• Potentially diversifies funding sources

• Bound to requirements and boundaries of REDD+ (scope, safeguards etc.)

13 April 2023

152. National scenarios: No. 2

REDD+ supplemented by Forest et al. NAMA(s)

• Forest NAMA(s) covers activities not covered by REDD+

• NAMAs & REDD+ developed in parallel

• Forest NAMA follows REDD+ rules, coordinated by REDD+ agencies, but not restricted to country’s REDD+ Phase

• (+) NAMA supplements REDD+ finance to fill gaps not met

• (-) Forest NAMA finance must meet stricter REDD+ rules; cannot mingle with other funds not bound by REDD+ rules

13 April 2023

162. National scenarios: No. 3

Integrated AFOLU-NAMA with REDD+ as Sub-Sector

• REDD+ a sub-sector within land-based NAMA structure

• One single NAMA across entire land-use sector integrates mitigation activities from agriculture, forest & other land use (AFOLU) sectors

• Consistent carbon accounting and methodologies across AFOLU sector deduct REDD+ funded activities from “landscape account”

• (+) Holistic “landscape” approach can completely address drivers

• (-) High capacity & coordination needed across agencies

13 April 2023

172. National scenarios: No. 4

Non-Integrated Options

• Countries may pursue exclusively REDD+ or NAMA financing for forest sector policies and measures

• (+) Most suitable for countries with agency coordination difficulties• (-) Limited financial flexibility; limited landscape approach

13 April 2023

3. Country examples

13 April 2023

193. Country examples: Kenya

Simultaneous REDD+ & Forestry NAMA; ambitious, but unclear links

• National Climate Change Action Plan focuses on mitigation in forests: 90% of offset potential from forest sector, including 5 priority activities:

• agroforestry, forest restoration, reforestation, clean cookstoves & development of REDD+ MRV framework

• NCCAP lists activities to be funded under REDD+ or supported NAMA:

• Unclear rationale for NAMAs / REDD+ so far• Risks from double counting (e.g., clean cookstoves)• Potential double-funding same activity (REDD+ MRV system)

13 April 2023

203. Country examples: Indonesia

Integrated AFOLU NAMA (Scenario #3)

• NAMA Framework builds on the National Action Plan on Climate Change (2007)

• Explicitly places REDD+ as a sub-sector within land-based NAMA:

• REDD+ funds target forest areas; NAMA finance targets non-REDD+ activities

• National reporting (BAUs/RLs, MRV) aligns land-use NAMA w/ REDD+

13 April 2023

213. Country examples: Chile

Complimentary Forestry and REDD+ NAMA (Scenario #2)

• Secured both REDD+ and NAMA finance for forest sector: separate initiatives but linked under Forest & Climate Change Strategy

• Supported Forest sector NAMA: NAMA funds to finance activities not funded under REDD+ readiness:

• Carbon trading platform;

• pilot reforestation and carbon stock enhancement activities

• Donors require clarity on coordination & harmonization between funding streams: FCPF required Chile to clarify NAMA/REDD+ links in its R-PP

13 April 2023

4. Conclusions

13 April 2023

234. Conclusions

Forest & land use NAMAs can provide important complement to REDD+

• NAMAs provide country-driven, quick-start finance for any scope or scale activity types regardless of REDD+ phase

• Address wider scale of emissions across entire landscape

• Can supplement finance from REDD+ alone

But potential to complicate and confuse both donors & implementers

• Donors unlikely to support approach in which funds sought from both sources for same activities or where boundaries unclear

• Implementing country needs to establish clear framework in order to administer

13 April 2023

244. Conclusions

Clear delineation & connections between NAMA / REDD+ activities essential

• Need to define boundaries of forest NAMA vs. REDD+ funded approaches

• Clarify which rules, methodologies, safeguards applied where

Integrated NAMA-REDD+ scenarios best for high capacity countries

• Institutional and administrative coordination capacity

• Technical capacity (RLs, MRV, NFMS, etc.)

• Financial management capacity

Un-integrated initiatives best if less capacity

• May be good to focus on one approach initially, can add other later

13 April 2023

25Thank you

Download full report at:http://tinyurl.com/CF-NAMAs-REDD-SE-Asia

John CostenbaderSr. Consultant, Carbon Markets & ForestryOffice: +1 (202) 540 1984 | Mobile: +1 (202) 577 8030 | Fax: +1 (202) 540 2279Email: j.costenbader@climatefocus.com | Skype: j.costenbader1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 601 | Washington, DC 20036 | www.climatefocus.com