REDD+ Scoping Study for the Western Area

Transcription

REDD+ Scoping Study
for the Western Area Peninsula
Forest Reserve
Final Report
Submitted to
“Conservation of the Sierra Leone Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve and its
Watersheds” Project
(Project number: Europeaid/126201/C/ACT/Multi)
Purkersdorf, February 2012
REDD+ Scoping Study for the Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve
Your contact person at ÖBf:
Alexander Horst
Pummergasse 10-12
3002 Purkersdorf
Austria
Tel: +43-2231-600 55 20
Fax: +43-2231-600 55 09
Email: [email protected]
www.oebfconsulting.at
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1
1.
Introduction .................................................................................................... 3
2.
Methodological approach .................................................................................. 5
3.
Prefeasibility assessment .................................................................................. 7
4.
Results of the remote sensing and carbon analyses ............................................11
5.
6
4.1
Forest benchmark map ............................................................................11
4.2
Land use and forest changes 2000 – 2006 -2011 ........................................13
4.3
Aboveground biomass and carbon stocks ...................................................15
4.4
Biomass/carbon change in the reference period 2000 – 2010 .......................16
Project Idea Note ...........................................................................................18
5.1
General project description, objectives and type of project ...........................18
5.2
Suggested crediting life time and schedule of project ...................................19
5.3
Project participants, major stakeholders and proposed implementation
arrangements .........................................................................................20
5.3.1
Project proponent and management body .............................................20
5.3.2
Project partners and stakeholders ........................................................20
5.4
Proposed activities ..................................................................................21
5.5
Additionality ...........................................................................................22
5.6
Baseline deforestation and carbon emissions ..............................................23
5.6.1
Drivers and agents of deforestation and degradation ..............................23
5.6.2
Historical and projected baseline deforestation.......................................25
5.6.3
Projected baseline emissions ...............................................................27
5.7
Expected emission mitigation effect of the project .......................................27
5.8
Leakage .................................................................................................28
5.9
Non-permanence and other risk ................................................................29
5.10
Carbon revenue distribution and incentive systems .....................................31
5.11
Expected socio-economic and environmental impacts ..................................31
5.12
Results of preliminary financial analysis .....................................................32
5.12.1
Estimated carbon price trend ...............................................................32
5.12.2
Expected revenues, costs and cash flow ................................................33
5.12.3
Buffer withholding ..............................................................................36
5.12.4
Sensitivity results ...............................................................................37
Recommendations on future project development ..............................................38
6.1
Target markets and potential clients ..........................................................38
ii
7
6.2
Carbon project development and implementation costs ................................38
6.3
Methodology ...........................................................................................39
6.4
Outstanding issues from prefeasibility check ...............................................40
6.5
Next steps ..............................................................................................41
References ....................................................................................................42
Annexes
Annex 1: Invitation to Tender / Terms of Reference
Annex 2: Workshop presentations
Annex 3: Methodology used in the land- and forest-cover change analysis
Annex 4: Methodology used for biomass and carbon density estimations
Annex 5: Methodology used for baseline projection and financial analyses
Annex 6: Excel Spreadsheet with financial calculations
iii
List of Tables
Figure 1: Project location ........................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: Decision flow chart on the continuation of the project ................................... 7
Figure 3: Forest benchmark map 2011 ....................................................................12
Figure 4: Forest cover in the proposed project area (new boundary) ...........................13
Figure 5: Forest change map 2000 – 2011 ...............................................................14
Figure 6: Area of forest change in the Western Area Peninsula ...................................15
Figure 7: Urban encroachment into the WAPFOR ......................................................23
Figure 8: Historical and projected development of forest and urban land area
in reference area ....................................................................................26
Figure 9: Projected development of forest land area in project area ............................26
Figure 10: Projected carbon emissions in project area ...............................................27
Figure 11: Projected avoided carbon emissions through project activities
in project area ......................................................................................28
Figure 12: Annual profits from project activities in contrasting baseline
and carbon price scenarios .....................................................................36
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project location ........................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: Decision flow chart on the continuation of the project ................................... 7
Figure 3: Forest benchmark map 2011 ....................................................................12
Figure 4: Forest cover in the proposed project area (new boundary) ...........................13
Figure 5: Forest change map 2000 – 2011 ...............................................................14
Figure 6: Area of forest change in the Western Area Peninsula ...................................15
Figure 7: Urban encroachment into the WAPFOR ......................................................23
Figure 8: Historical and projected development of forest and urban land area
in reference area ....................................................................................26
Figure 9: Projected development of forest land area in project area ............................26
Figure 10: Projected carbon emissions in project area ...............................................27
Figure 11: Projected avoided carbon emissions through project activities
in project area ........................................................................................28
Figure 12: Annual profits from project activities in contrasting baseline
and carbon price scenarios .......................................................................36
iv
List of Abbreviations
AGB
Aboveground Biomass
AFOLU
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use
AUD
Avoided Unplanned Deforestation
BAU
Business As Usual Scenario
CCBS
Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard
CDM
Clean Development Mechanism
CHF
Closed High Forest
COP
Conference of Parties
DD
Deforestation and Degradation
EC
European Commission
ENFORAC
Environmental Forum for Action
FAO
UN Food and Agricultural Organisation
FCPF
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
FD
Forestry Division
FRA
Forest Resource Assessment
GoSL
Government of Sierra Leone
GVWC
Guma Valley Water Company
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LC/LU
Land Cover / Land Use
M
Mangroves
MAFFS
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry & Food Security
MEWR
Ministry of Energy and Water Resources
MHF
Medium High Forest
MLCPE
Ministry of Land, Country Planning & Environment
MRV
Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
PD
Project Description (for VCS)
PDD
Project Design Document (for CDM)
PES
Payment for Environmental Services
PIN
Project Idea Note
REDD
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
REDD+
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation,
and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests
and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries
REL
Reference Emission Level
R-PP
Readiness Preparation Proposal
SCE
Scenario
SF
Secondary Forest
SHRB
Shrub
SLEPA
Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency
v
tCO2e
Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VCS
Verified Carbon Standard
VCU
Verified Carbon Unit
WAP
Western Area Peninsula
WAPFOR
Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve
WARDC
Western Area Rural District Council
vi
Executive Summary
Österreichische Bundesforste AG Consulting has been commissioned by Welthungerhilfe
to conduct a REDD+ scoping study for the Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve
(WAPFOR), in order to assess the feasibility of a REDD+ project and develop a project
idea note.
The initial evaluation of the project’s feasibility arrived at a “go” decision to move forward
with full project design. Some aspects such as identification of project proponent, proof
of carbon ownership and the forest definition yet need further elaboration to be fully
compliant with all the requirements for a REDD project under the Verified Carbon
Standard (VCS).
The remote sensing analyses showed that the WAPFOR is still a relatively intact forest,
with 15,600 ha of forest cover having a comparatively high carbon stock. The average
annual deforestation on the Western Area Peninsula was almost 420 ha or 0.8% during
the past 10 years. It was further found that almost all of the change detected by remote
sensing is due to deforestation (>99%), and not degradation. The analysis indicated that
the mean Aboveground Biomass (AGB) density of the class Closed Forest in the WAPFOR
area is about 166 t/ha, or 83 tons Carbon per ha. It is estimated that within the old
reserve boundary about 160,000 tons of CO2 emissions were caused by deforestation and
degradation during the past 10 years, and about 955,000 tons on the Western Area
Peninsula.
Different baseline scenarios were projected in the future, using the major driver of
deforestation which is urban expansion due to population growth and urbanisation.
Results reveal an average absolute deforestation rate of 431 ha and 198 ha per year in
the WAPFOR in the two extreme scenarios. All in all, the preliminary findings suggest a
mitigation potential of the project that ranges from 124,000 tCO2e to 57,000 tCO2e per
year.
The financial analysis showed that most of the scenarios were financially feasible. The
sensitivity analysis indicated that - apart from deforestation rate and emission factors discount rate, carbon price levels, and the timing of the revenues are important factors
to be considered.
Our scenario analysis showed that the most profitable scenario did not include pro-poor
measures. It became evident that the poor do not automatically benefit from a REDD
project and that the application of a pro-poor approach will cost something. On the
positive side, there is enough room to factor pro-poor measures into the detailed project
design.
It was found that a REDD+ project in the WAPFoR has very positive environmental cobenefits since it will conserve critical watershed functions, biodiversity and wildlife
habitat.
The outcome of the pre-feasibility analysis suggests developing the REDD+ Project
further using the most respected and widely used standard, namely the Verified Carbon
Standard (VCS), which may possibly be complemented by the Climate, Community and
Biodiversity Alliance Standard (CCBS) for social and environmental issues. The
overarching objective is to generate mutual benefits to potential investors and local
stakeholders. This can be achieved by striving for both, a financially viable and
environmentally and socially sustainable REDD+ project in line with above-stated
standards. By this means, the pro-poor philosophy of Welthungerhilfe is supported by a
market mechanism for forest ecosystem services.
1
A project idea note for an avoided unplanned deforestation project in the WAPFOR has
been prepared which covers all pertinent sections. The project idea incorporates the
notion of a pro-poor approach as well as benefit-sharing agreements with the adjacent
population.
Furthermore, an approved VCS methodology for avoided unplanned deforestation has
been identified which is applicable. While degradation may be addressed by project
activities, project proponents cannot seek credits for avoided degradation. We think this
is not a problem because degradation is very difficult and too costly to measure.
Finally, it is recommended to progress with project development which should culminate
in a Project Document (PD) according to VCS requirements, which can then undergo
external validation and verification. Necessary next steps have been pinpointed as well.
2
1. Introduction
The Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve (WAPFOR) is situated on the Freetown
Peninsula, ranging from shore to more than 950 metres above sea level. The reserve
extends over about 17,600 hectares of Upper Guinean forest. The forest reserve protects
the watershed of the Guma Valley Dam and Congo Dam which supply water to the entire
population of Freetown (ca. 2 million people). In the 19th century the forest was heavily
logged to supply timber for the ship-building industry. In 1916, the WAPFOR was
amongst one of the earliest protected areas declared by the British Administration. Due
to its importance for the population of Freetown and its outstanding biodiversity value
(more than 374 species of avifauna), WAPFOR was declared a non-hunting forest reserve
in 1972.
Figure 1: Project location
The WAPFOR is the remains of a coastal forest which once stretched until Liberia. Forest
conversion and illegal logging have caused a growing number of flash floods and
landslides in the Western Area Peninsula, damaging homes and destroying livelihoods.
The “Conservation of the Sierra Leone Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve and its
Watershed” Project, jointly funded by European Commission and Welthungerhilfe, aims to
conserve and sustainably manage the WAPFOR and its watershed for the benefit of the
3
adjacent local population. Among others, it intends to develop and pilot innovative, propoor financing mechanisms for forest conservation. Already during project design in
2008, the emerging Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD)
mechanism has been identified as a possible sustainable financing option for the WAPFOR
which is to be investigated.
In 2010, the WAPFOR has been suggested as a potential site for REDD+1 in a national
REDD+ strategy. It was assessed as a moderately intact high forest, yet under high
deforestation threat particularly by urban expansion. As a consequence, the management
challenges were rated quite substantial, while the carbon offset potential was rated
moderately.
The WAPFOR also prominently features in a draft Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP)
prepared by a project developer. According to the March 2011 version, about 9,000 ha of
WAPFOR are earmarked for REDD+.
Acknowledging the increased national as well as international interest in REDD+, the
WAPFOR project is now commissioning this REDD+ Scoping Study to collect baseline
information and assess the feasibility of REDD+ in the WAPFOR. It is further expected
that the case study is contributing to the development of a national policy and
institutional framework for REDD+, and building-up the knowledge and awareness about
REDD+ of various stakeholders in the country before the next UNFCCC Conference of
Parties (COP) 17 in Durban.
The objectives of this scoping study are threefold (see for details the ToR in Annex 1):
1. To assess the scope for REDD+ in the WAPFOR
2. To raise awareness, competences and management capacities of selected Sierra
Leonean stakeholders about REDD+ and carbon market potentials
3. To identify potential funding mechanisms and to recommend a road map for
future action
ÖBf Consulting conducted two missions to Sierra Leone, one in June/July, the other in
October 2011. Three presentations were given at the inception workshop in the MAFFS
on 30 June 2011, a workshop on 14 July in the WAPFOR project office and at the final
workshop on 25 October 2011 in the Hills Valley Hotel, Freetown (see Annex 2) where
the results were also discussed in working groups.
As part of the study, remote sensing analyses were conducted which culminated in the
production of a number of maps (forest benchmark may 2011, forest change maps 20002006-2011) and GIS layers which were handed over to client.
This report presents the finding of the scoping study. It first briefly presents the
methodology used. Secondly, we shortly describe the results of the initial feasibility
check. Next, we present the main findings of our remote sensing analyses and carbon
assessments. The following chapter contains the Project Idea Note (PIN) summarizing
the main design elements that can be shared with project stakeholders and potential
investors or funders of the proposed avoided deforestation project. Finally,
recommendations and the next steps in the development of the project are proposed.
The ÖBf Team consisted of Mr Alexander Horst (Team Leader, Forest Carbon Expert),
Alois Schuschnigg (Protected Area Management Specialist), Michael Krause (Baseline
Modelling Expert), Michael Schultz (Remote Sensing Expert) and Valerio Avitabile
(Biomass Monitoring Expert).
1
Dr. Turay, Peter (2010). Strategy for the Development of a Climate Change Abatement Economy: Introducing
and Implementing REDD/REDD+ in Sierra Leone
4
2. Methodological approach
A combination of on-site field visits and desk work was employed. The consultants visited
the project area, walked transects in the forest and conducted ground truthing
measurements with GPS, discussed with stakeholders, participated in workshops and
media activities, reviewed available secondary information, and conducted several
workshops and capacity building measures. The information collected was used in
assessing the pre-feasibility of the project.
The present study employed remote sensing and ground data to assess the changes of
the land- and forest-cover. First, satellite images acquired in early 2011 and ground
reference data were employed to map the current distribution of land- and forest-cover
of the Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve (WAPFOR) and create a benchmark map.
Secondly, satellite data acquired in the year 2000 were compared to the 2006 and 2011
datasets to assess changes in land- and forest- cover that occurred during the last
decade (producing a set of land- & forest- change maps). Further details about the
methodology used can be found in Annex 3.
For the calculation of baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the study area, apart
from area changes detected by remote sensing information about the carbon stock
(carbon density) of major land and vegetation types is needed.
In the context of the present study, national (Tier 2) or local (Tier 3) data on carbon
stocks and emission factors were not available. Therefore, the only possibility to estimate
the carbon emissions without engaging in a field campaign (which was beyond the scope
of this study) was to apply Tier 1 factors. We employed the biomass map produced by
Saatchi et al. (2011) for Sierra Leone. The datasets were first pre-processed and then
combined with the Landsat-based 2011 forest map and the related 2000 – 2011 change
statistics specifically produced in order to quantify the carbon stocks per forest type and
the carbon emissions per land change category. Since the two maps present different
spatial resolutions (30 m for the Forest map, 1 Km (nominative) for the Biomass map), a
specific processing technique was applied to optimally compare the two datasets. Further
details about the methodology applied for the biomass and carbon analysis are in Annex
4.
For the development of a baseline, we had to project the observed historical
deforestation into the future. The basic conceptual idea of projecting the baseline
deforestation area from 2012 to 2031 was to link the observed historical baseline
deforestation in the reference area to the observed major driver of deforestation which is
urban expansion due to population growth and urbanisation. We employed historical total
population and population density data as listed in Koroma et al. (2006) for each district
for the years 1985 and 2004. Moreover, this source includes population projections until
2014 taking birth rates, death rates, in- and outmigration into account.
The link of historical population development to deforestation was established in four
steps. The first step was calculating the derived urban area change. In the second step,
an adjustment factor was employed that relates urban land expansion based on census
data to the change in the aggregated category “other” (OTR) from satellite data. The
third step consisted of the implementation of a factor of deforestation substitution by
encroachment into other unused available land. The substitution factor links the
magnitude of OTR expansion due to urban land expansion to the magnitude of
deforestation in the reference area. The fourth step comprises the synthesis of previous
steps and the application of area change data sets to total area data sets.
Consequently, 6 baseline scenarios derived from 2 time 3 degrees of freedom in
alternative adjustment factor values (denoted by small letters a and b) and substitution
5
factor values (denoted by numbers 1, 2 and 3) were developed. The final results are
estimates on the area of deforestation depending on the year, the scenario of OTR land
development as well as the development of the substitution factor in different scenarios.
The financial analysis was based on a discounted cash flow method, the calculation of the
net present value of revenues minus costs throughout the project cycle. Revenues are
generated from the future price development of VCUs, the avoided deforestation area
over time, in baseline scenarios, and for combinations in land cover conversion as well as
the carbon emission factor for combinations in land cover conversion. Costs accrue for
the setting-up of the forest carbon project (project development, validation and
registration), so-called start-up costs as well as the effective protected area management
and monitoring. Capital depreciation requires continues replacement of tools and other
equipment which is grasped in replacement costs. However, the cost side is elaborated
further by employing two data sets depending on the defined baseline scenario: (1) costs
associated with concentrating on effective protected area management, in particular law
enforcement, to reduce deforestation in scenarios SCE a.2 and b.2 as well as (2) costs
associated with concentrating on effective protected area management plus buffer zone
development in scenarios SCE a.1, a.3, b.1, b.3. Further details can be found in Annex 4.
6
3. Prefeasibility assessment
An initial evaluation was conducted to determine the project’s feasibility and make a
“go/no go” decision on whether or not to move forward with full project design. If a
proposed REDD project is not able to answer “YES” to all of the questions shown in the
checklist below, then the project must be revised before continuing with subsequent
steps or a ‘NO GO’ decision should be made (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Decision flow chart on the continuation of the project
1. Is the project additional?
YES
2. Is the project area under direct
deforestation in the next five years?
threat
of
YES
3. Have the legal rights to the carbon credits been
secured?
YES
4. Does the forest in the project area comply with an
internationally accepted definition of forest?
YES
NO
5. Has the project area been forested for at least 10
years?
YES
6. Will the proposed project activities cause a direct
reduction in deforestation/degradation?
YES
7. Does the project have low leakage potential?
YES
8. Is the risk of non-permanence sufficiently low to
make the project unlikely to fail?
YES
9. Does the project minimize negative environmental
and socioeconomic impacts?
GO
NO GO
7
1. The VCS Program Guidelines state that “project-based GHG emission reductions
and removals must be additional to what would have happened under a business
as usual scenario if the project had not been carried out”.
The assessment shows that the WAPFoR is currently under severe pressure,
especially from rapid urban expansion/encroachment into the reserve. The
business as usual scenario is characterized by low levels of law enforcement, little
staff capacity, little human resources, little financial means for effective protected
areas management. Consequently, there will be limited means to mitigate
emissions without the project. The project has funding by EC and Welthungerhilfe
only until 2014, therefore the financial sustainability is currently not secured.
=> YES the project is additional.
2. Before credits can be generated, the project must demonstrate that the project
area was under known and direct threat of deforestation.
The project is historically under various threats of deforestation, such as rapid
(illegal) urbanisation and land speculation, subsistence agriculture as well as the
cultivation of marihuana, timber extraction for ship building and construction,
woodfuel exploitation (charcoal and wood), petty stone mining, etc. Projected
population development and derived demand for urban and other land translate
into continued deforestation in the future.
=> YES the project is under threat of deforestation in the next five years.
3. To be able to register a voluntary carbon project and sell carbon credits, the
project proponent must prove that they have the legal rights to the carbon
credits.
The entire WAPFoR is state land and all land use rights are held by the state. The
project proponent would be MAFFS or a legal body, mandated by MAFFS. While
there is no formal policy on REDD, the Government of Sierra Leone represented
by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, the Ministry of Lands,
Country Planning and the Environment and Environmental Protection Agency has
already granted a project developer concession rights for the production of carbon
credits on National and community forest land, but this concession does not
include WAPFOR.
=> PARTLY YES if Government is the project proponent, legal rights to the carbon
credits can be easily secured, but mechanism for the distribution among forest
stakeholders as well as the specific project proponent still needs to be identified.
4. Estimates of forest area, and therefore forest area loss through deforestation, are
affected by how a forest is defined. Typically forest definitions (including national
UNFCCC definitions) include minimum criteria for crown area, tree height and land
area. The VCS Guidance for AFOLU states that “to be eligible for VCS crediting, a
REDD project forest must meet internationally accepted definitions of what
constitutes a forest, e.g., based on UNFCCC host-country thresholds or FAO
definitions=> YES, according to the national forest definition submitted to FAO (2010), the
entire WAPFoR can be classified as forest2. This forest definition is in compliance
with an internationally accepted forest definition. However, Sierra Leone has not
2
Sierra Leone Country Report of the Global Forest Resources report (FAO 2010): Land spanning more than 0.5
hectares with trees higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or trees able to reach
these thresholds in situ. It does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
8
yet submitted a forest definition to the UNFCCC/CDM which should be done as a
matter of priority.
5. Within the VCS, REDD activities can take place only within areas that are currently
forested and have been forest for at least ten years. This is usually easy to
demonstrate through interpretation of remote sensing imagery and/or expert
knowledge.
Parts of the WAPFoR were gazetted in the first quarter of the 20th century. Much
of the core forest reserve resembles a climax forest, although logging of timber
trees has occurred on most of the reserve over time. Some areas of the forest
reserve have been encroached, but the new boundary will exclude such converted
area and will only include forested areas. It is thus well suited as project
boundary.
=> YES the project area has been forested for the last 10 years.
6. A project does not exist unless the project proponent actively causes a reduction
in deforestation and degradation. The types of activities that can be instituted
should be considered and the expected success rate, cost, and socio-economic
impacts of various activities should be compared.
The proposed project activities will actively halt urban expansion into the forest
reserve and will aim at reducing deforestation through improved law enforcement
and alternative livelihood programmes in the buffer zone. However a transition
phase is assumed to take up to 5 years after project start to increase project
effectiveness.
=> YES the project activities will reduce deforestation, nevertheless project
effectiveness will not attain 100% and has to be stepwise increased from a
projected low level of effectiveness at project start.
7. The extent of possible leakage in the proposed project location should be
considered. The type and cost of activities that will be required to minimize
leakage will also need to be assessed. The best projects are able to identify the
people who are likely to cause deforestation in the baseline case and provide them
with alternative livelihoods and sources of income.
Urbanisation and encroachment into the forest reserve is particularly a matter of land
speculation and an illegal activity whose eradication would not require compensation. The
areas outside the reserve will be developed in the future as the population grows and
economy develops. Leakage caused by stopping urban expansion will not be a major
factor as there are no other forest areas in the vicinity of Freetown. There are indications
that the majority of energy demand for Freetown is supplied from up-country, i.e. not by
woodfuel harvested in the forest reserve. Alterative livelihood measures for the poor
using the forests are foreseen as well as leakage management areas.
=> YES the leakage potential from the project is limited and can/will be
addressed.
8. The risk of non-permanence is critical to all land use projects. Prior to
substantially investing in any project, the minimum and maximum potential risk
buffer should be estimated.
There is a risk that the current high political will and interest to preserve the
remaining forest is weakened over time, resulting in low levels of law enforcement
and increased interest to encroach the forest reserve mainly for land speculation.
Another risk to the success of the project is prevailing poverty and ineffective
alternative livelihood measures which force the poor to exploit forest resources
9
unsustainably. However, the preliminary standardized risk analysis as required by
VCS has been clearly passed.
=> YES the risk of project failure is sufficiently low, as evidenced by our
preliminary risk analysis.
9. Any possible positive or negative environmental and/or socioeconomic impacts
that the project may have on the surrounding area should be considered.
The project will work intensively will all relevant stakeholders and actively pursues
a participatory approach in promoting alternative livelihood programmes for
people who exert pressure on the forest reserve. Negative environmental impacts
through the project are not expected, in contrary they will be positive. If
unexpectedly negative socio-economic will be detected through project
monitoring, they will be immediately addressed.
=> YES the project minimizes negative environmental and socioeconomic
impacts.
The outcomes of the prefeasibility assessment suggest continuing the project by
identifying investors and pursuing the next steps towards the preparation of an
elaborated project document.
10
4. Results of the remote sensing and carbon analyses
4.1
Forest benchmark map
The forest benchmark map for the Western Area Peninsula (2011) is shown in Figure 3
on the next page. It includes the different boundaries which we used for the analysis,
namely (i) Western Area Peninsula, (2) Old colonial boundary, (3) Forest boundary
according to an analysis of SPOT 2006 data, and (4) proposed new boundary.
There a number of points which are worth mentioning:
•
WAPFOR still contains closed and moderately dense high forests, particularly in
the core zone-
•
Outside WAPFOR, there is almost no high forest existing, which means that it is
difficult to find a suitable reference area in the vicinity, and that leakage may not
be a major issue
•
Encroachment into the old forest reserve boundary can be detected
•
There is limited space for further urban expansion
•
Around the forest reserve along the eastern, there is a belt of degraded shrub
land
•
Secondary forest can be found at the western fringe and further in the East.
•
It was difficult by remote sensing analysis to distinguish secondary forest from
shrub land. This has important implications, since shrub land is considered nonforest land. A transition of shrub land to other land is by definition not
deforestation, but a transition of secondary forest to other land is one.
In Figure 4, the forest cover of the proposed new boundary is shown. About 75% is
closed high forest (CHF3), another 5% medium high forest (MHF4) and 6% secondary
forest (SF5). Slightly over 10% (2,000 ha) is classified as shrub land (SHRB) which might
partly be due to misclassification. If the classification is correct, this class would need to
be excluded from the project area, as the crop, urban and other land (totalling up to less
than 1%)6.
In the further project development, additional ground truthing is required. Besides, it
should be considered to procure very high resolution satellite images.
3
CHF… Closed High Forest is multi-layered forest with a crown cover higher than 70%.
4
MHF… Medium High Forest is a multi-layered forest with a crown cover higher than 30% but lower than 70%.
5
SF… Secondary Forest is single-layered forest with predominately pioneer tree species with a crown cover
higher than 30%.
6
VCS requires that the project area has been forested for at least ten years. In other words, all areas which
were in one point of time deforested during the past 10 years (e.g. by shifting cultivation) will have to be
excluded which would require further analysis.
11
Figure 3: Forest benchmark map 2011
12
Figure 4: Forest cover in the proposed project area (new boundary)
area of land/forest cover
160,00
135,34
140,00
Water
120,00
area in km²
CHF
100,00
MHF
SF
80,00
M
60,00
SHRB
40,00
Crop
20,39
20,00
9,30
Other land
11,44
0,94
0,08
1,32
0,37
Crop
Other Urban
land
0,11
Urban
0,00
Water
4.2
CHF
MHF
SF
M
SHRB
Land use and forest changes 2000 – 2006 -2011
The change map 2000 – 2011 (see Figure 5) shows that
•
there is quite some change (9%) on the Western Area Peninsula, particularly
around Freetown and Waterloo
•
the old forest reserve has been encroached (4% change), particularly the
extensions and the Northern part close to Freetown
•
there is still very limited change in the core area of WAPFR, and in the new
proposed boundary (less than 1%)
Most of the changes on the Western Area Peninsula (WAP), i.e. our reference area, were
from medium high forest to shrub (over 50%), followed by secondary forests to other
(16%). Closed high forest to shrub contributed to 15% of the change (see Figure 6).
All in all, almost 420 ha or 0.8% were deforested annually on the WAP (see Table 1).
Degradation is almost negligible, which may be partly due to the fact that Landsat
images of 30 m resolution are not appropriate for detecting gradual degradation. It is
interesting to note that deforestation doubled from 3% from 2000-2006 (0.5% annually)
to 6% from 2006-11 (1,2% annually).
Table 1: Deforestation and degradation 2000 – 2011 in the WAP
Total
ha
Deforestation
Degradation
Yearly
ha
Total Rate
Yearly Rate
4,600
418
8.7
0.8
37
3
0.1
0.01
13
Figure 5: Forest change map 2000 – 2011
14
Figure 6: Area of forest change in the Western Area Peninsula
area of forest change
25,00
20,09
20,00
area in km²
MHF00 to Other11
14,87
SF00 to Other 11
15,00
CHF00 to Other11
10,00
9,14
MHF00 to SHRB11
MHF00 to SF11
5,00
CHF00 to SHRB11
1,62
0,28
0,01
0,11
0,25
0,01
0,00
CHF00 to SF11
Shrb00 to SF11
SF
00
M
HF
00
to
Ot
he
r1
to
1
O
CH
th
F0
er
0t
11
oO
M
th
HF
er
00
11
to
SH
M
RB
HF
11
00
to
CH
SF
F0
11
0t
oS
HR
CH
B1
F0
1
0t
CH
oS
F0
F1
0t
1
oM
HF
Sh
rb
11
00
to
SF
11
CHF00 to MHF11
According to Congalton (1991) & Foody (2002) the accuracy of the map has been
assessed using a confusion matrix. The overall accuracy is 75.5 %. A high confusion can
be recognized between Cropland (crop) and Shrubland (shrb) which is due to their similar
spectral properties. Furthermore a significant confusion exists between secondary forest
(SF), shrub and other land (other).
Our change detection approach used a consistent methodology and different images from
3 time intervals. During further project development, one can build on this work which
aimed to make an initial assessment. However, the accuracy has to be increased through
the incorporation of field measurements and use of very high resolution imagery.
Besides, the reference area has to be increased, i.e. a wider area has to be covered by
the digital change analysis. The specific requirements are detailed in the proposed
approved VCS methodology which was not available at the start of the scoping study.
4.3
Aboveground biomass and carbon stocks
The analysis of the Saatchi map indicated that the mean Aboveground Biomass (AGB)
density of the class Closed Forest in the WAPFOR area was equal to 166 t/ha. This values
is in line with the average forest ABG density reported by Saatchi et al. (2011) for Sierra
Leone (134 t/ha, considering 30% canopy cover as threshold to define forest areas) and,
most importantly, with the average forest AGB density reported by the FAO Forest
Resource Assessment (FRA) 2010 on the basis of independent national data (136 t/ha).
The FRA 2010 value for Sierra Leone was obtained dividing the 2010 country AGB stock
(371 million tons) by the corresponding forest area (2.7 million ha) (FAO, 2010).
Therefore, the value of 166 t/ha was considered a reliable estimate of the AGB density of
the WAPFOR forests and was considered more appropriate than the IPCC Tier 1 value for
15
tropical forests of Africa (equal to 310 t/ha), which refers to undisturbed dense
rainforests and is not applicable to the specific conditions of the study area.
On the basis of the Saatchi map, the AGB was estimated also for the other forest classes
identified in the study area (i.e. Medium Forest and Closed Secondary Forest), and the
analysis reported realistic results (151 and 95 t/ha, respectively). Instead, the AGB
density computed for the non-forest classes (Shrub, Crop, Other and Urban) were
unrealistically high (equal to 124, 84, 79 and 70 t/ha, respectively) due to the high
spatial fragmentation of these classes compared to the coarse resolution of the Saatchi
map. For this reason, appropriate reference values based on the FRA 2010 and the IPCC
Tier 1 values were defined. The AGB reference value for Shrub Land was set equal to 50
t/ha on the basis of the average national AGB density of the class Other Wooded Land
reported by the FRA 2010 (51 t/ha). While this value might overestimate the AGB density
of shrublands in the WAPFOR area due to the human impact in the study area, it was
considered more reliable of the IPCC Tier 1 value for forest in tropical shrubland ecozone
(70 t/ha), which was used by Reusch & Gibbs (2007) as reference value for tropical
shrublands (no IPCC tier 1 value are specifically reported for Shrubland) and was found
excessively high in other case studies (Avitabile et al., 2011). The AGB reference values
for Cropland and Other Land were set to 5 t/ha, with this value being the half of the IPCC
Tier 1 value for these areas (10 t/ha) to take into account the tendency of the IPCC
values to overestimate AGB density in the study area.
The C stock values and their standard deviation (where available) were derived on the
basis of the AGB density for each land cover class and are reported in Table 2.
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of AGB and C stock for each Land Cover class
Land Cover type
Closed High Forest
Medium High Forest
Closed Secondary Forest
Mangrove
Shrub
Crop
Other
Urban
4.4
Code
CHF
MHF
CSF
MAN
SHRUB
CROP
OTHER
URBAN
AGB (t/ha)
Mean
St. Dev.
166
46
151
20
95
36
63
38
50
5
5
0
-
C (t/ha)
Mean
St. Dev.
83
22
76
23
48
10
31
18
25
3
3
0
-
Biomass/carbon change in the reference period 2000 – 2010
The carbon stock density values were combined with the analysis on the forest cover
changes to estimate the carbon emissions during the historical period 2000 – 2010. The
emission factors and the carbon emissions are reported below for each change class,
change process and reference region (see Table 3). The carbon emissions are reported as
negative values when the land change acts as a net carbon source and as a positive
value when the land change acts as a net carbon sink.
The results show that the choice of reference region affects considerably the amount of
emissions and that most of them are due to deforestation processes, while the emissions
and absorptions due to degradation and restoration processes are almost negligible in
comparison with the total values. Again, with the used Landsat satellite images, it is
difficult to detect gradual forest degradation, but the general conclusion that
deforestation is a much higher emission source than degradation certainly holds true. For
16
the monitoring of degradation, field measurement and the use of very high resolution
images or orthophotos is recommended.
These results depend largely on the emission factors identified on the basis of the
biomass density per land cover class. While the values used in the present analysis can
be considered as best estimates available in the literature, the acquisition of field data in
the study region is required for a more accurate quantification of the carbon stocks and
emissions occurred during the reference period. It is thus strongly recommended to
conduct a carbon inventory using a sound scientific approach as described in the
proposed VCS methodology.
Table 3: The emission factors and the C emissions for each land change class, change
process and reference region
Change
process
Change class
Deforestation
CHF -> SHRUB
-65
Degradation
Restoration
Emission
Factors
(t/ha)
C Stock Change (t) 2000 – 2010
New
Forest
Boundary
-1,601
SPOT
Boundary
Old Forest
Boundary
-1,625
-2,837
Peninsula
-10,619
CHF -> OTHER
-80
-29
-36
-514
-2,236
MHF -> SHRUB
-58
-4,808
-4,777
-19,222
-116,530
MHF -> OTHER
-73
-1,202
-650
-13,555
-66,744
MSF -> OTHER
-45
-1,201
-1,684
-8,799
-67,012
CHF -> MHF
-7
-53
-17
-80
-186
CHF -> MSF
-35
-38
-41
-60
-394
MHF -> MSF
-28
-8
-5
-8
-15
SHRUB -> MSF
30
0
0
3
19
15
867
508
1,048
3,175
-8,074
-8,328
-44,025
-260,542
-29,603
-30,535
-161,424
-955,322
OTHER ->
SHRUB
Total C emissions
Total CO2 emissions
17
5. Project Idea Note
5.1 General project description, objectives and type of project
Title of the project: Western Area Peninsula Avoided Deforestation Project
The project objective is to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in the
Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve, mainly through
•
Increasing the protection status from a non-hunting forest reserve to a National
Park and a World Heritage Site
•
Setting-up an
administration
•
Improved patrolling and law enforcement
•
Eradicating urban sprawl and encroachment into the forest reserve
•
Supporting alternative income-generating activities for rural communities living
along the boundaries
•
Setting-up payment for environmental service schemes, especially for climate
mitigation and water supply
•
Offering recreational, educational and tourism activities for international and
domestic visitors in the area
•
Promoting offset and sponsoring programs for the private sector
effective,
financially
autonomous
park
management
and
The proposed project type is a REDD project, more specifically an avoided deforestation
project. Main reasons for proposing an avoided deforestation project are:
•
Deforestation by urban expansion is the major driver of deforestation and
degradation as well as carbon emission source.
•
Degradation has caused limited carbon emission in the Western Area Peninsula as
shown by our land use change analysis, although we acknowledge that Landsat
images are not appropriate for detecting gradual degradation, just changes in
broad forest types (e.g. transition from a closed to an open forest).
•
Degradation is difficult and expensive to monitor, and requires technical skills
which are currently not readily available in Sierra Leone. Additional investments
into very high resolution remote sensing imagery as well as more expert time for
the remote sensing analysis and monitoring of permanent sample plots would be
needed.
•
As a result, it seems unlikely that the incremental benefits from the verified
avoided degradation will outweigh the additional costs for monitoring degradation.
•
There is an approved VCS methodology for unplanned avoided deforestation
available which could be readily used by the project.
The proposed project area will be the newly proposed forest boundary of 2011 which has
already been approved by the Cabinet. It covers 17,928 ha, of which about 15,600 ha
have been classified as forest by the remote sensing analysis. It includes WAPFOR core
area, Leicester Peak Extension, John Obay Ext., Kent Ext. and Banana Islands (Dublin,
Mes Meheux and Ricketts).
18
The area is suitable/eligible for a REDD project, since it is still covered with intact natural
Upper Guinean Rainforests (longer than 10 years), has high carbon stocks especially in
the core zone and is under high threat of deforestation through urban expansion being
located so close to the capital Freetown. The area can relative easily be managed since it
is quickly accessible from Freetown and has a modest size. It receives high attention
from policy makers, especially since it has an important watershed function for Freetown,
therefore the conservation prospects are quite good, provided political will remains
exalted.
The project will be one of the first kinds in Sierra Leone. The project is special as it is
located in natural forest close to the capital, providing important environmental services
to the urban/peri-urban population (estimated at roughly 2 million people) in Freetown.
If the forest disappears, it will have disastrous effects for the growing urban population:
flooding, landslides, loss of drinking water, less shade, increased temperatures and loss
of recreational opportunities can be expected.
The project will introduce a number of innovations, being located in an urban/peri-urban
environment, including exploring ways to check urban expansion, develop potentials for
PES schemes (water, carbon), use for recreation, ecotourism and environmental
education etc.
WAPFOR currently receives ODA funding for conservation from the EC which will phase
out in 2014. Apart from future carbon finance opportunities, there are no economic
drivers of the project. Environmental services of the forest (incl. water) are presently
provided free-of-charge.
There is no special sophisticated technology which will have to be introduced. Basically,
we rely on already existing, appropriate technologies adapted to national circumstances.
Forest monitoring will be based on widely applied remote sensing data (Landsat Data) in
combination with terrestrial forest inventory.
5.2
Suggested crediting life time and schedule of project
The proposed project duration and crediting life time is 20 years.
According to our preliminary estimations, it will take until mid of 2013 until the project is
operational. An anticipated project start with the beginning of 2014 seems however more
realistically, having the local context and uncertainties in mind.
Table 4: Estimate of time required before becoming operational after approval of the PIN
Months needed
Month from now
6
June 2012
3-6
Sep 2012
6-12
Dec 2012
Time required for legal matters
12
Dec 2012
Time required for negotiations
12
Dec 2012
6
June 2013
Time required for PDD writing
Time required for validation
Time required
commitments
for
financial
Time
required
establishment
for
Earliest project start date
July 2013
Note: We assume that some of the activities can be done in parallel.
19
5.3
Project participants, major stakeholders and proposed
implementation arrangements
5.3.1 Project proponent and management body
WAPFOR is exclusively located on state land7, therefore the Government of Sierra Leone
shall resume the responsibility as project proponent. Currently, the Forestry Division (FD)
within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) is in charge of the
management and conservation of all protected areas in Sierra Leone. However, the
establishment of a national park authority is presently under consideration. An
autonomous park administration could be made up of various interests by registering a
legal institution (e.g.: company limited by guarantee) which is directed by a board made
up of representatives of various interest groups (e.g.: MAFFS, Western Area Rural District
Council, ENFORAC, WELTHUNGERHILFE). This legal institution would be regulated by
MAFFS.
This step will be critical in order to allow the reserve to retain any income from carbon
certificates (and other income sources) in order to finance its management. International
experiences have shown that most effective management dependent revenue streams in
protected areas will seize and fail if the income is not retained by the protected area
itself. Therefore, any income must be primarily used to finance the effective management
of the area until income levels might surpass effective management costs.
It is critical to note in this regard, that potential income from carbon certificates does not
necessarily cover the whole cost of effective management of the area in question and
that this income stream should be regarded as a diversified income stream amongst
others (e.g.: other income from ecosystem services provided by the area, such as
drinking water, electricity production, or direct income sources from tourism concessions,
etc.). Therefore, an autonomous park administration that can retain and use its own
income does still require a budget allocation from central government coffers as long as
income does not surpass the cost of effective management.
The fairly complex nature of the project requires various management skills and special
expertise. In this regard, an autonomous park administration is more flexible in terms of
adaptive management, decision-making and recruitment of qualified and motivated staff.
5.3.2 Project partners and stakeholders
Welthungerhilfe is currently co-funding and implementing the conservation project in
WAPFOR. WELTHUNGERHILFE could serve as implementing partner and may provide
international and national project staff. It may also contribute to the financing of the
project.
Environmental Forum for Action (ENFORAC) is currently the local partner of
WELTHUNGERHILFE/FD and may also become involved as local NGO partner in some of
the project activities. It is an umbrella organization of local environmental NGOs
representing the civil society.
The Western Area Rural District Council (WARDD) and local communities (such as River
No. 2) could be an implementing partner as well, particularly as it relates to alternative
income generating activities in the buffer zone, but also in reporting and checking illegal
activities in the reserve.
7
In contrast to most other protected areas in Sierra Leone which include or are located in customary land.
20
Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) and the Ministry of Land, Country
Planning & Environment (MLCPE) are important government institutions whose support is
pivotal to combat encroachment in the Reserve and land speculation. Police, military and
the Office for National Security as well as courts have to play their role in improving
forest governance and law enforcement.
ÖBf AG is a state forest organization managing all state forests and two national parks in
Austria. ÖBf Consulting is a dedicated unit managing international projects. It is ready to
provide project development and consultancy services for the project. It may assist in
setting-up internal monitoring and quality control procedures, and prepare for and
manage external validations and verifications.
The European Commission (EC) is a key development partner presently financing the
project, and may be interested to continue its support post-2015.
5.4
Proposed activities
Avoiding deforestation and forest degradation in WAPFOR will require measures targeting
the protected area itself as well as the legal framework in which the national protected
areas system is currently embedded.
The setting-up of an autonomous park administration, enabled to retain income derived
from the protected area, will be crucial for the success for the project. This might require
the adaptation of the current legal framework in Sierra Leone. Currently there are efforts
being made to “upgrade” the protection status of WAPFOR to a National Park. Although
the main management objective is already the conservation of biodiversity, the new
categorization is assumed to cement the legal status of the protected area further and
also foster higher political will to effectively conserve WAPFOR to continue to provide vital
ecosystem services to the capital of the nation. This process has already started on a
technical level within MAFFS but still needs to be decided-upon on a political level.
In parallel to the activity above WAPFOR currently pursues to be registered and
nominated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. This would be the first nomination in
Sierra Leone and it is expected that the status would be an important step in the
recognition of WAPFOR as a unique ecosystem raising national and international
awareness. The process of entering the tentative list was initiated but no submission to
UNESCO has been made yet.
Effective protected area management of WAPFOR will be necessary to reduce and avoid
any further encroachment and deforestation in the area. Necessary infrastructure, such
as headquarters and a number of outposts need to be established, the boundary of the
reserve has to be clearly demarcated and effective law enforcement needs to be initiated.
In the same vein it will be critical to step-up the human resource base and recruit
sufficient and well-motivated staff members and initiate a training programme. Training
and capacity building measures will be crucial to raise management effectiveness.
Raising the environmental awareness and sensitization of the general public, with a
special focus on the youth will be a central activity pursued in order to raise the
awareness on the value of WAPFOR for the sustainable economic development of the
peninsula in terms of its watershed and forests.
Alternative livelihood and income generating activities will be pursued to reduce current
pressures on WAPFOR especially in the rural areas of the peninsula. Sustainable energy
supply from renewable resources will play a role and further investigation will have to be
made which mix of energy sources (e.g.: solar-voltaic, hydro-electric, biomass, etc.) as
well as energy saving technologies are suitable to be applied in the local context.
21
Alternative income generating activities and employment can be supported by fostering
community based tourism development as well as assistance to the tourism sector
though marketing efforts. Agroforestry systems and planting of fast-growing tree species
shall be supported in the buffer zones around the reserve in the peri-urban and rural
areas.
5.5
Additionality
Realistic and credible land-use scenarios identified are the following:
1. Continuation of the pre-project land use, i.e. continuation as a non-hunting forest
reserve that is inadequately protected from encroachment and subject to various
forms of exploitation. The law is not enforced, many people use the opportunity to
free-ride and gain personal benefits. Politicians are tempted to shy away from the
issue, as stopping urban encroachment may spark civil unrest due to the lack of
sufficient land for housing. The ongoing WAPFOR project attempts to stop the
deforestation and degradation in the reserve. Despite some undeniable success,
the project is not yet in the position to eradicate DD in the reserve. Moreover,
funding will phase out in 2014, which means that there is a large risk that project
achievements cannot be sustained.
2. Project activity on the land within the project boundary performed without being
registered as a VCS AFOLU project, i.e. the WAPFOR project would enter into a
consecutive phase or be succeeded by a similar project with external funding, yet
without getting funding from the voluntary carbon market.
There are a number of ways of proofing project additionality8, namely investment
analysis9, barrier analysis and common practice. It is quite obvious that the project
activity (conservation) requires a budget for management and law enforcement and has
itself very limited revenue potential, therefore it is not the economically most
advantageous land use option for the area. At present, funding for conservation heavily
relies on external donor funding. As a result the project will not be implemented without
getting payments from carbon revenues.
On top of that, there are a number of barriers for the project, e.g.
•
very limited GoSL financial resources for conservation
•
lack of educated and motivated staff
•
lack of basic infrastructure and equipment
•
lack of proper law enforcement
•
risks related to changes in government policies
•
demographic pressure on the land by the growing urban population
•
social conflicts among interest groups in the region
•
widespread illegal practices
•
possibility of giving out mining concessions
8
Additionality of a proposed project must be demonstrated using the most recent VCS-approved “Tool for the
Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality in VCS AFOLU Project Activities”.
9
Investment analysis will have to determine that the proposed project activity is not the most economically or
financially attractive of the identified land use scenarios.
22
•
improved access to the reserve caused by the construction of a new paved road
along the Western boundary of the reserve may lead to increased encroachment
According to our judgment, these identified barriers would prevent potential project
proponent(s) from carrying out the proposed project activity if it was not expected to be
registered as a carbon project. There are sufficient grounds for demonstration of
additionality of the project.
5.6
Baseline deforestation and carbon emissions
5.6.1 Drivers and agents of deforestation and degradation
At present, there are a number of different agents and drivers that cause deforestation
and degradation of the WAPFOR. Main agents are urban developers, land speculators,
construction and mining companies, illegal loggers and fuelwood producers, stone miners
and fish smokers. The most serious driver of deforestation is urban land expansion and
encroachment into the reserve. Shifting cultivation, marihuana farming, stone quarrying,
illegal logging, fuelwood extraction, and charcoal production are of secondary importance
as deforestation drivers and mainly contribute to degradation.
The type of deforestation can be characterized as unplanned deforestation and
degradation in the form of frontier deforestation. Historically, urban land expansion due
to urban dweller encroachment into forest has particularly taken place at the Northern
(Freetown) and Eastern part (Waterloo) of the Reserve, but there are also unofficial and
illegitimate “plans” to open new plots in western side. Since other agents and drivers are
of minor importance and degradation is deemed negligible, it is recommended developing
an avoided unplanned deforestation (AUD) project with urban dwellers as major agents
and urban land expansion as major driver of deforestation.
Figure 7: Urban encroachment into the WAPFOR
23
Important underlying causes for DD in the reserve are urban expansion, population
growth, rural-urban migration, poor governance, corruption, lack of law enforcement,
conflicting mandates and weak inter-sectoral cooperation and last but not least
widespread poverty.
In the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario, deforestation will continue to happen since
many people benefit in the short-term from free-riding. Mere conservation of the reserve
is just too costly and will provide limited monetary benefits in the short-term. The longterm benefits for future generations (watershed protection, climate mitigation) are not
fully recognized and are often immaterial.
At the moment and in the foreseeable future, the GoSL does not dispose over the human
and financial resources to combat deforestation in the Reserve and to introduce effective
protected area management. Without the project intervention, the most likely trajectory
for forests in the project area is a further increase of the deforestation rate which will
level off only once the suitable areas have been cleared, for the following reasons:
•
Increasing population growth and rural-urban migration will further increase
pressure on WAPFoR
•
The demand for low-cost as well as luxury housing in the forested hills (with
ocean views) of the rapidly growing capital will increase
•
Land speculation will remain unabated, as it provides high profit margins for
corrupt government officials and the urban elite
•
Unemployed youth will look for casual jobs, e.g. in charcoal production, logging,
petty stone mining, cultivation of marihuana
•
Landless will try to secure plots (land grabbing), as they have no other choice and
means of living
•
Construction of a paved road around the peninsula improves access to the forest
and facilitates daily commuting for the growing middle and higher classes.
•
The demand for construction materials will further increase, stone and other
mining activities will continue to expand
•
Poorly paid forestry officials and forest guards continue to have low job morale
and insufficient power and resources to effectively combat deforestation.
•
Adjacent communities do not consider the forest as their own instead they feel
alienated by the state. While they are supposed to help to curb deforestation,
they do not get any direct benefits, which will cause further frustration and
neglect.
•
Environmental awareness and interest in conservation remains low, as long as
people thrive to satisfy their basic needs.
24
5.6.2 Historical and projected baseline deforestation
The preliminary analysis has used the peninsula as reference area which covers 1.4 times
the project (forest) area10. In the reference area, the historical and estimated BAU urban
land expansion from 2000 to 2011 amount to 240 ha per year on average. Deforestation
is triggered proportionally at 420 ha per year until 2011 which is defined as the starting
point to come up with a range of plausible baseline scenarios for the future. The
scenarios SCE a.2 and SCE b.3 serve as lower and upper bounds of likely deforestation
from the set of baseline scenarios11 (Table 5).
Table 5: Assumptions on projected baselines and with-project activities added on top of
baselines
Baseline
Scenario 1 (SCE a.2)
Scenario 2 (SCE b.3)
Urban expansion
Based on constant population density and projected
increase of Freetown population
Deforestation ascribed to
urban and other
managed land expansion
Remains at a constant rate
over time
Decreasing over time due
to assumed reduction of
non-urban land expansion
into forest (e.g. agricultural
areas)
Deforestation ascribed to
shifts from forest use
towards other
unmanaged land use
There is no trend in using
additional shrubland instead
of forest
Strong shift from forest
conversion towards
additional shrubland use
Law enforcement to
minimize deforestation
from urban and other
managed land expansion
Effective PA management
and buffer zone
development
Effective PA management
and buffer zone
development (extended
budget)
Expanded extension
activities (beyond
business as usual
support to alternative
livelihood activities) and
adapted regulatory
framework to promote
shifts from forest use
towards other
unmanaged land use
There is no additional
activity planned
Effective PA management,
buffer zone development,
enabling policy and
regulatory framework
(extended budget)
With-project
10
According to VCS standards, the historical baseline deforestation rate must be calculated from a reference
area that spans over a multiple of the project area and includes the latter one as well as a leakage belt.
Therefore, during the full design of the project, the reference area will have to be expanded, or the project area
be reduced by excluding core parts of the Reserve which are not threatened by DD.
11
The scenarios are explained in detail in the Annex 5.
25
Figure 8: Historical and projected development of forest and urban land area in reference
area
The projected population growth constitutes 2 % on average from 2012 to 2031 and
triggers urban land expansion of 7,840 ha from 2012 to 2031, which is the underlying
driver for projected deforestation. As a result, the range of projected reference forest
area loss until 2031 spans from 13,130 ha (SCE a.2) to 6,090 ha (SCE b.3) which is 60
% to 28 % of the initial forest area in 2011 respectively.
The projected deforestation rates average at 4.4 % (SCE a.2) and 1.6 % (SCE b.3) per
year from 2012 to 2031. In addition, relative deforestation rates change over time from
2.4 % to 9.2 % per year (SCE a.3) and 2.1 % to 0.8 % per year (SCE b.2) in 2012
compared to 2031. By this means, we contrast an increasing rate versus a diminishing
rate of deforestation associated with pure law enforcement versus the implementation of
successful extension efforts in the rural/urban fringe which complement law enforcement
in forest conservation. The diminishing rate of deforestation is justified because sufficient
unused shrub land is available which serves as the dominant available land pool for
urban land expansion (it covers 65 % of urban expansion from 2005 to 2011).
The range of relative deforestation rates in the reference area are applied to the project
area (see Figure 9).
Figure 9: Projected development of forest land area in project area
26
Results reveal an average absolute deforestation rate of 431 ha and 198 ha per year in
the two extreme scenarios. Compared to the historical deforestation rate of 420 ha per
year in the reference area, the projected deforestation rates constitute conservative
estimates12 on the pressure on the WAPFOR area.
5.6.3 Projected baseline emissions
The results on the net emission paths over time in contrasting scenarios are illustrated in
Figure 10.
Figure 10: Projected carbon emissions in project area
The uncertainty in the expansion of other lands due to population growth as well as the
potential benefits of extension programmes to increase land use intensity and reduce
deforestation rates is large. This is expressed in the emission wedge of 58 % (SCE a.2)
to -72 % (SCE b.3) change in emissions in 2031 compared to 2012 which corresponds to
an average net carbon release of 142,000 CO2e to 65,000 CO2e per year.
5.7
Expected emission mitigation effect of the project
The expected emission mitigation effect of the project is a function of the projected total
net carbon emissions from land use change and the effectiveness in project
implementation (see Figure 11).
12
Conservativeness in estimates of area changes is necessary for the subsequent analysis of the associated
emission mitigation potential by following the principles of UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories.
27
Figure 11: Projected avoided carbon emissions through project activities in project area
The two avoided emission paths develop in the opposite direction which is clearly
depending on the assumption of successful extention programmes in the urban/rural
fringe area in SCE b.3 that aim at improving the attractiveness of (increasingly available)
unused shrub land by increasing agricultural yields for example. The transition phase
from 2012 to 2017 takes low but increasing effectiveness of project activties into account
which raises from 50 % to 90 % within 5 years. In the subsequent time period, 10 % of
projected avoided carbon emissions are actually emitted due to continued though
reduced deforestation activities. All in all, the preliminary findings suggest a mitigation
potential of the project that ranges from 124,000 tCO2e to 57,000 tCO2e per year.
5.8
Leakage
The leakage potential will depend on the driver and/ or agent. Since we propose to focus
on avoided unplanned deforestation, leakage from degradation does not have to be
accounted for.
For urban expansion, very limited leakage can be expected since there are no other
forest areas in the vicinity of Freetown which could be used for encroachment /
settlement. Other undeveloped hilly forest areas with ocean view just do not exist on the
Western Area Peninsula. Urban people and rural-urban migrants will either have to
construct their houses on already cleared land or live in multi-storey apartment houses
which are still rare.
Charcoal burning and firewood exploitation is frequently associated with the clearing for
lands for housing. If not, it is rather small scale causing degradation. Most of the
firewood for Freetown comes already from up-country, therefore leakage would be small.
Clearing for shifting cultivation is mainly done for survival by desperate job-less people
lacking other sources of income. It is assumed that these people would rather go to
Freetown to find casual labour, then returning into rural areas for practicing shifting
cultivation. Considering that less than 4% of the country’s area remains as natural forest,
and most of those natural forests are far away in the South-East, leakage of this project
is negligible.
28
5.9
Non-permanence and other risk
The risk of potential transient and permanent losses in carbon stocks throughout the
project monitoring period and beyond is managed through the withholding of carbon
credits in the AFOLU pooled buffer account. Risk may depend on internal, external and
natural risk factors in sub-categories project management, financial viability and
community engagement (VCS 2011). According to the outcome of the non-permanence
risk assessments, the magnitude of the deposit, release or cancellation of buffer credits
will be determined. The results of a tentative risk analysis using the respective VCS tool13
are briefly summarized in Table 6.
The major outcome of the risk analysis indicates that the project risk (score value 35) is
in line with VCS requirements14. According to the result, 35% of the issued Verified
Carbon Units (VCUs) at project start need to be deposited in the AFOLU pooled buffer
account.
Yet, the scoring needs complementary explanations. The scores for project management
as internal risk are justified under the assumption of a transition phase of project
effectiveness at project start, i.e. the increase in performance of carbon emission
mitigation due to adapted national park management and enforcement staff training. The
opportunity cost score is appropriate because the administrative decision making process
on the strict conservation status of the forest (national park) has been finished already
and there is no competition for land in alternative land use types de jure. The project
longevity score is based on the conservative assumption of a minimum longevity of 30
years. The community engagement criterion is of limited applicability because expert
judgment suggests limited reliance of rural households on the project area. However, for
the sake of conservativeness, we assume a score value of 5. It has been identified that
the gathering of woodfuel is not the main driver for contemporary deforestation. An
expert guess conservatively defines the political risk of project failure to be very high due
to corruption, which is expressed by the highest possible risk score value.
13 VCS’s AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool, v3.0 (VCS 2011)
14
According to VCS, the maximum allowed overall risk rating is 60% and the maximum scores of three risk
factors (internal risk, external risk, natural risk) are 35%, 20%, and 35% respectively.
29
Table 6: Identified risk factors and scoring results
Risk
factor
Internal
risk
Subcategory
Indicator adopted from VCS (2001)
Risk
rating
score
Ongoing enforcement to prevent encroachment by
outside actors is required to protect more than 50%
of stocks on which GHG credits have previously
been issued.
2%
Management team does not include individuals with
significant experience in all skills necessary to
successfully undertake all project activities
2%
Mitigation: Adaptive management plan in place
-2%
Project cash flow breakeven point is less than 4
years from the current risk assessment
0%
Project has secured less than 15% of funding
needed to cover the total cash out before the
project reaches breakeven
3%
Opportunity cost
NPV from the most profitable alternative land use
activity is expected to be between 20% more than
and up to 20% less than from project activities
0%
Project
longevity
With legal agreement or requirement to continue
the management practice
15%
Project
management
Financial
viability
Subtotal
External
risk
20%
Land
tenure
Ownership and resource access/use rights are held
by different entity(s)
2%
Communit
y engagement
Less than 50 percent of households living within the
project area who are reliant on the project area, have
been consulted
5%
Political
risk
Governance score of less than -0.79
6%
Subtotal
Natural
risk
Subtotal
Total
13%
Drought
Minor significance with 5% to less than 25%,
Likelihood of every 10 to less than 25 years
2%
2%
35%
30
5.10
Carbon revenue distribution and incentive systems
At present, the ownership of carbon generated by land-based projects is not regulated in
Sierra Leone. However, since the entire area of WAPFOR is state-owned and there are no
significant disputes over land tenure, the GoSL is likely to become the only legal owner of
carbon credits. The responsibility for forest carbon and REDD+ currently rests with
FD/MAFFS. If a park management authority is established, it may become the
organisation in charge.
To make enforcement efforts more successful complementary extension activities in the
rural/urban fringe area require part of the revenues to be distributed to reduce secondary
drivers of deforestation. This could range from comprehensive agricultural training,
improved seed, fertilizer programmes as well as agroforestry extension and build-up of
tree nurseries to tackle the provision of woodfuel and improve livelihoods of forestdepending communities. The purpose of doing so is to spread the portfolio of protection
activities to achieve the envisioned minimum share of project effectiveness and invest in
the longevity of forest conservation beyond the duration of the carbon project. The
Western Area Rural District Council and villages would be important stakeholders which
may require some compensation for their contribution to conservation of the Reserve.
Compensation for foregone benefits is not required in the case of illegal urban expansion
and other illegal activities in the reserve.
Implementing partners such as NGOs, CBOs and project developer may get part of the
share for the services provided.
The benefit sharing mechanism including the unambiguous identification of beneficiaries
and the distribution of generated net revenues has still to be discussed.
5.11
Expected socio-economic and environmental impacts
The project impact will be clearly beneficial in terms of environmental co-benefits, such
as the provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. The forest reserve
constitutes the major part of the watershed of the peninsula, providing a population of
roughly two million people with clean drinking water and protecting urban areas from
flash floods and landslides. Two dams (Guma Valley and Congo Dams) supplying drinking
water to the capital are situated in the heart of the reserve, directly dependent on the
forest reserve.
WAPFOR is habitat to an outstanding biodiversity as the westernmost area of closed
canopy forest of the upper Guinean Forest Block. Several IUCN Red List species occur in
the reserve, such as a small population of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as well as an
endemic toad (Cardioglossus aureolli). By lowering the deforestation rate, the project will
make a direct contribution to biodiversity conservation by effectively conserving one of
the last remnants of the upper Guinean Forest Block at sea level.
The landscape value provides an unique scenery of forested hills reaching down to
splendid sand beaches.
The project will have positive socio-economic impacts by providing opportunities for
recreation and environmental education as well as research for a growing urban
population. Before the civil war, the beaches of the Western Area Peninsula have been
well developed to cater for tourism. By keeping the forested hills intact, the beaches will
retain their attractiveness for a growing tourism industry.
31
An overall increase in formal and informal employment opportunities can be expected
through direct opportunities given by the project (e.g.: park staff) as well as through a
growing tourism industry (e.g.: tourist guides, hospitality services).
A negative impact on customary tenure rights is expected to be minimal since the area is
state land and customary land rights have been compensated before the return of the
slaves to Freetown and the Western Area Peninsula. Furthermore, there are no forestdependent people living in the reserve who make a direct living from the reserve, only
some forest-adjacent villages use fuel wood.
However, it is yet acknowledged that some people may lose from the increased
protection of WAPFOR, but most of them are engaged in illegal activities.
•
Some people are involved in illegal logging, firewood and charcoal production
•
Some people practice shifting cultivation in the reserve
•
Fish smoking in Tombo is currently done with firewood from the reserve
•
Some households are involved in the sale of firewood, to generate cash income
It is thus the aim to involve the local population in alternative income generating
activities and the current project has gained significant experience in supporting
sustainable development measures.
5.12
Results of preliminary financial analysis
5.12.1 Estimated carbon price trend
Observed average forest carbon prices in the Over-The-Counter (OTC) voluntary carbon
markets range from 4 US$ per tCO2e to more than 15 US$ per tCO2e according to
different standards (Ecosystem Marketplace 2011). However, the higher prices are paid
for projects following standards (CarbonFix, ISO-14064, PlanVivo) which hold small
market shares and are not yet applied to large-scale projects with hundreds of thousands
of tonnes avoided carbon emissions per year (Ecosystem Marketplace 2011). The
average volume-weighted price was 5.6 US$ per tCO2e in 2010 which indicates an annual
price increase from 2007 to 2010 by 11 % (calculated from Ecosystem Marketplace
2011, Ecosystem Marketplace 2007).
However, there are major uncertainties in recognising a clear price trend for the future.
These are comprised as a) statistical uncertainty due to the short time series of price
data to come up with statistical methods on extrapolated prices, b) demand-sided
uncertainty due to the uncertain post-2012 climate regime and the role of forest carbon
credits in compliance markets, c) supply-sided uncertainty regarding the future market
share of recognized standards to ensure credible emission mitigation and the steady
generation of carbon credits.
In compliance with the principle of conservativeness and as synthesis of the historical
forest carbon price magnitude and development the default carbon price magnitude and
trend is defined as follows.
•
First, forest carbon prices in the OTC markets from 2012 to 2031 base on the
average price level of 2010 (approximately 5 US$ per tCO2e) and real price
increase is not projected though inflation is assumed to be compensated, which is
the most conservative estimate of the carbon price trend to calculate an expected
lower boundary of potential revenues.
32
•
Second, price levels of 10 and 15 US$ per tCO2e are assumed in 2012 and real
price increase until 2031 is not projected.
5.12.2 Expected revenues, costs and cash flow
Preliminary expected revenues are the product of the with-project mitigated carbon
emissions compared to baseline scenarios and the forest carbon prices in different price
scenarios.
The costs estimates comprise all relevant cost types from project start up to the training
of staff and purchase of necessary equipment for national park management throughout
project lifetime (see Table 7). In addition, Table 8 includes estimates on further costs for
extension measures in the rural/urban fringe area. While the cost dataset in Table 7 is
used for the profitability calculation for the baseline scenario SCE a.2 (the deforestation
rate is assumed to change in a fixed relation to the urban land expansion over time), the
cost dataset in Table 8 is used for the baseline scenario SCE b.3 (the deforestation rate is
assumed to change in a decreasing relation to the urban land expansion over time). At
project start up, costs accrue for the refined project design document to obtain approval
by relevant authorities and the project marketing.
Due to the multitude of possible scenario combinations (six baseline scenarios times six
price scenarios) only the two most contrasting baseline scenarios are finally depicted
under the assumption that real forest carbon prices do not increase (see Table 9).
33
Proposal: REDD+ Scoping Study for the Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve
Table 7: Project cost types and expected discounted costs for pure law enforcement in WAPFOR area
Cost type
Total start-up costs
Expected discounted costs from 2012 to 2031 [1000 US$]
y2012 y2013 y2014 y2015 y2016 y2017 y2018 y2019 y2020 y2021 y2022 y2023 y2024 y2025 y2026 y2027 y2028 y2029 y2030 y2031
250
Staff salaries
74
67
62
57
53
49
46
44
41
39
37
35
34
32
31
30
29
27
26
26
Maintenance and operations
59
54
49
46
42
40
37
35
33
31
30
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
Capital replacement cost
41
37
34
31
29
27
25
24
23
21
20
19
19
18
17
16
16
15
15
14
Law enforcement operations
25
23
21
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
Support to alternative
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Awareness raising
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
60
55
50
46
43
40
38
35
33
32
30
29
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
21
Technical assistance
108
98
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total annual costs
383
348
319
211
196
183
172
161
153
144
137
131
125
119
114
110
106
102
98
95
Total costs of project investment
633
348
319
211
196
183
172
161
153
144
137
131
125
119
114
110
106
102
98
95
Carbon monitoring and verification
Table 8: Project cost types and expected discounted costs for law enforcement and extension efforts in WAPFOR area
Cost type
Total start-up costs
Staff salaries
Expected discounted costs from 2012 to 2031 [1000 US$]
250
120
109
100
92
85
80
75
70
66
63
60
57
54
52
50
48
46
44
43
41
Maintenance and operations
96
88
80
74
69
64
60
57
54
51
48
46
44
42
40
39
37
36
34
33
Capital replacement cost
59
54
50
46
42
40
37
35
33
31
30
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
21
Law enforcement operations
28
26
24
22
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
Training and capacity building
21
19
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
Support to other livelihood activities
17
15
14
13
12
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
20
18
17
15
14
13
13
12
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
21
Awareness raising
Enabling regulatory framework
Carbon monitoring and verification
60
55
50
46
43
40
38
35
33
32
30
29
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
Technical assistance
108
98
90
83
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total annual costs
538
489
448
413
384
286
268
253
239
226
215
205
195
187
179
172
165
159
153
148
Total costs of project investment
788
489
448
413
384
286
268
253
239
226
215
205
195
187
179
172
165
159
153
148
34
Proposal: REDD+ Scoping Study for the Western Area Peninsula Forest Reserve
Table 9: Expected discounted revenues, costs and profit from project activities in contrasting baseline and carbon price scenarios
Baseline
Carbon
price
Present
value
Expected discounted revenues, costs and profit from 2012 to 2031 [1000 US$]
[US$ per
tCO2e]
[1000
US$]
flow of discounted revenues (cash in)
SCE a.2
5
6.412
262
288
314
339
360
381
367
356
346
337
329
322
316
311
306
302
298
295
293
SCE a.2
10
12.825
524
576
627
678
720
761
735
712
692
674
658
644
632
621
612
604
597
591
586
582
SCE a.2
15
19.237
786
863
941
987
966
948
932
918
906
895
886
879
873
SCE b.3
5
3.395
254
262
269
272
270
267
240
215
194
174
156
140
125
112
100
88
78
68
59
51
SCE b.3
10
6.790
507
525
537
544
540
533
479
431
388
348
313
280
251
224
199
176
155
136
119
103
SCE b.3
15
10.185
761
787
806
817
811
800
719
646
581
523
469
421
376
336
299
264
233
204
178
154
1.017 1.080 1.142 1.102 1.068 1.037 1.011
291
flow of discounted costs (cash out)
SCE a.2
5
SCE a.2
10
SCE a.2
15
4.183
633
SCE b.3
5
7.383
788
SCE b.3
10
SCE b.3
15
4.183
4.183
7.383
7.383
633
633
788
788
587
211
196
183
172
161
153
144
137
131
125
119
114
110
106
102
98
95
587
211
196
183
172
161
153
144
137
131
125
119
114
110
106
102
98
95
608
587
211
196
183
172
161
153
144
137
131
125
119
114
110
106
102
98
95
930
898
870
847
286
268
253
239
226
215
205
195
187
179
172
165
159
153
148
898
870
847
286
268
253
239
226
215
205
195
187
179
172
165
159
153
148
898
870
847
286
268
253
239
226
215
205
195
187
179
172
165
159
153
148
608
608
930
930
flow of discounted profit
SCE a.2
5
2.229
-371
-320
-273
128
164
198
196
194
193
192
192
191
191
191
192
192
193
194
195
196
SCE a.2
10
8.641
-109
-32
40
467
524
578
563
550
539
529
521
514
507
502
498
494
491
489
488
487
SCE a.2
15
354
806
884
959
931
906
885
866
850
836
823
813
803
796
789
784
781
778
SCE b.3
5
-629
-598
-577
-20
-29
-37
-45
-52
-58
-64
-70
-75
-79
-84
-87
-91
-94
-97
SCE b.3
10
-361
-326
-306
247
211
178
149
122
98
76
56
37
20
4
-10
-23
-35
-46
SCE b.3
15
-92
-54
-36
514
450
394
343
296
254
216
181
149
120
93
68
45
25
6
15.054
-3.988
-593
2.802
153
-534
-280
-26
256
-668
-406
-143
35
The present values of profits are converted to annuity values which indicate the equal
periodic, here annual income flow from project investment (see Figure 12).
Figure 12: Annual profits from project activities in contrasting baseline and carbon price
scenarios
Annuity results indicate that without any extension efforts with steady encroachment into
forest in the baseline (SCE a.2) the project investment is financially feasible even if the
real forest carbon price does exceed 5 US$ per tCO2e until 2031. However, from a
sustainability and project longevity perspective, pure law enforcement is hardly to be
achieved after the project quits, as the major source of funding vanishes. However, this
implicates that a project that is supposed to be successfully registered under VCS
standard by passing the refined risk analysis needs to take extension into account. As
very conservative assumptions in the baseline emissions, carbon price scenarios and
costs of law enforcement plus extension have been applied, it is likely that the infeasible
scenarios SCE b.3 5US$ and SCE b.3 10US$ turn positive.
5.12.3 Buffer withholding
The VCS developed a methodology on how to determine the number of buffer credits to
cope with different degrees of risk which is derived from the risk analysis (VCS 2011).
Preliminary results indicate an overall risk rating of 35 which translates into 35 % of
buffer credits to be deposited in the AFOLU buffer account. Accordingly there is a range
of 92,000 US$ to 619,000 US$ which needs to be deposited in the buffer account for SCE
a.2, and analogously 115,000 US$ for SCE b.3 15US$.
36
5.12.4 Sensitivity results
The sensitivity of profitability to changes in discount rates and expected price increase is
analysed by intuitively varying the default discount rate to 15 % and changing the annual
price increase to 1 % and 2 % from 2012 to 2031 (see Table 10).
Table 10: Sensitivity of profitability to changes in discount rate and carbon price increase
Baseline
Carbon
price
[US$
per
tCO2e]
Annual profit [1000 US$]
Discount rate 10 %
Discount rate 15 %
Price
increase
0%
(default)
Price
increase
1%
Price
increase
2%
Price
increase
0%
Price
increase
1%
Price
increase
2%
SCE a.2
5
262
396
591
253
398
605
SCE a.2
10
1.015
1.420
2.076
1.101
1.534
2.232
SCE a.2
15
1.768
2.504
3.782
1.948
2.736
4.092
SCE b.3
5
-468
-418
-349
-599
-544
-468
SCE b.3
10
-70
82
309
-135
30
276
SCE b.3
15
329
604
1.039
328
628
1.099
Five major results are derived from the sensitivity analysis.
First, the sign of results in different baseline scenarios and carbon price levels does
change, i.e. the financially infeasible SCE b.3 5US$ remains infeasible, others remain
feasible with the exception of SCE b.3 10US$ where the project becomes feasible at 1 %
price increase independent of the discount rate.
Second, the impact of an increased discount rate is expressed as a decrease in
profitability in SCE b.3 5US$ and SCE b.3 10US$ which is due to the stronger weighting
of negative profits, i.e. financial losses, in the far future. In general, the magnitude of
impact is less than the one of carbon price increase over time.
Third, changes in the carbon price increase over time have significant impact on profits in
SCE a.2 but to a lesser extent in SCE b.3. Increasing carbon prices over-compensate
decreasing emission mitigation benefits in SCE b.3 over time, which leads to the
projected increase in profitability in SCE b.3. However, the future revenues in SCE a.2
increase stronger in absolute terms than in SCE b.3 because the emission mitigation
benefits and carbon prices increase over time.
Fourth, the magnitude of carbon price increase effects in both of the scenarios is
dampened since far distant revenues are (geometrically) less weighted compared to near
future revenues, where the carbon price increase effect is less.
Fifth, the impact of relative carbon price increases over time is the stronger the higher
initial carbon prices at project start are, because of the compound interest effect. In
addition, there is no real price increase assumed on the cost side for required capital and
labour inputs into the project over time. Thus, the profitability increases with increasing
carbon prices at project start.
37
6 Recommendations on future project development
6.1 Target markets and potential clients
We suggest developing a REDD carbon project using the most respected and widely used
standard, namely the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), possibly complemented by the
Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance Standard (CCBS) for social and
environmental issues.
A REDD+ project for the compliance market is currently not recommended, since the
international rules are still not finalized and the policy, legal and institutional framework
for REDD+ has not yet been established in Sierra Leone. In international comparison, the
readiness for REDD is low in Sierra Leone.
6.2 Carbon project development and implementation costs
As reference, the range of transaction cost needed for a forest carbon project provided in
the literature and market surveys are provided. These costs are considerable, but may be
reduced if the internal staff can take over at least some of the tasks. For WAPFOR, the
initial feasibility study has been successfully completed, and some data for the PDD has
already been collected.
Table 11: Costs associated with planning and implementation of forest carbon projects
Source: CATIE 2007: Update on Markets for Forestry Offsets
15 USD 0.10 per carbon credits for the first 15,000 carbon credits per year and US$ 0.20 per carbon credit for any carbon
credits above 15,000 carbon credits per year (max USD 350,000). The minimum shown here has been calculated as 15,000
carbon credits per year.
16 Same as the registration fee, but there is no maximum. The minimum shown here has been calculated as
15,000 carbon credits per year. The maximum has been picked to correspond to a project with 2m carbon
credits per year. Any previously paid registration fees are deducted.
Seeberg-Eversfeld (2010) reports comparable costs.
38
6.3 Methodology
It is recommended to using the “Approved VCS Methodology VM0015 (Version 1,
Sectoral Scope 14) for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation” for the following reasons:
•
The proposed project meets all applicability conditions of the methodology
•
The methodology is clearly structured and not too complicated
•
Degradation is difficult to monitor and not a major emission source for WAPFOR,
therefore it can be conservatively excluded
•
It allows to get credits for carbon enhancement in degraded area
•
Methodology allows to build on the results of this prefeasibility analysis
The following working steps are required:
•
Definition of boundaries
•
Analysis of historical land use and land cover change
•
Analysis of agents, drivers and underlying causes of deforestation
•
Projection of future deforestation
•
Definition of the land use and land cover component of the baseline
•
Estimation of baseline carbon stock changes and non-CO2 emissions
•
Ex-ante estimation of actual carbon stock changes in the project area
•
Ex-ante estimation of leakage
•
Ex-ante total net anthropogenic GHG emission reductions
•
Methodology for monitoring and re-validation of baseline
The VCS risk analysis tool provides the procedures for conducting the non-permanence
risk analysis and buffer determination required for Agriculture Forestry and Other Land
Use (AFOLU) projects. The tool sets out the requirements for project proponents,
implementing partners and validation/verification bodies to assess risk and determine the
appropriate risk rating.
Apart from the assessment of natural and internal risks, it requires to assess external
risks such as land and resource tenure, community engagement and political risks.
Community engagement shall be assessed for projects where local populations, including
those living within or surrounding the project area (given as within 20 km of the project
boundary), are reliant on the project area, such as for essential food, fuel, fodder,
medicines or building materials. Evidence may include social assessments such as
household surveys and participatory rural appraisals. Households can be determined as
consulted and involved in participatory planning where there have been direct meetings
and planning with associations or community groups that are legally recognized to
represent the households.
To achieve the mitigation credit, it shall be demonstrated that a participatory assessment
of the positive and negative impacts of the project activities on the local communities
who derive livelihoods from the project area has been completed and demonstrates net
positive benefits on the social and economic well-being of these communities.
Certification against the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) or
SOCIALCARBON Standard may be used to demonstrate that a project satisfies this
39
mitigation requirement. We recommend to go for CCBS certification as well which
however will require additional funds (estimated at about USD 30,000 – 50,000). For
further information, the latest version of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project
Design Standards shall be consulted.
6.4 Outstanding issues from prefeasibility check
Mainly the following issues warrant attention:
•
Define project proponent and implementing partners
•
Get an official document as proof of carbon ownership
•
Lobbying the GoSL for the submission of a forest definition to UNFCCC
40
6.5 Next steps
During the final workshop, the next steps were jointly defined (see Table 12).
Table 12: Schedule for the next steps in project development
What?
Who?
Until When?
Finalize PIN
OBF
Nov 2011
Preparation of Project
Document (incl. baseline
scenario)
WAPFoR/FD/Consultant
Sep 2012
Conduct Validation
Independent, third party
validator
December 2012
Establish A MultiStakeholder Committee (to
facilitate project design)
WAPFoR/FD
Jan 2012
Develop Best Practise
Guidelines
WAPFoR/FD
December 2012
Decide on Project
Implementing
Arrangements
WAPFoR/FD
July 2012
Continue Awareness
Creation about REDD
WAPFoR/FD
continuously
Look for international and
national Investors /Sponsor
WAPFoR/FD
Until successful
Experience sharing among
pilot projects (e.g. with
Gola)
WAPFoR/FD
continuously
Create local awareness
about Payment for
Environmental Services
(PES)
WAPFoR/FD
continuously
Information sharing with
other Countries
WAPFoR/FD
continuously
Submit forest definition to
UNFCCC
GoSL: DNA for CDM, FD,
EPA
Jul 2012
Decide on carbon ownership
and benefit-sharing
arrangements
FD, Local Councils, NGOs,
CBOs, Investor
Sep 2012
41
7 References
Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Henry, M. & Schmullius, C. (2011). Mapping biomass with
remote sensing: a comparison of methods for the case study of Uganda. Carbon
Balance and Management, 6, 7
BREIMAN, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning 45:5 - 32.
CANTY, M. & NIELSEN, A. (2008). Automatic radiometric normalization of
multitemporal satellite imagery with the iteratively re-weighted MAD
transformation. Remote Sensing of Environment 112:1025 – 1036.
CATIE 2007: Update on Markets for Forestry Offsets.
Ecosystem Marketplace (2011): State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011.
http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2963.pdf. 13 November 2011.
Ecosystem Marketplace (2007): State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2007.
http://cbey.research.yale.edu/uploads/File/StateoftheVoluntaryCarbonMarket17Jul
y.pdf. 13 November 2011.
FAO (2010). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010, Country Reports. Sierra Leone.
FRA/2010/189. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al624E/al624e.pdf
FUJISADA, H., BAILEY, G.-B., KELLY, G.-G.,HARA, S., ABRAMS, M.-J. (2005).
ASTER DEM performance. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing
43:2707 – 2714.
IPCC (2003). Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.
ITT, (2010). Transformation Algorithms - ENVI 4.8 Help. ITT, White Plains.
Koroma, D.S.; Turay, A.B.; Moigua, M.B. (2006): Republic of Sierra Leone 2004
Population and Housing Census. Analytical report on the population projection for
Sierra Leone. UNFPA Sierra Leone.
LU, D., MAUSEL, P., BRONDIZIO, E., & MORAN, E. (2004). Change detection
techniques. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25:2365 – 2401.
NIELSEN, A. (2007). The Regularized Iteratively Reweighted MAD Method for Change
Detection in Multi- and Hyperspectral Data. IEEE Transactions on Image
Processing 16:463 – 478.
PEARSON, T., WALKER , S., BROWN, S. (2005). Sourcebook for Land Use, Land-Use
Change and Forestry Projects, Bio Carbon Fund of the World Bank, Washington
DC.
Reusch A. and Gibbs H. K. (2008). New IPCC Tier-1 Global Biomass Carbon Map for
the Year 2000. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
RICHTER, R. (2009). Atmospheric/Topographic Correction for Satellite Imagery – User
Guide. Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft und Raumfahrt (DLR), Wesslingen.
Saatchi, S.S., Harris, N.L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E.T.A., Salas, W.,
Zutta, B.R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S.L., Hagen, S., Petrova, S., White, L.,
Silman, M., & Morel, A. (2011). Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in
tropical regions across three continents. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 108, 9899-9904
42
SCARAMUZZA, P., MICIJEVIC, E., AND CHANDER, G. (2004). SLC-Off Gap-Filled
Products Gap-Fill Algorithm Methodology. Earth Resources Observation and
Science Data Center, Sioux Falls.
Seeberg-Elverfeldt, Christiana (2010): Carbon Finance Possibilities for Agriculture,
Forestry and other Land use projects in a smallholder context. FAO Environment
and Natural Resources Management Working Paper 34.
Terra Global Capital (2010): Approved VCS Methodology VM0006, Version 1.0,
Methodology for Carbon Accounting in Project Activities that Reduce Emissions
from Mosaic Deforestation and Degradation, Sectoral Scope 14, Washington DC.
USGS (2009). Landsat 7 Science Data Users Handbook - Chapter 11 – Data Products,
Sioux Falls.
VCS (2011): AFOLU Non-permanence risk tool, VCS version 3. http://www.v-cs.org/sites/v-c-s.org/files/AFOLU%20NonPermanence%20Risk%20Tool,%20v3.0.pdf. 13 November 2011.
VCS (2011): Approved VCS methodology VM0015 version 1 sectoral scope 14,
methodology for avoided unplanned deforestation.
43
Annex 1: Invitation to tender
44
Annex 2: Presentations
45
Annex 3: Methodology used in the land- and forest-cover change analysis
46
Annex 4: Methodology used for biomass and carbon density estimations
47
Annex 5: Methodology used for baseline projection and financial analyses
48

REDD+ Scoping Study for the Western Area

Transcription

Similar documents

Climate Change solutions in Madagascar: The role of forests

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

What is a REDD + community carbon pool?

Some facts about Biggest Roulette Win In Vegas

Folie 1

Los combustibles fósiles liberan bióxido de carbono al quemarse e

Pasadena Now » Enchanted Physics Forest Sprouting at Kidspace

Forest Management Helps Save Chadron State Park from Fire

What`s Happening at Oak Forest UMC

Retail Leasing Brochure Here