Carbon
+1 1 vote
FACTBOX - Carbon trading schemes around the world
by Reuters News on 11 February 2010, 09:57 AM 0 comments , 184 views
Categories: Reuters News, Factboxes
Feb 11 (Reuters) - Companies and governments are turning to emissions trading as a weapon to fight climate change and join a carbon market worth $136 billion last year.
Carbon markets trade rights to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and are often seen as more politically acceptable than carbon taxes, though some governments struggle to pass enabling laws.
Under cap-and-trade schemes, companies or countries face a carbon limit. If they exceed the limit they can buy allowances from others.
They can also buy carbon offsets from outside projects which avoid greenhouse gas emissions, often from developing countries.
Following is a list of established and proposed schemes:
ESTABLISHED SCHEMES
1. Kyoto Protocol:
Launched 2005.
Mandatory for 37 developed nations, excluding the United States which never ratified the pact.
Covers: All six main greenhouse gases.
Target: 5 percent average reduction in 1990 emissions during 2008-2012 first phase.
How it works: Rich countries cut greenhouse gases at home or buy emissions rights from each other -- if one country stays within its target it can sell the difference to another emitting too much. Alternatively, they can buy carbon offsets from projects in developing countries under Kyoto's clean development mechanism.
The present round of Kyoto expires in 2012 and it remains unclear if nations will commit to a second and tougher commitment period from 2013 to cut emissions after December's Copenhagen climate talks failed to seal a new legally binding deal.
2. European Union Emissions Trading Scheme:
Launched 2005.
Mandatory for all 27 EU member states.
Covers: Nearly half of all EU carbon emissions
Target: 21 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2020
How it works: Member states allocate a quota of carbon emissions allowances to 11,000 industrial installations. Companies get most permits free now but many electricity generators will have to pay for all these from 2013.
Companies can buy carbon offsets from developing countries if that works out cheaper than cutting their own emissions.
3. New Zealand emissions trading scheme
Launch: July 1, 2010
Mandatory
Covers: Forestry started first. From July 1, 2010, electricity, industrial process emissions and transport pollution also included. Agriculture to start Jan 1, 2015. About half of New Zealand's emissions come from agriculture, mostly methane.
Target: The government has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions between 10 and 20 percent by 2020 on 1990 levels.
How it works: Emissions units will be allocated based on an average of production across each industry.
From July 1, 2010, to January 1, 2013, emitters have the option of paying a fixed price of NZ$25 ($18.25) per tonne of carbon, and will only have to surrender 1 unit for every 2 units of emissions. Such assistance will be gradually phased out.
4. Northeast U.S. states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and trade scheme
Launched: January 2009
Covers: carbon from power plants in 10 northeast states. Allows offsets from five different types of clean energy projects including capturing methane from landfills and livestock manure.
Target: 10 percent cut below 2009 levels by 2018
5. Japan: Tokyo metropolitan trading scheme
Launch: April 2010
How it works: Tokyo city proper will set emission limits for 1,400 large factories and offices to meet by using technology like solar panels and advanced fuel-saving devices starting in April.
Beating the targets earns credits that can be sold locally to those that fall short. Scheme is seen as a step towards national emissions trading.
Government is drafting a climate bill to be submitted to parliament by March with possible start of emissions trading next year, though fierce industry opposition could derail that timing.
PROPOSED
1. Australia: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Launch: Planned for mid-2011 but stalled in parliament. Laws twice revised last year but also twice rejected by Senate. Currently before parliament for a third time.
Covers: 75 pct of all Australia's greenhouse gas emissions
Target: Australia's national target is to cut greenhouse gases by 5-25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, depending on what other countries commit to.
How it will work: Australia will auction most of its permits. The scheme plans to curb competitiveness impacts by making permits free for companies that depend on exports, and by having a carbon price cap of A$10 per tonne for the first year.
2. U.S. federal climate change bill
The Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved in June legislation covering cap-and-trade of carbon emissions but it does not have enough support in the Senate. [ID:nN04139576]
Senators hope to have a compromise bill ready for debate by April, but it is not clear whether that will happen. Some options avoid inclusion of emissions cap-and-trade.
Launch: 2012 under the House version
Target: Cut 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020
How it would work: Industry would get most allowances for free initially. Companies could offset up to 2 billion tons of their emissions annually by paying for "green" projects. The bill would pre-empt any similar scheme from U.S. states from 2012-17 but leaves them the option to resume trade after that.
3. Western Climate Initiative
Launch: 2012
Covers: Six greenhouse gases across seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. Six other U.S. states, six Mexican states and two other Canadian provinces are observers.
Target: 15 pct cut below 2005 levels by 2020
How it works: Phased introduction from 2012. Initially covers emissions from electricity and parts of industry. Expands to include transport fuels and residential, commercial and industrial fuels not otherwise covered by phase two in 2015. Aim is to cover nearly 90 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in WCI members.
4. California's Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
Launch: 2012
Covers: Statewide emissions reduction targets of 1990 levels by 2020, and cutting that by 80 percent by 2050. Covers 85 percent of the state's emissions. Would also link to the Western Climate Initiative.
How it will work: Initially covers electricity generation and imports, as well as emissions from large industrial sources. Phase II from 2015 also covers smaller industrial sources, residential and commercial combustion of natural gas and propane, and transportation fuels.
Target: Meeting the 2020 target would need cuts of around 11 percent from 2008 and almost 30 percent from the projected 2020 level under business as usual.
5. South Korea emission trading scheme
Launch: 2012
Covers: Not yet decided. Details on how much to cover, how to and where to trade the emission and will be prepared by August in a related bill, which will be submitted to the parliament. Parliament to decide if it will approve the bill by end-Dec.
Target: Government has set a 2020 emissions reduction target of 30 percent below forecast "business as usual" levels.
Public institutions started to reduce emissions in line with targets from January. The difference between their actual emissions and targets will be traded online
(Sources: Reuters
California Air Resources Board http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/facts.htm
Western Climate Initiative http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/
(Compiled by Gerard Wynn in London; David Fogarty in Singapore, Cho Mee-young in Seoul; Timothy Gardner in New York; Risa Maeda in Tokyo; Editing by Ed Lane) ((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CARBON SCHEMES/
Carbon
+1 1 vote
FACTBOX - Climate talks in 2010 on road to Mexico
by Reuters News on 11 February 2010, 15:16 PM 0 comments , 90 views
Categories: Reuters News, Factboxes
Feb 11 (Reuters) - The U.N. Climate Change Secretariat has asked countries for views by Feb. 16 about how many U.N. meetings should be held in 2010 to work on a deal to fight global warming after the low-ambition Copenhagen Accord.
Following are planned meetings in 2010
UNITED NATIONS
The 194-nation U.N. climate change convention will host a meeting of senior officials in Bonn, Germany, from May 31-June 11 to prepare for a main annual meeting from Nov. 29-Dec. 10, in Cancun, Mexico. The Cancun talks are likely to group environment ministers, a downgrade from world leaders at the Copenhagen summit in December 2009. Last year there were five preparatory sessions of officials before Copenhagen and the United Nations also staged a climate summit in New York on Sept. 22.
CHINA, INDIA, SOUTH AFRICA, BRAZIL (the BASIC group)
Environment ministers from the four countries met in New Delhi on Jan. 24 and agreed to meet quarterly, with the next meeting in South Africa in April. They called for five U.N. sessions before Mexico, with the first in March.
MAJOR ECONOMIES FORUM (MEF)
A U.S.-led group of 17 major economies, accounting for about 80 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions. It met six times in 2009, including at a Group of Eight summit in Italy. The MEF calendar for 2009 is so far blank.
GROUP OF 20
Same members as the MEF -- but adds Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The G20 has focused most on reviving the economy, including promoting green growth. A G20 summit will be held in Canada alongside a G8 summit from June 25-27. South Korea will also host a G20 summit in November.
GROUP OF EIGHT
The G8 meets in Canada on June 25-27. Last year it agreed to set a goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times -- a goal adopted by many nations in the Copenhagen Accord.
GREENLAND DIALOGUE
A Danish-led set of informal talks, between up to about 40 environment ministers from around the world, that started in 2005 and had a last session in Barcelona in November 2009. Related talks have been dubbed the "Southern Lights dialogue" in Argentina or the "Midnight Sun Dialogue" in Sweden.
FORESTS
France plans a meeting on March 11 to discuss projects to slow deforestation; Norway will host a follow-up in May. Trees soak up greenhouse gases as they grow. Australia, Britain, France, Japan, Norway and the United States agreed to a $3.5 billion plan in Copenhagen to slow deforestation.
((alister.doyle@thomsonreuters.com; +47 900 87 663; Reuters Messaging: rm://alister.doyle.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE/TALKS
Carbon
+1 1 vote
UK, Ethiopia to head climate funding effort
by Reuters News on 12 February 2010, 17:50 PM 0 comments , 101 views
Categories: Reuters News
* Panel to tap private and public sectors for climate funds
* $100 billion a year needed by 2020 to help poor nations
LONDON, Feb 12 (Reuters) - Britain and Ethiopia will head a new United Nations panel that aims to secure $100 billion every year by 2020 to help developing nations cut emissions and adapt to climate change, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday.
He told a news conference the group would work with governments, central bankers and finance experts to find ways to cooperate with public and private companies in raising money pledged at climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
Although the summit ended without a legal treaty to curb carbon dioxide emissions, leaders of developed countries agreed to support a goal of jointly finding $100 billion a year to help poorer nations.
The money is intended to help them cut emissions, switch to renewable energy and adapt to the impact of global warming, by building new flood defences and other projects.
The panel will be jointly led by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Ethiopian counterpart Meles Zenawi and will include Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and Guyana's President Bharrat Jagdeo.
The U.N. chief said the panel must urgently find innovative sources of finance to fill the gap between the money currently available and the amount pledged by 2020.
"Developing countries need to move as quickly as possible toward a future of low-emissions growth and prosperity," he told a joint news conference with Brown and Meles. "Millions of people in Africa and around the globe are suffering from the effects of climate change."
The U.N. body must implement one of the most important tasks set out in the Copenhagen accord and, if successful, could help ensure emissions peak by 2020, Brown said.
"This cannot all be done from existing taxpayer revenues," he said in a statement. "So we must examine new sources of finance, both public and private."
Charity Oxfam said the group must be about action not just words.
"Poor communities on the front lines desperately need funds to begin to cope with a changing climate and reduce their emissions," said David Waskow, Climate Change Program Director at Oxfam America.
The panel will have members from developed and developing countries who will be appointed for 10 months. The full list of representatives will be announced soon.
They are expected to produce a mid-term report in May and a final report containing recommendations before the next U.N. climate summit in Mexico in December.
(Reporting by Peter Griffiths in London and Timothy Gardner in Washington; editing by Ralph Boulton)
((peter.griffiths@reuters.com; + 44 207 542 6701; Reuters Messaging: peter.griffiths.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CLIMATE UN/
Senin, 15 Februari 2010
Rabu, 07 Oktober 2009
Papau New Guinea lesson learned on REDD
Carbon
+7 9 votes
ANALYSIS - Carbon firm highlights risk, appetite of forest credits
by Reuters News on 11 September 2009, 10:41 AM 2 comments , 1668 views Categories: Most Discussed, Analysis, Reuters News
* Firm hopes to sell A$1.6 billion in forest credits
* But market for such carbon credits small and uncertain
* Analysts point to delivery risk from forest carbon projects
By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
SINGAPORE, Sept 11 (Reuters) - An Australian firm hoping to broker A$1.6 billion in carbon credit sales from saving tropical forests highlights the promise and peril of a U.N.-backed scheme that rewards projects for curbing deforestation.
Carbon Planet, in presentations to investors, says it has contracted 100 million carbon offsets over five years from projects in Papua New Guinea and 60 million over five years from Indonesia at an average of A$10 ($8.5) each offset, or credit.
That equates to 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide saved from being emitted by keeping the forests standing.
None of the 25 projects in PNG and 8 in Indonesia have yielded credits although the company, a carbon services provider, hopes credits will start to flow soon and says it has buyers.
But brokers and analysts say there is no appetite currently for that volume of "avoided deforestation" credits on the global voluntary carbon market, which is driven by demand from corporates wanting to offset their carbon emissions.
Demand worth potentially billions of dollars annually would only come from future national emissions trading schemes such as in the United States and Australia and an eventual global scheme backed by the United Nations, called reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
Analysts say giving large credit flow forecasts from REDD projects before they are audited or validated is fraught with risk if projects do not yield as many credits as forecast.
In addition, REDD's final design has not been decided by the U.N., it is unclear how the scheme will be included in national schemes or if early REDD projects will be included in the U.N. framework.
"People are contracting REDD as though it's on the verge of becoming a compliance market," said Martijn Wilder, head of Baker & McKenzie's global climate change and emissions trading practice, referring to markets that would allow REDD credits to meet mandatory emissions curbs in rich nations.
The United Nations hopes REDD will be included in a broader climate pact the world body wants to be agreed in December during a major meeting in Copenhagen. The idea is for a global REDD credit market to formally begin in 2013.
"We are using much more conservative figures when we are talking to our investors," said Darius Sarshar from New Forests, which is developing a large REDD project in Papua, Indonesia.
In Indonesia, there are an estimated 20 projects at various stages of development, the World Bank says.
"However, such engagement remains speculative, extremely expensive and has numerous challenges," said Wilder.
COMPLEXITY
This is particularly the case given the early stage of development of REDD and the complexity and time needed to develop REDD projects in developing countries.
"In terms of the forecast market demand of voluntary credits, it is by no way even up to the volumes that I've seen promoted as imminent from REDD projects," said Chris Halliwell, a senior emissions broker for TFS Green in Melbourne, Australia.
"There seems to be a mark-to-market valuation but not really supply and demand analysis."
REDD holds the promise of unlocking billions of dollars in annual revenue to developing nations from carbon offset sales to wealthy countries.
The scheme is designed to curb deforestation and restore the world's tropical forests so they can soak up growing amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
But REDD projects must provide funds for local communities, prove they are designed to address local causes of deforestation, ensure they are long-term and be able to accurately calculate how much carbon the forest will lock away over several decades.
Such complex calculations take time. Proving who actually owns the carbon stock in a given area is also crucial.
Carbon Planet's projections seem daring if only because the entire value of the world's voluntary carbon market was US$705 million in 2008, up from US$335 million in 2007, according to "State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2009" by Ecosystem Marketplace and analysts New Carbon Finance.
Of this, global sales of "avoided deforestation" credits were just one percent of turnover.
Carbon Planet Founder Dave Sag told Reuters the A$600 million in revenues over five years from Indonesia was "based on a very conservative estimated yield of 12 million tonnes per annum".
"I understand that people have concerns about our projections. Anyone would given the scale of them. But the numbers to us do not seem unrealistic."
TOUGH STANDARDS
Sag said the projects would meet tough yardsticks -- such as the respected Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards -- and the firm was looking more to future compliance markets.
"That's why we are busting a gut to make sure that these projects are produced properly."
But large markets that will accept large volumes of REDD credits are several years away. And many developing nations have yet to develop rules governing REDD, adding to uncertainty.
Another REDD project developer in Indonesia said it was crucial to prove to investors that protecting an area of forest actually curbs deforestation and therefore emissions.
"You are basically doing projects and drafting legal agreements in the absence of any rules," said Wilder.
"From our point of view, doing a REDD project is similar to other long-term infrastructure projects in the sense that the legal foundations have to be beyond reproach," he added.
Sag says REDD credits will soon start to flow from its projects, starting later this year with 10 million VCS-standard credits from Kamula Doso rainforest in Papua New Guinea.
The company has signed a deal with a firm called Nupan, which represents the 52 land-owner groups in the 800,000 ha (2 million acres) reserve who are the legal owners of the "carbon stock".
He denies Carbon Planet is playing fast and loose with its projections, saying investors want to know the numbers.
"I am the confident the credits will start walking out the door pretty soon. We have buyers lined up."
(Additional reporting by Sunanda Creagh in JAKARTA; Editing by Michael Urquhart) ((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CARBON FORESTS/DEMAND
More questions than answers on carbon trading in PNG
By Chris Lang, 11th September 2009
Papua New Guinea’s forest carbon trading fiasco is back in the news. The focus is on Kirk Roberts, pictured right, his company Nupan (PNG) Trading Limited and an Australian carbon trading firm, Carbon Planet. “It’s no secret that I am one of the most important foreigners in PNG,” Roberts says. But his opponents have called him “the kingpin of the ‘carbon cowboys’”. Roberts claims to have power of attorney over 90 forest deals. He also claims to be unaware of any disputes with tribal groups, although one tribal representative says he was coerced into signing a Memorandum of Agreement with Nupan.
Two articles were published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday last week (4 September 2009): “I am a top foreigner in Papua New Guinea, says carbon kingpin” and “Australian firm linked to PNG’s $100m carbon trading scandal“. The next day, The Australian published an overview of the whole sorry tale so far: “The rush is on for sky money“. Meanwhile, Carbon Planet has produced a series of questions and answers on its website about its involvement in REDD projects. Two extraordinary videos of a “official hand over ceremony on behalf of the 45,000 people of the East Pangia FMA [forest management area]” have also been posted on Nupan’s website (see below).
None of this is straight forward. There are many people in the logging industry who would love to see REDD fail so they that could carry on logging. Wari Iamo, the acting head of the Office of Climate Change, has said that the government does not support the sort of Voluntary Carbon Agreements that Nupan is setting up in PNG. He has also noted that in forest areas covered by Forest Management Agreements the timber resources belong to the State. This could be read as an attempt to make sure that any revenue from REDD goes to the State rather than the landowners and companies such as Nupan and Carbon Planet. There’s also the problem that trading the carbon will allow emissions elsewhere to continue – a dangerous distraction, as Friends of the Earth points out.
But the fact that something is complex means we need more transparency, not less. This post looks at three aspects of carbon trading in PNG:
Free, prior and informed consent
The dodgy REDD “credits”
The money
In doing so it raises (or repeats) some of the unanswered questions.
Free, prior and informed consent
One of the most important aspects is whether landowners in Papua New Guinea are signing the agreements with free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The principle is crucial to upholding the human rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Here’s how Oxfam Australia explains FPIC:
Free refers to the general principle of law that consent is not valid if obtained through coercion or manipulation.
Prior refers to meaningful, informed consent sought sufficiently in advance of any activities by a company.
Informed means that the process must involve consultation and participation by Indigenous peoples with full disclosures of a development activity in accessible and understandable forms to affected peoples and communities.
Nupan has contracted Carbon Planet “to provide the certification and trading services for its carbon projects in Papua New Guinea,” according to Carbon Planet’s website. In its Corporate Ethics and Social Policy, Carbon Planet states that “Carbon Planet, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, undertake that we will endeavour to adhere with the principles outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” [emphasis added]. While Carbon Planet should be commended for referring to UN DRIPs, this wording is way too loose. To have any credibility, Carbon Planet must actually comply to the principles in the UN DRIPs, not simply say that it will try to do so. What’s worse is that in its Guiding Principles on Rights of Indigenous Peoples Carbon Planet appears to be looking only at Articles 31-37 of UN DRIPs.
Unfortunately, it seems that Roberts is being economical with the truth in at least some of his dealings with local people. For example, in a letter from Nupan to the Vice Chairman and Directors of Tumu Timbers Development Limited, regarding forest in Kamula Doso, Roberts states: “We confirm that the independent verification process to enable your Project to be formally recognized under the UNFCCC guidelines for REDD Carbon Credits is now well underway.” But there is as yet no agreement at UN level on REDD. There are no UNFCCC guidelines for REDD Carbon Credits. Roberts declined to reply when REDD-Monitor requested a copy of the UNFCCC guidelines. Here’s the letter from Nupan to Tumu Timbers (pdf file, 24.9KB)
NuPan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited
July, 2009Mr. Wisa Susupe,KAMULA DOSO FMA Block 1;2;&3 FMA
Welcome Sir!
It is our great pleasure to welcome you and acknowledge your fellowVice Chairman and Directors of Tumu Timbers Development Limited.
Mr. Billy Toroti – Vice ChairmanMr. Walama Painama – Director / SecretaryMr. Yamai Umtadie – DirectorMr. Nodie Imali – Director
We acknowledge receipt of your Board Minutes confirming our appointment, and assure you that we have, on your behalf, and with the help of the People of Kamula Doso, now completed all the Corporate, Legal, Government, and Social responsibilities required of us as your appointed Power of Attorney, and that we will at all times continue to act in your best interests.
We will continue the village consultation process started with your people some years ago, and will take our greatest care to represent the interests of your people at all times. We confirm that the independent verification process to enable your Project to be formally recognized under the UNFCCC guidelines for REDD Carbon Credits is now well underway.
The decision you have all made to preserve your beautiful forests from logging and other destructive activities is a brave one, and we salute your intention to maintain your Forests in the interests of providing Mother Earth with “A breath of fresh air”.
We salute you and thank you for your trust.
Yours sincerely,“Roberts”Kirk William RobertsCEO / ChairmanNupan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited
Roberts refused to discuss how the deals were done when asked by the Sydney Morning Herald:
”The whole thing has been checked over by international verifiers,” he said.
Asked for detail, he said: ”That information will all come out when the projects are complete. I’m not going to talk about verification now.
”Why would I do that? It’s not for people to write stories about at the moment.”[ . . . ]”They come to me looking to get into carbon trading, not the other way round,” he said. ”I can’t go into any details of how it’s done – this is commercial-in-confidence.”
When REDD-Monitor asked Dave Sag, co-founder and executive director of Carbon Planet, about the UNFCCC REDD guidelines mentioned in Roberts’ letter, Sag replied: “I can’t speak for Mr Roberts but what I assume he means there is the development of the specific REDD methodology and the PDD [Project Development Document] that documents the KD [Kamula Doso] project is well underway.” Sag neatly avoided answering the question about the UNFCCC REDD guidelines.
Here are the two videos of the “official hand over ceremony on behalf of the 45,000 people of the East Pangia FMA [forest management area]“:
During the second video Roberts is asked “So what do you think the people will gain out of carbon trading, long term?” Here’s his response:
“Most importantly the people will be able to preserve their customs. They’ll be able to be the same that they’ve always been, but still be able to maintain themselves in a better way by utilising the finances that carbon trading will be able to provide, with infrastructure in the villages, hospitals, roads, etc. etc. Managed properly it will definitely be a better place.”
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, one tribal representative was coerced into signing an agreement with Nupan:
a tribal representative the Herald spoke to, who cannot be named, said he had been coerced into signing a memorandum of understanding that gave Nupan power of attorney over his land. Initially he refused. ”I didn’t know anything about the certificates, that was my first time in hearing about the certificates,” the tribesman said.
The tribal representative claimed he eventually signed the memorandum in the face of Nupan’s persistence. ”I couldn’t do anything … So I just went ahead and signed it. Then later I complained to my lawyer.”
The dodgy REDD “credits”
Another part of this story is a series of dodgy carbon credits, printed on Office of Climate Change letterheads and signed by the then-head of the OCC, Theo Yasause (who is currently suspended pending an investigation). When asked by the Sydney Morning Herald about these letters, Dave Sag “denied media reports in PNG the certificates were stolen or were intended to mislead.”
”Those certificates are worthless. … No one who knows anything about carbon would take them in any way seriously,” Mr Sag said. ”They ended up in Kirk’s hands because they would have been produced as a prop to be taken out and waved in front of people in order to provide some physicality to what is essentially an ephemeral thing.”
REDD-Monitor has posted some of these REDD “credits” here and here. Questions remain. Why would a “prop” need to be written on OCC letterheaded paper, stamped and signed? If it was only a “prop”, why was it not marked, for example, “sample”? And if it really was a “prop”, why did Yasause feel the need to write again to Nupan in February 2009, stating, “As Designated National Authority, I hereby write to advise you that all correspondences and certificates issued for the development of REDD pilot project in Kumula Doso is hereby withdrawn as of the date of this letter.”?
Interestingly, on its website, Carbon Planet says something different to what Sag told the Sydney Morning Herald:
In mid 2008 the Office of Climate Change (who is the Designated National Authority (DNA) who authorises carbon market activities) created a “symbolic REDD credit certificate” as a sample certificate with no commercial value.
Carbon Planet has had no involvement with them; we understand the certificates were an internal sample produced by the Office of Climate Change not for any commercial use or purpose. The “REDD credit certificates” were not intended as anything but a symbolic reference of a REDD credit certificate.
So, when is a “symbolic REDD credit certificate” a “prop” and when is it an “internal sample”? And did the villagers who have signed agreements with Roberts also understand that these REDD “credits” were only “symbolic”, a “prop” or an “internal sample”?
The money
Another hardly trivial issue is the matter of money. Last year, Carbon Planet invested A$1.2 million in PNG. Here’s how Dave Sag explained this to Tan Copsey, a journalist with China Dialogue, recently:
“We have invested $1.2 million [Australian dollars, or nearly US$1 million] in Papua New Guinea,” Sag said, “but we haven’t given it to the government. We’ve spent money on everything from plane fares to taxis to local translators to consultants to illustrators. Right now, we also employ a lot of very hard-core scientists who go out into the jungle. These are not armchair scientists; these are real people doing real work, and it is expensive and it is complicated.”
On its website, Carbon Planet states that the money went to Nupan:
As at September 7, 2009, Carbon Planet has never paid any monies to the PNG Government. Carbon Planet paid AU$1.2m in project finance to project developer Nupan Trading Corporation (PNG) Limited.
So where did the money go? A$1.2 million would buy an awful lot of plane tickets and taxi rides. Consultants and scientists tend to be more expensive. But are they employed by Nupan or by Carbon Planet? Who are they? What were they hired to do, exactly? And are any of their reports in the public domain?
Another question is how much money Carbon Planet might get from all this. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
Carbon Planet, which has acquired a publicly listed company, told investors recently it had $100 million in potential REDD projects in PNG. Mr Sag said this figure was ”estimates based on contracts we have in place”.
But elsewhere, Carbon Planet gives different figures. Natasha Loder, a journalist with The Economist, writes on her blog that she has a business model document produced by Carbon Planet which claims that, “25 REDD Projects have been contracted at $1 billion per annum to date”. The same document also claims that Carbon Planet has contracted eight REDD memoranda of understanding in Indonesia, at $600m per annum. So how much are these various contracts actually worth to Carbon Planet?
While we’re looking at money, and unanswered questions, the Australian government needs to answer some questions about its Papua New Guinea Australia Forest Carbon Partnership, under which Australia has committed A$3 million to PNG. In addition, Australia has a A$200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative. Penny Wong, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Water has so far declined to answer questions about her government’s involvement in carbon trading in PNG.
11th September 2009 Tags: Carbon Credits, REDD and rights Category: Australia, Papua New Guinea 15 comments
15 comments to More questions than answers on carbon trading in PNG
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Yeah nice story chris Lang, its just a pity your story is so far behind the times as I have already posted all of the info in this article and more on an Aus investment website (hotcopp*r) called “Ingham unvails $6 million data centre” where they will be using carbon planet “It is based on green datacentre practices and will undergo certification through Carbon Planet, Lenz said.”Also if you read all my posts (username robbie354315) you will see there is a much bigger picture at hand as NZ and many other business’s and countries highly respect all of the great work CP are doing. But like I said you only covered half the story Chris. Read it Chris and just hope your boss doesnt see my reply as he might think that you retrieved all your info from my posts as I posted them all well before you did, except next time tell the whole story you biases SOB. Nice try Chris “but fail” if you want the whole story (that extends well beyond what I’ve posted elsewhere) email me as I wont post it on any website except for it involves Counties/Gov’s/BIG B’s and much much more.
Cheers Chris old boy,
Rob
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Just to add you stated in your article that carbon planet have acquired a publicly listed company, lets first look at the definition of acquired – get: come into the possession of something concrete or abstract;
Naughty naughty Chris, lets not tell porky pies as thats never even happed, yes they are talking to each other but unless you know something that I dont and considering that if you did it would be insider trading as a merger would definetely effect the company (share price) that is already listed on the ASX and Yep, no they havent submitted a statement/announcement on the asx stating anything about the merger, so you have made up a little porky pie Chris old boy, lets not get slopey shoulders Chris as you need to be accountable for your articles, once again drop me an email and get the full story.
Cheers Chris old boy,
Rob
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Also Chris you state that you write is licensed under a:
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
If your readers want to see what it is (refer link below) as it is only a couple of lines of info they will see you have failed to obide by even your own rules that you have after all very suitably found and adopted for yourself.
Whats your angle Chris? and why have you lied?
I believe that you are gone for all $$$$$$$ as thats the reason you have written such an incorrect article.
whats that Chris $$$ are in this game? what? hmmm??? who me?
Its a pity Chris because I could help your cause instead of asking you why you lied?
After all Chris it was only sixteen years ago where you worked for four years as an architect in Oxford and London, Then charged off into the blue yonder with your friends and became an eco-warrior. So I know you are a smart chap, thats why I am writing to you at 1am in australia.
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/06/05/the-nature-conservancy-forest-offsets-more-important-than-emissions-reduction-targets/&usg=__Fe7wMa0abaOsHFESb3N9Jlzgxfg=&h=150&w=150&sz=41&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=rpzgbfUyjEg2iM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchris%2Blang%2Blives%2Bredd%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
the above link is Incorrect, oops sorry! lol try this one
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Chris Lang
September 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@R.Wilson – thanks for your various comments. Yes Carbon Planet has other interests other than REDD in PNG. Thanks for pointing this out and for all the other information you posted elsewhere. Very interesting.
The bit about Carbon Planet acquiring a publicly listed company is a quotation from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. That’s why it says “According to the Sydney Morning Herald” before the quotation.
I can’t understand your point about the Creative Commons License. Perhaps you could try to explain this again. Incidentally, the content of REDD-Monitor is licensed under this version of Creative Commons.
Gavin Pereira
September 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Sag has confirmed that the false and misleading government certificates were waved in front of landowners to give substance to the project. The purpose of this would be in the hope of persuading them into signing their land and their carbon stocks to the REDD project.
In terms of accreditation, the VCS and the engineering companies validating and verifying the project on behalf of the VCS should take note. In my opinion (and the opinion of my company lol – http://www.noco2.com.au) the admission that these certificates were used for this purpose should render all the carbon from deals signed after the circulation date of those certificates as invalid. It will diminish the VCS as an accreditation standard if it allows the carbon from these deals to be traded.
The auditors should also go over the other deals with a fine tooth comb to check if they are sweet or not.
On a personal note, Im unconvinced that the ‘current rules’ of the VCS and CCBA methodologies deal with the issue of leakage. Under the methodologies, the projects have to create buffers to account for carbon lost through risk of fire/logging etc. In the case of the PNG projects – the buffer is in another part of the PNG forest.
This is a problem because the main motivator, or in the majority of cases, logging is undertaken to supply the pulp/paper/wood market with product.
This would be cool if the forestry market was confined to PNG. But it isnt – if the forestry market is starved of product from PNG, it will be supplied from forest some where else – without a global deal where forestry stocks are monitored, deforestation will still occur and the same amount of carbon will be lost as a store/sink irrespective of whether the png deals go ahead. Hence, the net result for the atmosphere will be the same – no benefit.
Carbon trading is premised on the notion that carbon projects create a net CO2 saving/benefit that can be sold to polluters. REDD projects fail to do this and should not be allowed to deem carbon credits and we wont allow companies to use them to claim they are carbon neutral.
An international agreement that sees global forests as a carbon asset and creates an international inventory of carbon stocks could be the answer to this problem. I hope that they solve it at Copenhagen because it would be awesome if REDD could do as ‘Roberts’ suggests and be a mechanism that helps preserve culture and enhance self determination of indigenous peoples.
Dave Sag
September 14th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Gavin I do understand how tempting it is to try and use stories like this to promote your own company but please get your facts right. Despite allegations in the SMH I have neither “confirmed” nor “admitted” anything of the sort. I was taken well out of context by the press the other week. Your opinions, and those of your business partner who on another blog claimed we should just shut Carbon Planet down, are at best unhelpful and at worst childish.
Get your facts right. REDD Monitor is just a parrot of negative press, and does no genuine reporting of its own. If they did then perhaps this site would have some credibility but alas it does not. But sadly Chris Lang has never bothered to actually contact me and ask me for comment. He’s just reprinted my comments from other blogs, or the nonsense from the papers that has been emphatically denied by myself and our CEO Jim Johnson.
Your personal view of the VCS is irrelevant. Go to the VCS website and check out our Methodology for yourself and see how, for example, buffer calculations are made, before spouting off with your ignorance.
Davehttp://redd.carbonplanet.com
R.WILSON
September 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Chris,
Have a look at the below link, the persons name is Natasha Loder, London, United Kingdom. She is a journalist working at The Economist.
MORE IMPORTANTLY SHE’S GIVEN A FAIR REPORT ON WHERE NUPAN AND CARBON PLANET STAND, YOU DO REALISE THAT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND APART FROM HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS ARE 2 COMPLETELY SEPERATE ENTITIES. DONT LABEL BUDDY, CHALK AND CHEESE LOL! MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE AND WILL SEEK CARBON PLANETS BUSINESS/HELP/IDEAS SOME WILL BE BAD AND SOME WILL BE GOOD. THE MOMENT 1 COMPANY (NUPAN) LOOKS (AND THE VERDICT IS STILL OUT) A LITTLE SHADY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THROW THE FIRST STONE AT CP.
http://natashaloder.blogspot.com/2009/06/kamula-duso-credit.html
Chris Lang
September 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am
@R.Wilson – I’m fully aware that Nupan and Carbon Planet are two separate companies: “Nupan has contracted Carbon Planet ‘to provide the certification and trading services for its carbon projects in Papua New Guinea,’ according to Carbon Planet’s website” (from the post, above). I am aware of Natasha Loder’s blog – you might like to read this post on REDD-Monitor about Kamula Doso.
@Dave Sag – perhaps you’d like to explain exactly what the REDD “credits” were, and whether or not they were waved in front of villagers in PNG. Feel free to add in the context that the press did not give. Will you be making a complaint to the Australian Press Council about the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and elsewhere in the Australian press?
Dave Sag
September 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Chris I don’t have the actual documents in front of me as I am travelling right now but last week I was asked to attend a meeting by the Australian Government who had a whole bunch of questions for me about the recent media hysteria. Once I had answered their questions they then showed me the ‘certificate’ you and Natasha Loder have been on about. That was the first time (outside of Natasha’s blog I think) that I had ever seen this so-called certificate. What neither Loder’s blog, nor any other reporting on the issue shows, but the Government here had, was the letter that accompanied the certificate and that puts the certificate in context. The letter outlines the VCS approval process and makes it very clear that the ‘attached’ copy was a sample and had no value whatsoever. On the back of this sample certificate, as detailed in the letter, is a flowchart depicting the VCS approval process in summary form. It was utterly deceptive of Loder, and subsequent bloggers, to parade that certificate around and, since it was scanned and put online I am told that con-men have been using it to deceive people into handing over cash for so-called “sky-money”. The irritating thing is that these stories have since been maliciously conflated by a handful of irresponsible bloggers to imply (and later outright claim) that Carbon Planet, and/or Nupan have been using fake or stolen carbon credits to dupe landowners. Nothing could be further from the truth and even the most basic understanding of the VCS process would make it clear that informed consent of landowners is a vital foundation to any proper REDD type project.
I never told told the SMH, who could not even get my job title right in their story, that Nupan had any copies of this sample certificate. I said, in my interview, (from memory here) something along the lines of ‘IF Mr Roberts had one of those certificates it would have been used as a prop.’ Nupan has emphatically denied ever having had any ‘fake’ certificates, let alone having used them. Carbon Planet’s actual CEO (that’s not me as the SMH stated) wrote a letter to the SMH that was published a day later that made this very clear. I guess while you were researching your story you overlooked that letter, or if you did see it you simply chose to ignore it.
Chris you seem to have made up your mind that carbon trading is wrong and that those of us working in the planet saving industry are pure evil incarnate. When has REDD Monitor ever published a success story about REDD projects? Or are they all flawed?
Regarding making a complaint to the APC, it had not occurred to me but now you mention it I’ll ask someone to look into that tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.
Davehttp://www.carbonplanet.com/REDD_addressing_the_issuessee also http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/medias-carbon-confusion-is-grist-for-the-lumber-mill/
Chris Lang
September 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@Dave Sag – I posted the letter that accompanied the REDD “certificate” you refer to, here. I also wrote the following about the letter in a post about Kamula Doso on REDD-Monitor (2 July 2009):
“on 3 November 2008, the Office of Climate Change wrote to a company called Nupan PNG Limited (right), stating ‘As Designated National Authority (DNA), I can issue a certificate of credit should you complete the following steps for the Project Documentation to be registered under the Voluntary Carbon Standards.’ Attached to the letter is a copy of a certificate, titled ‘Series Number B1 Voluntary carbon credits issued under the UNFCC Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degredation (sic) initiative for clean development mechanisms.’ The certificate is signed by Theo Yasause and Leo Tale, Director-Carbon Trade.”
But the fifth page of the pdf file is perhaps more interesting. Here’s what I wrote about that, back in July:
“On 2 February 2009, Yasause sent a ‘Notice of Nullyfication (sic) of all corresspondences (sic) and certifications issued on Kumalo (sic) Doso Pilot Project on REDD’ to the Managing Director of Nupan PNG Limited (see page 5 of the letters about Kamula Doso). The letter states that ‘This decision has come about due to the continuous dispute between various landowner groups within the Kumula Doso project area and also with your company ownership.’”
I wonder why Kirk Roberts didn’t send you a copy of this letter?
A Witness
September 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I’d like to know whether the Australian government is only interested in the problem of “media hysteria”, or whether, on behalf of the taxpayers that support it, should perhaps be more interested to know whether the money that it has poured into the ‘Papua New Guinea Australia Forest Carbon Partnership’ is actually doing any good, or is maybe just helping a bunch of “carbon cowboys” line their rather deep pockets.
I’m beginning to wonder whether Penny Wong really exists. Or has she perhaps gone into hiding?
Gavin Pereira
September 15th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Dave, we also feel lucky to work in an industry that exists to save the planet. We were compelled to blog because we were deeply concerned that yet another carbon company had, on the reported evidence, cocked up and caused further damage to the reputation of honest players in the market.
The main reason for my blog was that I wanted to make the point that the VCS and CCBA Methodologies for REDD are rubbish because they don’t account for international leakage. By default, this makes your project rubbish to – irrespective of whether false certificates were used to trick landowners or not.
Forests are logged in the main to supply the international market for wood and wood products. Your project will starve the market of wood from PNG – fantastic – but, in the absence of international regulation, the gap will definitely be filled through deforestation somewhere else. Economics 101 I believe. The emissions you save under the project will shift out of PNG and into another country with minimal (if any)net benefit for our atmosphere. This is the net outcome of your project.
I wish the media and other commentators were knowledgeable enough to focus on this point – because it removes all integrity, ‘carbon value’ and therefore monetary value from the carbon products that the project will eventually create and try to sell.
You and I both know this to be true – the buffer calculations don’t include international leakage – so don’t label me ignorant. You’re better than that. I can present page references, attach links to the methodology documents or explain the formulae used to substantiate the above points should you need me to.
The point of blogs is so that informed people can point these sorts of things out and express their opinions within a relevant channel. You’ll notice that I put a ‘lol’ in after the company reference. That was because, whilst I knew there was no value in being identified/listed on this blog(and my partners agree lol) I didnt want to appear to be casting gutless potshots using the anonymity of the web.
The first few points in my previous entry hinged on your quote RE Nupan’s use of the false certificates. We’d heard about the certificates prior to the article and later, you were quoted as saying that the certificates were produced to be waved in front of landowners. You say you were misquoted – but many if not all informed readers would see that quote and draw the same conclusion – that if they were presented to landowners it would be in aid of trying to entice them to join their stocks to the project. I think the points I made following on the base of this conclusion were fair – you’d hate it if other carbon companies were able to claim VCUs under similar false pretense. You should have explained explicitly and immediately that you were misquoted –on twitter, your blog, your company webpage – anywhere, but you didn’t. It took days for the company to list a response that still didnt offer a rebuttal to your quote. We were looking for it, but it never came until you were pushed through blogs such as this.
Anyway – you’ve defended that quote and we’ll see in the wash (or through the project’s eventual accreditation) whether it was legit. I hope you avoid making further loose-cannon statements to the press as they only act to tarnish the good work that the rest of us are trying to get on with in this industry. Maybe you should provide written answers to journos to protect yourself from being so horrendously misquoted in future.
I hope to leave it there.
Gavin
Stephen Dickey
September 24th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Dear Chris,
I think this blog is the best example of the worst grammar and literary expression I have ever seen.
I can understand that, at 1.00 am, R. Wilson was losing his or her sense of proportion and coherence (did we have a glass or two of wine beforehand?) but this is bearable compared to Mr Pereira’s barrage of modern creative adjectives; sweet, cool, awesome! I imagine we can all accept ‘cocked-up’ as a colourful (or colorful if you are in the USA) alternative to the good old fashioned “erred” though I confess I prefer the latter in serious journalism.
What disturbs me more is that Mr Pereira’s argument is as incomprehensible and contradictory as his vernacular, invective as it is, and, once again, sounds like the cacophonous cackle of a carrion crow rid of his carcass.
I find that those who are most vociferously, and vehemently opposed to REDD are those that understand it the least which is not surprising among the lay but damns by definition those who claim, as Mr Pereira does, to be in the same ‘business’.
Sadly, there is no shortage of vitriol borne of envy and ire borne of ignorance in this debate and my advise to Mr. Sag is to rise above it (it is clearly time, Chris, that you and Dave had a real conversation and I would be happy to act as a cheery peacekeeper as I have both your acquaintances albeit only slightly).
I also hope, one day, to read a list of contributions that offer assistance, guidance and general support to and from those of us who are trying to fight the effects of climate change even if we seek to make a living out of it.
My own philosophy is that I hope and expect to make some money out of what I am doing; I am not doing it to make money. There is a difference and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and accepting that we must challenge it on specific issues or judgments such as this one, it is reasonable to give Carbon Planet the benefit of the doubt.
In my opinion I think REDD Monitor has, thus far, done so.
Michael Brown
September 28th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Removing all the vitriol in this thread, I want to comment on one point made in passing in the thread that addresses, in my opinion, the root of whether REDD can ever be beneficial to local communities as many anticipate: “that informed consent of landowners is a vital foundation to any proper REDD type project.” The question of whether REDD is foolish because in Economics 101 it will inevitably lead to leakage elsewhere, as was also argued, is certainly a worthy question for policy makers at the macro programming level to consider, with emphasis on what operational mitigation measures could be put in place to safeguard against this leakage.
Returning to the topic of FPIC…
For people with experience in most (perhaps all?) developing countries , achieving FPIC in the literal sense of the term is not just a challenge. In many situations it is not feasible today or tomorrow due to: the inability of women to participate as equal partners in decision making processes due to myriad reasons; the inability of minorities to participate in an informed manner due to their own legacy of subservience; the tendency of local social structures to enable local leaders to manipulate to the disadvantage of the larger community (e.g. sub-optimal social capital).
FPIC is inevitably a very relative notion. Depending on one’s interpretation of what it means, FPIC can be easiest boiled down to a leader’s signature on paper. When either PNG clan leaders or African chiefs sign in the name of their constituents, is it fair to assume this is representative of FPIC? All certification programs that utilize FPIC as a cornerstone principle are stating a philosophical axiom that all politically correct practitioners can accept, but that has serious operational shortcomings when one attempts to apply FPIC on the ground in “certifying” that company x,y,z can demonstrate FPIC.
I believe that until communities can demonstrate that they understand the costs, benefits and risks of REDD – some minimally acceptable form of means testing, as it were – and that they opt for a particular REDD program involving certain behaviors vis a vis carbon assets, then the world (including PNG) will be stuck with an ambiguous FPIC principle that will be interpreted differently from case to case. This will not bode well for the REDD marketplace, and will of course lead to manipulation of communities by REDD marketers/intermediaries who know fully well that FPIC in the real sense has not been achieved. And all those agencies that use the standard and perpetuate reliance on FPIC to make REDD right, including donor agencies, will be winking at what is collectively known as a politically correct principle with no prayer in hell of being demonstrated in the vast majority of cases where the word “informed” is taken seriously.
There remains too little information, too little analytical and decision making experience in dealing with legal documents and business tradeoffs for most communities in developing countries, to make informed choices.
Will donor agencies promoting REDD in PNG or sub-Saharan Africa be strengthening the capacities of potential REDD stewards such that they can coherently play the game? Will market intermediaries be doing this? Unless someone does, will we ever be able to speak honestly about FPIC as it relates to REDD?
I do not believe so.
But I do believe that there are ways to responsibly do this, that are akin to any other type of corporate social responsibility investment that will pay out nicely on the bottom line in the long run.
+7 9 votes
ANALYSIS - Carbon firm highlights risk, appetite of forest credits
by Reuters News on 11 September 2009, 10:41 AM 2 comments , 1668 views Categories: Most Discussed, Analysis, Reuters News
* Firm hopes to sell A$1.6 billion in forest credits
* But market for such carbon credits small and uncertain
* Analysts point to delivery risk from forest carbon projects
By David Fogarty, Climate Change Correspondent, Asia
SINGAPORE, Sept 11 (Reuters) - An Australian firm hoping to broker A$1.6 billion in carbon credit sales from saving tropical forests highlights the promise and peril of a U.N.-backed scheme that rewards projects for curbing deforestation.
Carbon Planet, in presentations to investors, says it has contracted 100 million carbon offsets over five years from projects in Papua New Guinea and 60 million over five years from Indonesia at an average of A$10 ($8.5) each offset, or credit.
That equates to 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide saved from being emitted by keeping the forests standing.
None of the 25 projects in PNG and 8 in Indonesia have yielded credits although the company, a carbon services provider, hopes credits will start to flow soon and says it has buyers.
But brokers and analysts say there is no appetite currently for that volume of "avoided deforestation" credits on the global voluntary carbon market, which is driven by demand from corporates wanting to offset their carbon emissions.
Demand worth potentially billions of dollars annually would only come from future national emissions trading schemes such as in the United States and Australia and an eventual global scheme backed by the United Nations, called reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).
Analysts say giving large credit flow forecasts from REDD projects before they are audited or validated is fraught with risk if projects do not yield as many credits as forecast.
In addition, REDD's final design has not been decided by the U.N., it is unclear how the scheme will be included in national schemes or if early REDD projects will be included in the U.N. framework.
"People are contracting REDD as though it's on the verge of becoming a compliance market," said Martijn Wilder, head of Baker & McKenzie's global climate change and emissions trading practice, referring to markets that would allow REDD credits to meet mandatory emissions curbs in rich nations.
The United Nations hopes REDD will be included in a broader climate pact the world body wants to be agreed in December during a major meeting in Copenhagen. The idea is for a global REDD credit market to formally begin in 2013.
"We are using much more conservative figures when we are talking to our investors," said Darius Sarshar from New Forests, which is developing a large REDD project in Papua, Indonesia.
In Indonesia, there are an estimated 20 projects at various stages of development, the World Bank says.
"However, such engagement remains speculative, extremely expensive and has numerous challenges," said Wilder.
COMPLEXITY
This is particularly the case given the early stage of development of REDD and the complexity and time needed to develop REDD projects in developing countries.
"In terms of the forecast market demand of voluntary credits, it is by no way even up to the volumes that I've seen promoted as imminent from REDD projects," said Chris Halliwell, a senior emissions broker for TFS Green in Melbourne, Australia.
"There seems to be a mark-to-market valuation but not really supply and demand analysis."
REDD holds the promise of unlocking billions of dollars in annual revenue to developing nations from carbon offset sales to wealthy countries.
The scheme is designed to curb deforestation and restore the world's tropical forests so they can soak up growing amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
But REDD projects must provide funds for local communities, prove they are designed to address local causes of deforestation, ensure they are long-term and be able to accurately calculate how much carbon the forest will lock away over several decades.
Such complex calculations take time. Proving who actually owns the carbon stock in a given area is also crucial.
Carbon Planet's projections seem daring if only because the entire value of the world's voluntary carbon market was US$705 million in 2008, up from US$335 million in 2007, according to "State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2009" by Ecosystem Marketplace and analysts New Carbon Finance.
Of this, global sales of "avoided deforestation" credits were just one percent of turnover.
Carbon Planet Founder Dave Sag told Reuters the A$600 million in revenues over five years from Indonesia was "based on a very conservative estimated yield of 12 million tonnes per annum".
"I understand that people have concerns about our projections. Anyone would given the scale of them. But the numbers to us do not seem unrealistic."
TOUGH STANDARDS
Sag said the projects would meet tough yardsticks -- such as the respected Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and Climate, Community and Biodiversity Project Design Standards -- and the firm was looking more to future compliance markets.
"That's why we are busting a gut to make sure that these projects are produced properly."
But large markets that will accept large volumes of REDD credits are several years away. And many developing nations have yet to develop rules governing REDD, adding to uncertainty.
Another REDD project developer in Indonesia said it was crucial to prove to investors that protecting an area of forest actually curbs deforestation and therefore emissions.
"You are basically doing projects and drafting legal agreements in the absence of any rules," said Wilder.
"From our point of view, doing a REDD project is similar to other long-term infrastructure projects in the sense that the legal foundations have to be beyond reproach," he added.
Sag says REDD credits will soon start to flow from its projects, starting later this year with 10 million VCS-standard credits from Kamula Doso rainforest in Papua New Guinea.
The company has signed a deal with a firm called Nupan, which represents the 52 land-owner groups in the 800,000 ha (2 million acres) reserve who are the legal owners of the "carbon stock".
He denies Carbon Planet is playing fast and loose with its projections, saying investors want to know the numbers.
"I am the confident the credits will start walking out the door pretty soon. We have buyers lined up."
(Additional reporting by Sunanda Creagh in JAKARTA; Editing by Michael Urquhart) ((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net))
Keywords: CARBON FORESTS/DEMAND
More questions than answers on carbon trading in PNG
By Chris Lang, 11th September 2009
Papua New Guinea’s forest carbon trading fiasco is back in the news. The focus is on Kirk Roberts, pictured right, his company Nupan (PNG) Trading Limited and an Australian carbon trading firm, Carbon Planet. “It’s no secret that I am one of the most important foreigners in PNG,” Roberts says. But his opponents have called him “the kingpin of the ‘carbon cowboys’”. Roberts claims to have power of attorney over 90 forest deals. He also claims to be unaware of any disputes with tribal groups, although one tribal representative says he was coerced into signing a Memorandum of Agreement with Nupan.
Two articles were published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday last week (4 September 2009): “I am a top foreigner in Papua New Guinea, says carbon kingpin” and “Australian firm linked to PNG’s $100m carbon trading scandal“. The next day, The Australian published an overview of the whole sorry tale so far: “The rush is on for sky money“. Meanwhile, Carbon Planet has produced a series of questions and answers on its website about its involvement in REDD projects. Two extraordinary videos of a “official hand over ceremony on behalf of the 45,000 people of the East Pangia FMA [forest management area]” have also been posted on Nupan’s website (see below).
None of this is straight forward. There are many people in the logging industry who would love to see REDD fail so they that could carry on logging. Wari Iamo, the acting head of the Office of Climate Change, has said that the government does not support the sort of Voluntary Carbon Agreements that Nupan is setting up in PNG. He has also noted that in forest areas covered by Forest Management Agreements the timber resources belong to the State. This could be read as an attempt to make sure that any revenue from REDD goes to the State rather than the landowners and companies such as Nupan and Carbon Planet. There’s also the problem that trading the carbon will allow emissions elsewhere to continue – a dangerous distraction, as Friends of the Earth points out.
But the fact that something is complex means we need more transparency, not less. This post looks at three aspects of carbon trading in PNG:
Free, prior and informed consent
The dodgy REDD “credits”
The money
In doing so it raises (or repeats) some of the unanswered questions.
Free, prior and informed consent
One of the most important aspects is whether landowners in Papua New Guinea are signing the agreements with free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The principle is crucial to upholding the human rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Here’s how Oxfam Australia explains FPIC:
Free refers to the general principle of law that consent is not valid if obtained through coercion or manipulation.
Prior refers to meaningful, informed consent sought sufficiently in advance of any activities by a company.
Informed means that the process must involve consultation and participation by Indigenous peoples with full disclosures of a development activity in accessible and understandable forms to affected peoples and communities.
Nupan has contracted Carbon Planet “to provide the certification and trading services for its carbon projects in Papua New Guinea,” according to Carbon Planet’s website. In its Corporate Ethics and Social Policy, Carbon Planet states that “Carbon Planet, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous Peoples, undertake that we will endeavour to adhere with the principles outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” [emphasis added]. While Carbon Planet should be commended for referring to UN DRIPs, this wording is way too loose. To have any credibility, Carbon Planet must actually comply to the principles in the UN DRIPs, not simply say that it will try to do so. What’s worse is that in its Guiding Principles on Rights of Indigenous Peoples Carbon Planet appears to be looking only at Articles 31-37 of UN DRIPs.
Unfortunately, it seems that Roberts is being economical with the truth in at least some of his dealings with local people. For example, in a letter from Nupan to the Vice Chairman and Directors of Tumu Timbers Development Limited, regarding forest in Kamula Doso, Roberts states: “We confirm that the independent verification process to enable your Project to be formally recognized under the UNFCCC guidelines for REDD Carbon Credits is now well underway.” But there is as yet no agreement at UN level on REDD. There are no UNFCCC guidelines for REDD Carbon Credits. Roberts declined to reply when REDD-Monitor requested a copy of the UNFCCC guidelines. Here’s the letter from Nupan to Tumu Timbers (pdf file, 24.9KB)
NuPan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited
July, 2009Mr. Wisa Susupe,KAMULA DOSO FMA Block 1;2;&3 FMA
Welcome Sir!
It is our great pleasure to welcome you and acknowledge your fellowVice Chairman and Directors of Tumu Timbers Development Limited.
Mr. Billy Toroti – Vice ChairmanMr. Walama Painama – Director / SecretaryMr. Yamai Umtadie – DirectorMr. Nodie Imali – Director
We acknowledge receipt of your Board Minutes confirming our appointment, and assure you that we have, on your behalf, and with the help of the People of Kamula Doso, now completed all the Corporate, Legal, Government, and Social responsibilities required of us as your appointed Power of Attorney, and that we will at all times continue to act in your best interests.
We will continue the village consultation process started with your people some years ago, and will take our greatest care to represent the interests of your people at all times. We confirm that the independent verification process to enable your Project to be formally recognized under the UNFCCC guidelines for REDD Carbon Credits is now well underway.
The decision you have all made to preserve your beautiful forests from logging and other destructive activities is a brave one, and we salute your intention to maintain your Forests in the interests of providing Mother Earth with “A breath of fresh air”.
We salute you and thank you for your trust.
Yours sincerely,“Roberts”Kirk William RobertsCEO / ChairmanNupan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited
Roberts refused to discuss how the deals were done when asked by the Sydney Morning Herald:
”The whole thing has been checked over by international verifiers,” he said.
Asked for detail, he said: ”That information will all come out when the projects are complete. I’m not going to talk about verification now.
”Why would I do that? It’s not for people to write stories about at the moment.”[ . . . ]”They come to me looking to get into carbon trading, not the other way round,” he said. ”I can’t go into any details of how it’s done – this is commercial-in-confidence.”
When REDD-Monitor asked Dave Sag, co-founder and executive director of Carbon Planet, about the UNFCCC REDD guidelines mentioned in Roberts’ letter, Sag replied: “I can’t speak for Mr Roberts but what I assume he means there is the development of the specific REDD methodology and the PDD [Project Development Document] that documents the KD [Kamula Doso] project is well underway.” Sag neatly avoided answering the question about the UNFCCC REDD guidelines.
Here are the two videos of the “official hand over ceremony on behalf of the 45,000 people of the East Pangia FMA [forest management area]“:
During the second video Roberts is asked “So what do you think the people will gain out of carbon trading, long term?” Here’s his response:
“Most importantly the people will be able to preserve their customs. They’ll be able to be the same that they’ve always been, but still be able to maintain themselves in a better way by utilising the finances that carbon trading will be able to provide, with infrastructure in the villages, hospitals, roads, etc. etc. Managed properly it will definitely be a better place.”
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, one tribal representative was coerced into signing an agreement with Nupan:
a tribal representative the Herald spoke to, who cannot be named, said he had been coerced into signing a memorandum of understanding that gave Nupan power of attorney over his land. Initially he refused. ”I didn’t know anything about the certificates, that was my first time in hearing about the certificates,” the tribesman said.
The tribal representative claimed he eventually signed the memorandum in the face of Nupan’s persistence. ”I couldn’t do anything … So I just went ahead and signed it. Then later I complained to my lawyer.”
The dodgy REDD “credits”
Another part of this story is a series of dodgy carbon credits, printed on Office of Climate Change letterheads and signed by the then-head of the OCC, Theo Yasause (who is currently suspended pending an investigation). When asked by the Sydney Morning Herald about these letters, Dave Sag “denied media reports in PNG the certificates were stolen or were intended to mislead.”
”Those certificates are worthless. … No one who knows anything about carbon would take them in any way seriously,” Mr Sag said. ”They ended up in Kirk’s hands because they would have been produced as a prop to be taken out and waved in front of people in order to provide some physicality to what is essentially an ephemeral thing.”
REDD-Monitor has posted some of these REDD “credits” here and here. Questions remain. Why would a “prop” need to be written on OCC letterheaded paper, stamped and signed? If it was only a “prop”, why was it not marked, for example, “sample”? And if it really was a “prop”, why did Yasause feel the need to write again to Nupan in February 2009, stating, “As Designated National Authority, I hereby write to advise you that all correspondences and certificates issued for the development of REDD pilot project in Kumula Doso is hereby withdrawn as of the date of this letter.”?
Interestingly, on its website, Carbon Planet says something different to what Sag told the Sydney Morning Herald:
In mid 2008 the Office of Climate Change (who is the Designated National Authority (DNA) who authorises carbon market activities) created a “symbolic REDD credit certificate” as a sample certificate with no commercial value.
Carbon Planet has had no involvement with them; we understand the certificates were an internal sample produced by the Office of Climate Change not for any commercial use or purpose. The “REDD credit certificates” were not intended as anything but a symbolic reference of a REDD credit certificate.
So, when is a “symbolic REDD credit certificate” a “prop” and when is it an “internal sample”? And did the villagers who have signed agreements with Roberts also understand that these REDD “credits” were only “symbolic”, a “prop” or an “internal sample”?
The money
Another hardly trivial issue is the matter of money. Last year, Carbon Planet invested A$1.2 million in PNG. Here’s how Dave Sag explained this to Tan Copsey, a journalist with China Dialogue, recently:
“We have invested $1.2 million [Australian dollars, or nearly US$1 million] in Papua New Guinea,” Sag said, “but we haven’t given it to the government. We’ve spent money on everything from plane fares to taxis to local translators to consultants to illustrators. Right now, we also employ a lot of very hard-core scientists who go out into the jungle. These are not armchair scientists; these are real people doing real work, and it is expensive and it is complicated.”
On its website, Carbon Planet states that the money went to Nupan:
As at September 7, 2009, Carbon Planet has never paid any monies to the PNG Government. Carbon Planet paid AU$1.2m in project finance to project developer Nupan Trading Corporation (PNG) Limited.
So where did the money go? A$1.2 million would buy an awful lot of plane tickets and taxi rides. Consultants and scientists tend to be more expensive. But are they employed by Nupan or by Carbon Planet? Who are they? What were they hired to do, exactly? And are any of their reports in the public domain?
Another question is how much money Carbon Planet might get from all this. According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
Carbon Planet, which has acquired a publicly listed company, told investors recently it had $100 million in potential REDD projects in PNG. Mr Sag said this figure was ”estimates based on contracts we have in place”.
But elsewhere, Carbon Planet gives different figures. Natasha Loder, a journalist with The Economist, writes on her blog that she has a business model document produced by Carbon Planet which claims that, “25 REDD Projects have been contracted at $1 billion per annum to date”. The same document also claims that Carbon Planet has contracted eight REDD memoranda of understanding in Indonesia, at $600m per annum. So how much are these various contracts actually worth to Carbon Planet?
While we’re looking at money, and unanswered questions, the Australian government needs to answer some questions about its Papua New Guinea Australia Forest Carbon Partnership, under which Australia has committed A$3 million to PNG. In addition, Australia has a A$200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative. Penny Wong, Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Water has so far declined to answer questions about her government’s involvement in carbon trading in PNG.
11th September 2009 Tags: Carbon Credits, REDD and rights Category: Australia, Papua New Guinea 15 comments
15 comments to More questions than answers on carbon trading in PNG
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Yeah nice story chris Lang, its just a pity your story is so far behind the times as I have already posted all of the info in this article and more on an Aus investment website (hotcopp*r) called “Ingham unvails $6 million data centre” where they will be using carbon planet “It is based on green datacentre practices and will undergo certification through Carbon Planet, Lenz said.”Also if you read all my posts (username robbie354315) you will see there is a much bigger picture at hand as NZ and many other business’s and countries highly respect all of the great work CP are doing. But like I said you only covered half the story Chris. Read it Chris and just hope your boss doesnt see my reply as he might think that you retrieved all your info from my posts as I posted them all well before you did, except next time tell the whole story you biases SOB. Nice try Chris “but fail” if you want the whole story (that extends well beyond what I’ve posted elsewhere) email me as I wont post it on any website except for it involves Counties/Gov’s/BIG B’s and much much more.
Cheers Chris old boy,
Rob
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Just to add you stated in your article that carbon planet have acquired a publicly listed company, lets first look at the definition of acquired – get: come into the possession of something concrete or abstract;
Naughty naughty Chris, lets not tell porky pies as thats never even happed, yes they are talking to each other but unless you know something that I dont and considering that if you did it would be insider trading as a merger would definetely effect the company (share price) that is already listed on the ASX and Yep, no they havent submitted a statement/announcement on the asx stating anything about the merger, so you have made up a little porky pie Chris old boy, lets not get slopey shoulders Chris as you need to be accountable for your articles, once again drop me an email and get the full story.
Cheers Chris old boy,
Rob
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Also Chris you state that you write is licensed under a:
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
If your readers want to see what it is (refer link below) as it is only a couple of lines of info they will see you have failed to obide by even your own rules that you have after all very suitably found and adopted for yourself.
Whats your angle Chris? and why have you lied?
I believe that you are gone for all $$$$$$$ as thats the reason you have written such an incorrect article.
whats that Chris $$$ are in this game? what? hmmm??? who me?
Its a pity Chris because I could help your cause instead of asking you why you lied?
After all Chris it was only sixteen years ago where you worked for four years as an architect in Oxford and London, Then charged off into the blue yonder with your friends and became an eco-warrior. So I know you are a smart chap, thats why I am writing to you at 1am in australia.
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2009/06/05/the-nature-conservancy-forest-offsets-more-important-than-emissions-reduction-targets/&usg=__Fe7wMa0abaOsHFESb3N9Jlzgxfg=&h=150&w=150&sz=41&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=rpzgbfUyjEg2iM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchris%2Blang%2Blives%2Bredd%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1
R.Wilson
September 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
the above link is Incorrect, oops sorry! lol try this one
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
Chris Lang
September 11th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@R.Wilson – thanks for your various comments. Yes Carbon Planet has other interests other than REDD in PNG. Thanks for pointing this out and for all the other information you posted elsewhere. Very interesting.
The bit about Carbon Planet acquiring a publicly listed company is a quotation from the article in the Sydney Morning Herald. That’s why it says “According to the Sydney Morning Herald” before the quotation.
I can’t understand your point about the Creative Commons License. Perhaps you could try to explain this again. Incidentally, the content of REDD-Monitor is licensed under this version of Creative Commons.
Gavin Pereira
September 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Sag has confirmed that the false and misleading government certificates were waved in front of landowners to give substance to the project. The purpose of this would be in the hope of persuading them into signing their land and their carbon stocks to the REDD project.
In terms of accreditation, the VCS and the engineering companies validating and verifying the project on behalf of the VCS should take note. In my opinion (and the opinion of my company lol – http://www.noco2.com.au) the admission that these certificates were used for this purpose should render all the carbon from deals signed after the circulation date of those certificates as invalid. It will diminish the VCS as an accreditation standard if it allows the carbon from these deals to be traded.
The auditors should also go over the other deals with a fine tooth comb to check if they are sweet or not.
On a personal note, Im unconvinced that the ‘current rules’ of the VCS and CCBA methodologies deal with the issue of leakage. Under the methodologies, the projects have to create buffers to account for carbon lost through risk of fire/logging etc. In the case of the PNG projects – the buffer is in another part of the PNG forest.
This is a problem because the main motivator, or in the majority of cases, logging is undertaken to supply the pulp/paper/wood market with product.
This would be cool if the forestry market was confined to PNG. But it isnt – if the forestry market is starved of product from PNG, it will be supplied from forest some where else – without a global deal where forestry stocks are monitored, deforestation will still occur and the same amount of carbon will be lost as a store/sink irrespective of whether the png deals go ahead. Hence, the net result for the atmosphere will be the same – no benefit.
Carbon trading is premised on the notion that carbon projects create a net CO2 saving/benefit that can be sold to polluters. REDD projects fail to do this and should not be allowed to deem carbon credits and we wont allow companies to use them to claim they are carbon neutral.
An international agreement that sees global forests as a carbon asset and creates an international inventory of carbon stocks could be the answer to this problem. I hope that they solve it at Copenhagen because it would be awesome if REDD could do as ‘Roberts’ suggests and be a mechanism that helps preserve culture and enhance self determination of indigenous peoples.
Dave Sag
September 14th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Gavin I do understand how tempting it is to try and use stories like this to promote your own company but please get your facts right. Despite allegations in the SMH I have neither “confirmed” nor “admitted” anything of the sort. I was taken well out of context by the press the other week. Your opinions, and those of your business partner who on another blog claimed we should just shut Carbon Planet down, are at best unhelpful and at worst childish.
Get your facts right. REDD Monitor is just a parrot of negative press, and does no genuine reporting of its own. If they did then perhaps this site would have some credibility but alas it does not. But sadly Chris Lang has never bothered to actually contact me and ask me for comment. He’s just reprinted my comments from other blogs, or the nonsense from the papers that has been emphatically denied by myself and our CEO Jim Johnson.
Your personal view of the VCS is irrelevant. Go to the VCS website and check out our Methodology for yourself and see how, for example, buffer calculations are made, before spouting off with your ignorance.
Davehttp://redd.carbonplanet.com
R.WILSON
September 14th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Chris,
Have a look at the below link, the persons name is Natasha Loder, London, United Kingdom. She is a journalist working at The Economist.
MORE IMPORTANTLY SHE’S GIVEN A FAIR REPORT ON WHERE NUPAN AND CARBON PLANET STAND, YOU DO REALISE THAT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND APART FROM HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS ARE 2 COMPLETELY SEPERATE ENTITIES. DONT LABEL BUDDY, CHALK AND CHEESE LOL! MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE AND WILL SEEK CARBON PLANETS BUSINESS/HELP/IDEAS SOME WILL BE BAD AND SOME WILL BE GOOD. THE MOMENT 1 COMPANY (NUPAN) LOOKS (AND THE VERDICT IS STILL OUT) A LITTLE SHADY PEOPLE LIKE YOU THROW THE FIRST STONE AT CP.
http://natashaloder.blogspot.com/2009/06/kamula-duso-credit.html
Chris Lang
September 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am
@R.Wilson – I’m fully aware that Nupan and Carbon Planet are two separate companies: “Nupan has contracted Carbon Planet ‘to provide the certification and trading services for its carbon projects in Papua New Guinea,’ according to Carbon Planet’s website” (from the post, above). I am aware of Natasha Loder’s blog – you might like to read this post on REDD-Monitor about Kamula Doso.
@Dave Sag – perhaps you’d like to explain exactly what the REDD “credits” were, and whether or not they were waved in front of villagers in PNG. Feel free to add in the context that the press did not give. Will you be making a complaint to the Australian Press Council about the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and elsewhere in the Australian press?
Dave Sag
September 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Chris I don’t have the actual documents in front of me as I am travelling right now but last week I was asked to attend a meeting by the Australian Government who had a whole bunch of questions for me about the recent media hysteria. Once I had answered their questions they then showed me the ‘certificate’ you and Natasha Loder have been on about. That was the first time (outside of Natasha’s blog I think) that I had ever seen this so-called certificate. What neither Loder’s blog, nor any other reporting on the issue shows, but the Government here had, was the letter that accompanied the certificate and that puts the certificate in context. The letter outlines the VCS approval process and makes it very clear that the ‘attached’ copy was a sample and had no value whatsoever. On the back of this sample certificate, as detailed in the letter, is a flowchart depicting the VCS approval process in summary form. It was utterly deceptive of Loder, and subsequent bloggers, to parade that certificate around and, since it was scanned and put online I am told that con-men have been using it to deceive people into handing over cash for so-called “sky-money”. The irritating thing is that these stories have since been maliciously conflated by a handful of irresponsible bloggers to imply (and later outright claim) that Carbon Planet, and/or Nupan have been using fake or stolen carbon credits to dupe landowners. Nothing could be further from the truth and even the most basic understanding of the VCS process would make it clear that informed consent of landowners is a vital foundation to any proper REDD type project.
I never told told the SMH, who could not even get my job title right in their story, that Nupan had any copies of this sample certificate. I said, in my interview, (from memory here) something along the lines of ‘IF Mr Roberts had one of those certificates it would have been used as a prop.’ Nupan has emphatically denied ever having had any ‘fake’ certificates, let alone having used them. Carbon Planet’s actual CEO (that’s not me as the SMH stated) wrote a letter to the SMH that was published a day later that made this very clear. I guess while you were researching your story you overlooked that letter, or if you did see it you simply chose to ignore it.
Chris you seem to have made up your mind that carbon trading is wrong and that those of us working in the planet saving industry are pure evil incarnate. When has REDD Monitor ever published a success story about REDD projects? Or are they all flawed?
Regarding making a complaint to the APC, it had not occurred to me but now you mention it I’ll ask someone to look into that tomorrow. Thanks for the tip.
Davehttp://www.carbonplanet.com/REDD_addressing_the_issuessee also http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/medias-carbon-confusion-is-grist-for-the-lumber-mill/
Chris Lang
September 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@Dave Sag – I posted the letter that accompanied the REDD “certificate” you refer to, here. I also wrote the following about the letter in a post about Kamula Doso on REDD-Monitor (2 July 2009):
“on 3 November 2008, the Office of Climate Change wrote to a company called Nupan PNG Limited (right), stating ‘As Designated National Authority (DNA), I can issue a certificate of credit should you complete the following steps for the Project Documentation to be registered under the Voluntary Carbon Standards.’ Attached to the letter is a copy of a certificate, titled ‘Series Number B1 Voluntary carbon credits issued under the UNFCC Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degredation (sic) initiative for clean development mechanisms.’ The certificate is signed by Theo Yasause and Leo Tale, Director-Carbon Trade.”
But the fifth page of the pdf file is perhaps more interesting. Here’s what I wrote about that, back in July:
“On 2 February 2009, Yasause sent a ‘Notice of Nullyfication (sic) of all corresspondences (sic) and certifications issued on Kumalo (sic) Doso Pilot Project on REDD’ to the Managing Director of Nupan PNG Limited (see page 5 of the letters about Kamula Doso). The letter states that ‘This decision has come about due to the continuous dispute between various landowner groups within the Kumula Doso project area and also with your company ownership.’”
I wonder why Kirk Roberts didn’t send you a copy of this letter?
A Witness
September 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I’d like to know whether the Australian government is only interested in the problem of “media hysteria”, or whether, on behalf of the taxpayers that support it, should perhaps be more interested to know whether the money that it has poured into the ‘Papua New Guinea Australia Forest Carbon Partnership’ is actually doing any good, or is maybe just helping a bunch of “carbon cowboys” line their rather deep pockets.
I’m beginning to wonder whether Penny Wong really exists. Or has she perhaps gone into hiding?
Gavin Pereira
September 15th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Dave, we also feel lucky to work in an industry that exists to save the planet. We were compelled to blog because we were deeply concerned that yet another carbon company had, on the reported evidence, cocked up and caused further damage to the reputation of honest players in the market.
The main reason for my blog was that I wanted to make the point that the VCS and CCBA Methodologies for REDD are rubbish because they don’t account for international leakage. By default, this makes your project rubbish to – irrespective of whether false certificates were used to trick landowners or not.
Forests are logged in the main to supply the international market for wood and wood products. Your project will starve the market of wood from PNG – fantastic – but, in the absence of international regulation, the gap will definitely be filled through deforestation somewhere else. Economics 101 I believe. The emissions you save under the project will shift out of PNG and into another country with minimal (if any)net benefit for our atmosphere. This is the net outcome of your project.
I wish the media and other commentators were knowledgeable enough to focus on this point – because it removes all integrity, ‘carbon value’ and therefore monetary value from the carbon products that the project will eventually create and try to sell.
You and I both know this to be true – the buffer calculations don’t include international leakage – so don’t label me ignorant. You’re better than that. I can present page references, attach links to the methodology documents or explain the formulae used to substantiate the above points should you need me to.
The point of blogs is so that informed people can point these sorts of things out and express their opinions within a relevant channel. You’ll notice that I put a ‘lol’ in after the company reference. That was because, whilst I knew there was no value in being identified/listed on this blog(and my partners agree lol) I didnt want to appear to be casting gutless potshots using the anonymity of the web.
The first few points in my previous entry hinged on your quote RE Nupan’s use of the false certificates. We’d heard about the certificates prior to the article and later, you were quoted as saying that the certificates were produced to be waved in front of landowners. You say you were misquoted – but many if not all informed readers would see that quote and draw the same conclusion – that if they were presented to landowners it would be in aid of trying to entice them to join their stocks to the project. I think the points I made following on the base of this conclusion were fair – you’d hate it if other carbon companies were able to claim VCUs under similar false pretense. You should have explained explicitly and immediately that you were misquoted –on twitter, your blog, your company webpage – anywhere, but you didn’t. It took days for the company to list a response that still didnt offer a rebuttal to your quote. We were looking for it, but it never came until you were pushed through blogs such as this.
Anyway – you’ve defended that quote and we’ll see in the wash (or through the project’s eventual accreditation) whether it was legit. I hope you avoid making further loose-cannon statements to the press as they only act to tarnish the good work that the rest of us are trying to get on with in this industry. Maybe you should provide written answers to journos to protect yourself from being so horrendously misquoted in future.
I hope to leave it there.
Gavin
Stephen Dickey
September 24th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Dear Chris,
I think this blog is the best example of the worst grammar and literary expression I have ever seen.
I can understand that, at 1.00 am, R. Wilson was losing his or her sense of proportion and coherence (did we have a glass or two of wine beforehand?) but this is bearable compared to Mr Pereira’s barrage of modern creative adjectives; sweet, cool, awesome! I imagine we can all accept ‘cocked-up’ as a colourful (or colorful if you are in the USA) alternative to the good old fashioned “erred” though I confess I prefer the latter in serious journalism.
What disturbs me more is that Mr Pereira’s argument is as incomprehensible and contradictory as his vernacular, invective as it is, and, once again, sounds like the cacophonous cackle of a carrion crow rid of his carcass.
I find that those who are most vociferously, and vehemently opposed to REDD are those that understand it the least which is not surprising among the lay but damns by definition those who claim, as Mr Pereira does, to be in the same ‘business’.
Sadly, there is no shortage of vitriol borne of envy and ire borne of ignorance in this debate and my advise to Mr. Sag is to rise above it (it is clearly time, Chris, that you and Dave had a real conversation and I would be happy to act as a cheery peacekeeper as I have both your acquaintances albeit only slightly).
I also hope, one day, to read a list of contributions that offer assistance, guidance and general support to and from those of us who are trying to fight the effects of climate change even if we seek to make a living out of it.
My own philosophy is that I hope and expect to make some money out of what I am doing; I am not doing it to make money. There is a difference and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and accepting that we must challenge it on specific issues or judgments such as this one, it is reasonable to give Carbon Planet the benefit of the doubt.
In my opinion I think REDD Monitor has, thus far, done so.
Michael Brown
September 28th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Removing all the vitriol in this thread, I want to comment on one point made in passing in the thread that addresses, in my opinion, the root of whether REDD can ever be beneficial to local communities as many anticipate: “that informed consent of landowners is a vital foundation to any proper REDD type project.” The question of whether REDD is foolish because in Economics 101 it will inevitably lead to leakage elsewhere, as was also argued, is certainly a worthy question for policy makers at the macro programming level to consider, with emphasis on what operational mitigation measures could be put in place to safeguard against this leakage.
Returning to the topic of FPIC…
For people with experience in most (perhaps all?) developing countries , achieving FPIC in the literal sense of the term is not just a challenge. In many situations it is not feasible today or tomorrow due to: the inability of women to participate as equal partners in decision making processes due to myriad reasons; the inability of minorities to participate in an informed manner due to their own legacy of subservience; the tendency of local social structures to enable local leaders to manipulate to the disadvantage of the larger community (e.g. sub-optimal social capital).
FPIC is inevitably a very relative notion. Depending on one’s interpretation of what it means, FPIC can be easiest boiled down to a leader’s signature on paper. When either PNG clan leaders or African chiefs sign in the name of their constituents, is it fair to assume this is representative of FPIC? All certification programs that utilize FPIC as a cornerstone principle are stating a philosophical axiom that all politically correct practitioners can accept, but that has serious operational shortcomings when one attempts to apply FPIC on the ground in “certifying” that company x,y,z can demonstrate FPIC.
I believe that until communities can demonstrate that they understand the costs, benefits and risks of REDD – some minimally acceptable form of means testing, as it were – and that they opt for a particular REDD program involving certain behaviors vis a vis carbon assets, then the world (including PNG) will be stuck with an ambiguous FPIC principle that will be interpreted differently from case to case. This will not bode well for the REDD marketplace, and will of course lead to manipulation of communities by REDD marketers/intermediaries who know fully well that FPIC in the real sense has not been achieved. And all those agencies that use the standard and perpetuate reliance on FPIC to make REDD right, including donor agencies, will be winking at what is collectively known as a politically correct principle with no prayer in hell of being demonstrated in the vast majority of cases where the word “informed” is taken seriously.
There remains too little information, too little analytical and decision making experience in dealing with legal documents and business tradeoffs for most communities in developing countries, to make informed choices.
Will donor agencies promoting REDD in PNG or sub-Saharan Africa be strengthening the capacities of potential REDD stewards such that they can coherently play the game? Will market intermediaries be doing this? Unless someone does, will we ever be able to speak honestly about FPIC as it relates to REDD?
I do not believe so.
But I do believe that there are ways to responsibly do this, that are akin to any other type of corporate social responsibility investment that will pay out nicely on the bottom line in the long run.
Selasa, 25 Agustus 2009
REDD & USA
US Climate Change Bill on the way to support REDD
Sun, 28/06/2009 - 10:46 — Markus Sommerauer
Forests/Wälder:
Kliping: source: http://www.somcon.com/content/us-climate-change-bill-way-support-redd
Climate change
Klimaänderung
Node_type:
Blogs
Topics/Themen:
Forest carbon
Friday, 26th of June 2009: The bill (HR 2454) passed 219-212, with eight Republican "yes" votes tipping the balance. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill.
The 1,201-page bill is considered the broadest piece of legislation ever considered by Congress aimed at capping greenhouse gas emissions and placing a price on carbon. Under the bill, emissions would be cut 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. The massive bill tries to do it all and through a lengthy negotiating process to ensure its passage, it’s also loaded with compromises. But even with those concessions, the bill barely stayed alive, with more than 40 Democrats breaking ranks to vote against it.
After months of negotiations, 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill
As difficult as House passage proved, it is just the beginning of the energy and climate debate in Congress. The issue now moves to the Senate, where political divisions and regional differences are even more stark.
Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.
Some first details of the Waxman-Markey bill in respect to the REDD program:
Here is some of the latest information on REDD in the US House legislation. Click title to connect and here is the relevant text:
Supplemental Reductions from Preventing Tropical Deforestation: 5% of allowances will be allocated from 2012 through 2025 to prevent tropical deforestation and build capacity to generate international deforestation offsets. By 2020, this program will achieve additional emission reductions equivalent to 10% of U.S. emissions in 2005. From 2026 through 2030, 3% of allowances will be allocated to this program. In 2031 and thereafter, 2% will be allocated to this program.
Want to read more about implications?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
‹ UK: Woodland creation part of national Low Carbon transition strategy up Climate change might reverse forests carbon sinks ›
Markus Sommerauer's blog
Login or register to post comments
Sun, 28/06/2009 - 10:46 — Markus Sommerauer
Forests/Wälder:
Kliping: source: http://www.somcon.com/content/us-climate-change-bill-way-support-redd
Climate change
Klimaänderung
Node_type:
Blogs
Topics/Themen:
Forest carbon
Friday, 26th of June 2009: The bill (HR 2454) passed 219-212, with eight Republican "yes" votes tipping the balance. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill.
The 1,201-page bill is considered the broadest piece of legislation ever considered by Congress aimed at capping greenhouse gas emissions and placing a price on carbon. Under the bill, emissions would be cut 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. The massive bill tries to do it all and through a lengthy negotiating process to ensure its passage, it’s also loaded with compromises. But even with those concessions, the bill barely stayed alive, with more than 40 Democrats breaking ranks to vote against it.
After months of negotiations, 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill
As difficult as House passage proved, it is just the beginning of the energy and climate debate in Congress. The issue now moves to the Senate, where political divisions and regional differences are even more stark.
Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.
Some first details of the Waxman-Markey bill in respect to the REDD program:
Here is some of the latest information on REDD in the US House legislation. Click title to connect and here is the relevant text:
Supplemental Reductions from Preventing Tropical Deforestation: 5% of allowances will be allocated from 2012 through 2025 to prevent tropical deforestation and build capacity to generate international deforestation offsets. By 2020, this program will achieve additional emission reductions equivalent to 10% of U.S. emissions in 2005. From 2026 through 2030, 3% of allowances will be allocated to this program. In 2031 and thereafter, 2% will be allocated to this program.
Want to read more about implications?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
‹ UK: Woodland creation part of national Low Carbon transition strategy up Climate change might reverse forests carbon sinks ›
Markus Sommerauer's blog
Login or register to post comments
Selasa, 04 Agustus 2009
REDD Projects in Indonesia
REDD Projects in Indonesia
My update:
1. MERANG REDD PILOT PROJECT (MRPP) in Musi Banyuasin, South Sumatera; 150,000 ha; GTZ, MoF, Provincial Govt, MUBA District, http://www.merang-redd.net/
2. Ulu Masen project in Aceh; 750,000 ha, facilitated by Flora Fauna International (FFI)
3. Kampar project in Riau; 400,000 ha, Leaf Carbon Ltd. and APRIL/RAPP
4. Kuala Kampar project in Riau; 700,000 ha, WWF
5. Tesso Nilo in Riau, 50,000 ha, WWF
6. Harapan Rainforest in Muara Jambi-Jambi Province; 101,000 ha; Burung Indonesia, RSPB, Birdlife
7. Berbak in Jambi; 250,000 ha; ERM, ZSL, Berbak National Park
8. Kapuas Hulu and Ketapang in West Kalimantan; 157,000 ha; FFI, PT. Mcquirie Capital
9. Central Kalimantan; 50,000 ha, Infinite Earth
10. KFCP in Cetral Kalimantan; 340,000 ha; Govt of Australia
11. Katingan in Central Kalimantan; ………..ha; Starling Resources
12. Mawas PCAP in Central Kalimantan; 364,000 ha; BOS, Govt of Netherland, Shell Canada
13. Sebangau National Park in Cetral Kalimantan; 50,000 ha; WWF, BOS, Wetlands Intl, Care Intl
14. Malinau in East Kalimantan; Global Eco Rescue, INHUTANI II, District Govt of Malinau
15. Berau in East Kalimantan; 971,245 ha; TNC, ICRAF, Sekala, Mulawarman Universitiy, WInrock Intl, Univ of Queensland
16. Heart of Borneo Kalimantan; 22 million ha; WWF
17. Poigar in North Sulawesi; 34,989 ha; Green Synergies
18. Mamuju in West Sulawesi; 30,000 ha; Keep the Habitat, Inhutani I
19. Mimika and Memberamo in Papua; 265,000 ha; New Forest Asset Mgt, PT. Emerald Planet
20. Jayapura in Papua; 217,634 ha; WWF
21. Merauke-Mappi-Asmat in Papua; ……ha; WWF
Source: http://environmentalism.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/redd-project-in-indonesia/.
My update:
1. MERANG REDD PILOT PROJECT (MRPP) in Musi Banyuasin, South Sumatera; 150,000 ha; GTZ, MoF, Provincial Govt, MUBA District, http://www.merang-redd.net/
2. Ulu Masen project in Aceh; 750,000 ha, facilitated by Flora Fauna International (FFI)
3. Kampar project in Riau; 400,000 ha, Leaf Carbon Ltd. and APRIL/RAPP
4. Kuala Kampar project in Riau; 700,000 ha, WWF
5. Tesso Nilo in Riau, 50,000 ha, WWF
6. Harapan Rainforest in Muara Jambi-Jambi Province; 101,000 ha; Burung Indonesia, RSPB, Birdlife
7. Berbak in Jambi; 250,000 ha; ERM, ZSL, Berbak National Park
8. Kapuas Hulu and Ketapang in West Kalimantan; 157,000 ha; FFI, PT. Mcquirie Capital
9. Central Kalimantan; 50,000 ha, Infinite Earth
10. KFCP in Cetral Kalimantan; 340,000 ha; Govt of Australia
11. Katingan in Central Kalimantan; ………..ha; Starling Resources
12. Mawas PCAP in Central Kalimantan; 364,000 ha; BOS, Govt of Netherland, Shell Canada
13. Sebangau National Park in Cetral Kalimantan; 50,000 ha; WWF, BOS, Wetlands Intl, Care Intl
14. Malinau in East Kalimantan; Global Eco Rescue, INHUTANI II, District Govt of Malinau
15. Berau in East Kalimantan; 971,245 ha; TNC, ICRAF, Sekala, Mulawarman Universitiy, WInrock Intl, Univ of Queensland
16. Heart of Borneo Kalimantan; 22 million ha; WWF
17. Poigar in North Sulawesi; 34,989 ha; Green Synergies
18. Mamuju in West Sulawesi; 30,000 ha; Keep the Habitat, Inhutani I
19. Mimika and Memberamo in Papua; 265,000 ha; New Forest Asset Mgt, PT. Emerald Planet
20. Jayapura in Papua; 217,634 ha; WWF
21. Merauke-Mappi-Asmat in Papua; ……ha; WWF
Source: http://environmentalism.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/redd-project-in-indonesia/.
REDD and Good Governance
Good governance ‘key to effective REDD’
Mohamad Rayan, clipper
Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta Mon, 06/08/2009 9:49 AM National
Paying people to protect forests will effectively help reduce deforestation and ease climate change only if recipient countries practice good governance in natural resources management, according to a recent study.
The study’s researchers stressed that where governance was weak, there were risks that elites would divert the flow of funds to themselves while poor local communities with weak land tenure would lose out.
“Effective and equitable governance will be the key to successful payment schemes,” Ivan Bond, lead author and also a senior researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said in the report made available to The Jakarta Post on Friday.
“Unfortunately, governance tends to be weakest in the very places where deforestation is greatest. Communities need clear land rights if they are to gain from payments that flow to their countries in return for forest protection.”
The study, jointly conducted by researchers at IIED, Bogor-based Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the World Resource Institute (WRI), took place in forest nations including Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil and Mexico. Funded by the Norwegian government, the study was published as delegates from about 190 countries meet in Bonn for an international conference that will last until June 12, 2009, to hammer out a new regime of emission reduction to address the climate change.
The conference will also discuss the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) mechanism.
The National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) admitted the implementation of good governance in the forest resources management remained weak due to Indonesia’s disputes over forest ownership.
“It is urgent to settle which sides should take account for forests and their management so that we can practice good governance,” Bappenas director of forestry and water resources conservation Basah Hernowo told the Post.
The Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) said earlier the lack of clear status for indigenous peoples and local communities managing the country’s forests would become the main obstacle in implementing the REDD mechanism in Indonesia.
The 1999 forestry law stipulates all forested lands are state-owned and allows local communities and indigenous people to take wood from the forests for their daily needs.
Basah said the government would discuss a policy of financial sharing under the REDD after the Bonn conference, which was expected to outline the funding mechanism and the monitoring system, the main issues that would be decided during the Copenhagen conference in December.
Meanwhile, another study said selling carbon in Kalimantan tropical rainforests could also protect orangutans, pygmy elephants and other wildlife facing extinction.
“Our study clearly demonstrates that payments made to reduce carbon emissions from forests, could also be an efficient and effective way to protect biodiversity,” said Oscar Venter, the study’s lead author and also a biologist at the University of Queensland in Australia.
CIFOR director general, Frances Seymour, who also took part in the study, said the new data should help make the case that forests have to be part of the solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Mohamad Rayan, clipper
Adianto P. Simamora , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta Mon, 06/08/2009 9:49 AM National
Paying people to protect forests will effectively help reduce deforestation and ease climate change only if recipient countries practice good governance in natural resources management, according to a recent study.
The study’s researchers stressed that where governance was weak, there were risks that elites would divert the flow of funds to themselves while poor local communities with weak land tenure would lose out.
“Effective and equitable governance will be the key to successful payment schemes,” Ivan Bond, lead author and also a senior researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said in the report made available to The Jakarta Post on Friday.
“Unfortunately, governance tends to be weakest in the very places where deforestation is greatest. Communities need clear land rights if they are to gain from payments that flow to their countries in return for forest protection.”
The study, jointly conducted by researchers at IIED, Bogor-based Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the World Resource Institute (WRI), took place in forest nations including Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil and Mexico. Funded by the Norwegian government, the study was published as delegates from about 190 countries meet in Bonn for an international conference that will last until June 12, 2009, to hammer out a new regime of emission reduction to address the climate change.
The conference will also discuss the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) mechanism.
The National Development Planning Board (Bappenas) admitted the implementation of good governance in the forest resources management remained weak due to Indonesia’s disputes over forest ownership.
“It is urgent to settle which sides should take account for forests and their management so that we can practice good governance,” Bappenas director of forestry and water resources conservation Basah Hernowo told the Post.
The Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI) said earlier the lack of clear status for indigenous peoples and local communities managing the country’s forests would become the main obstacle in implementing the REDD mechanism in Indonesia.
The 1999 forestry law stipulates all forested lands are state-owned and allows local communities and indigenous people to take wood from the forests for their daily needs.
Basah said the government would discuss a policy of financial sharing under the REDD after the Bonn conference, which was expected to outline the funding mechanism and the monitoring system, the main issues that would be decided during the Copenhagen conference in December.
Meanwhile, another study said selling carbon in Kalimantan tropical rainforests could also protect orangutans, pygmy elephants and other wildlife facing extinction.
“Our study clearly demonstrates that payments made to reduce carbon emissions from forests, could also be an efficient and effective way to protect biodiversity,” said Oscar Venter, the study’s lead author and also a biologist at the University of Queensland in Australia.
CIFOR director general, Frances Seymour, who also took part in the study, said the new data should help make the case that forests have to be part of the solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Kamis, 02 Juli 2009
REDD Permenhut 30/2009
Mohamad Rayan. File dikonversi dari pdf ke word.
PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009. /Menhut-II/2009 TENTANG
TATA CARA PENGURANGAN EMISI DARI DEFORESTASI DAN DEGRADASI HUTAN (REDD)
DENGAN RAHMAT TUHAN YANG MAHA ESA MENTERI KEHUTANAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
Menimbang : a. bahwa sebagai tindak lanjut Keputusan Konferensi Negara Pihak ( Parties) Konvensi Perubahan Iklim ke-13, Departemen Kehutanan telah menetapkan kebijakan untuk meningkatkan kegiatan pengelolaan hutan lestari dalam rangka pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan (REDD);
b. bahwa sehubungan dengan hal tersebut di atas, dipandang perlu untuk menetapkan Tata Cara Pengurangan Emisi dari Deforestasi dan Degradasi Hutan (REDD) dengan Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan.
Mengingat : 1. Undang-undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1994 tentang Pengesahan United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Konvensi Kerangka Kerja Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Mengenai Perubahan Iklim) (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1994 Nomor 42, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3557);
2. Undang-undang No. 20 tahun 1997 tentang Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak;
3. Undang-undang Nomor 23 Tahun 1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1997 Nomor 68, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3699);
4. Undang-undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1999 Nomor 167, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3888) sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2004 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2004 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang Undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan menjadi Undang Undang (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 86, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4412);
5. Undang ...
Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara
(Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2003 Nomor 47, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4286);
6. Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2004 tentang Perbendaharaan Negara (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 15, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4355);
7. Undang-undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemeriksaan Pengelolaan dan Tanggung Jawab Keuangan Negara (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 66, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4400);
8. Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2004 tentang Pengesahan Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (Protokol Kyoto Atas Konvensi Kerangka Kerja Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Tentang Perubahan Iklim) (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 72, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4403);
9. Undang-undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2004 tentang Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 104, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4421);
10. Undang-undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintah Daerah (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 125, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4437);
11. Undang-undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2007 Nomor 68, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4725);
12. Undang-undang No. 36/2008 tentang Perubahan keempat atas UU No. 7/1983 tentang Pajak Penghasilan;
13. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 6 Tahun 2007 tentang Tata Hutan dan Penyusunan Rencana Pengelolaan Hutan, serta Pemanfaatan Hutan (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2007 Nomor 22, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4696) sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 3 Tahun 2008 (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2008 Nomor 16, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4814);
14. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor P.68/Menhut-II/2008 tentang Penyelenggaraan Demonstration Activities Pengurangan Emisi Karbon dari Deforestasi dan Degradasi Hutan;
15. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor P.13/Menhut-II/2004 tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Departemen Kehutanan, sebagaimana telah beberapa kali disempurnakan terakhir dengan Nomor P.64/Menhut- II/2008.
MEMUTUSKAN : ...
MEMUTUSKAN :
Menetapkan : PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN TENTANG TATA CARA PENGURANGAN EMISI DARI DEFORESTASI DAN DEGRADASI HUTAN (REDD). BAB I
PENGERTIAN Pasal 1 Dalam Peraturan ini yang dimaksud dengan :
1. Hutan adalah suatu kesatuan ekosistem berupa hamparan lahan berisi sumber daya alam hayati yang didominasi pepohonan dalam persekutuan alam lingkungannya, yang satu dengan lainnya tidak dapat dipisahkan.
2. Kawasan hutan adalah wilayah tertentu yang ditunjuk dan atau ditetapkan oleh pemerintah untuk dipertahankan keberadaannya sebagai hutan tetap.
3. Hutan hak adalah hutan yang berada pada tanah yang dibebani hak atas tanah. 4. Hutan negara adalah hutan yang berada pada tanah yang tidak dibebani hak atas
tanah. 5. Hutan adat adalah hutan negara yang berada dalam wilayah masyarakat hukum
adat. 6. Hutan Desa adalah hutan negara yang dikelola oleh desa dan dimanfaatkan untuk
kesejahteraan desa serta belum dibebani ijin/hak. 7. Hutan produksi adalah kawasan hutan yang mempunyai fungsi pokok memproduksi
hasil hutan. 8. Hutan lindung adalah kawasan hutan yang mempunyai fungsi pokok sebagai
perlindungan sistem penyangga kehidupan untuk mengatur tata air, mencegah banjir, mengendalikan erosi, mencegah intrusi air laut, dan memelihara kesuburan tanah.
9. Hutan konservasi adalah kawasan hutan dengan ciri khas tertentu, yang mempunyai fungsi pokok pengawetan keanekaragaman tumbuhan dan satwa serta ekosistemnya.
10. Deforestasi adalah perubahan secara permanen dari areal berhutan menjadi tidak berhutan yang diakibatkan oleh kegiatan manusia.
11. Degradasi hutan adalah penurunan kuantitas tutupan hutan dan stok karbon selama periode tertentu yang diakibatkan oleh kegiatan manusia
12. Pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan yang selanjutnya disebut REDD adalah semua upaya pengelolaan hutan dalam rangka pencegahan dan atau pengurangan penurunan kuantitas tutupan hutan dan stok karbon yang dilakukan melalui berbagai kegiatan untuk mendukung pembangunan nasional yang berkelanjutan
13. Referensi Emisi adalah tingkat emisi yang berasal dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan dalam kondisi tidak ada skema REDD dan dapat ditetapkan berdasarkan trend historis maupun skenario pembangunan di masa datang.
14. Perdagangan ...
14. Perdagangan karbon REDD adalah kegiatan perdagangan jasa yang berasal dari
kegiatan pengelolaan hutan yang menghasilkan pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan.
15. Lembaga Penilai Independen adalah lembaga yang berhak melaksanakan verifikasi laporan hasil kegiatan REDD.
16. Komisi REDD adalah Komisi yang dibentuk oleh Menteri dan bertugas dalam pengurusan pelaksanaan REDD.
17. Menteri adalah Menteri yang bertanggung jawab di bidang kehutanan. 18. Pemerintah daerah adalah Gubernur, Bupati, atau Walikota, dan perangkat daerah
sebagai unsur penyelenggara pemerintahan daerah. 19. Registrasi Nasional adalah lembaga atau institusi yang mempunyai tugas
melakukan pencatatan atas semua kegiatan REDD. 20. Entitas nasional adalah Pemegang Izin Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan pada
Kawasan Hutan, Pengelola Hutan Negara dan Pemilik atau Pengelola Hutan Hak 21. Entitas internasional adalah mitra penyandang dana untuk pelaksanaan REDD. 22. Focal Point adalah wakil negara yang ditugaskan untuk berkomunikasi dengan
Sekretariat Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim 23. Sertifikat REDD adalah suatu bentuk dokumen pengakuan tentang pengurangan
emisi dan manfaat lain yang diperoleh dari kegiatan REDD yang diberikan kepada pelaku REDD
24. Insentif merupakan manfaat yang diperoleh dari kegiatan REDD berupa dukungan finansial dan atau transfer teknologi dan atau peningkatan kapasitas. BAB II
MAKSUD DAN TUJUAN Pasal 2 (1) Maksud dari kegiatan REDD adalah untuk mencegah dan mengurangi emisi dari
deforestasi dan degradasi hutan dalam rangka memantapkan tata kelola kehutanan.
(2) Tujuan dari kegiatan REDD adalah untuk menekan terjadinya deforestasi dan degradasi hutan dalam rangka mencapai pengelolaan hutan berkelanjutan dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat.
BAB III LOKASI DAN PELAKU REDD
Pasal 3 (1) REDD dapat dilakukan pada :
a. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu pada Hutan Alam (IUPHHK- HA).
b. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu pada Hutan Tanaman (IUPHHK-HT).
c. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Hutan Kemasyarakatan (IUPHH- HKM).
d. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu pada Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (IUPHHK-HTR).
e. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu Restorasi Ekosistem (IUPHHK- RE).
f. Areal Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi (KPHP). g. Areal Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung (KPHL). h. Areal Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Konservasi (KPHK). i. Hutan Konservasi j. Hutan Adat. k. Hutan Hak. l. Hutan Desa.
(2) Pelaksanaan REDD pada dua atau lebih areal sebagaimana tersebut pada ayat (1) huruf a – l yang berada di dalam satu wilayah Kabupaten atau Propinsi dapat digabung menjadi satu unit REDD.
Pasal 4 (1) Pelaku REDD adalah :
a. Entitas nasional. b. Entitas internasional.
(2) Pelaku dari entitas nasional terdiri dari : a. Pemegang IUPHHK-HA.
b. Pemegang IUPHHK-HT. c. Pemegang IUPHH-HKM. d. Pemegang IUPHHK-HTR. e. Pemegang IUPHHK-RE. f. Kepala KPHP. g. Kepala KPHL. h. Kepala KPHK. i. Kepala Unit Pelaksana Teknis Konservasi Sumberdaya Alam atau Kepala Unit
Pelaksana Teknis Taman Nasional j. Pengelola Hutan Adat. k. Pemilik atau Pengelola Hutan Hak. l. Pengelola Hutan Desa.
(3) Pelaku dari entitas internasional terdiri dari : a. Pemerintah.
b. Badan ...
b. Badan Usaha. c. Organisasi internasional/yayasan/perorangan yang menyandang dana untuk
pelaksanaan REDD. (4) Dalam hal terdapat kesepakatan antara pelaku entitas nasional sebagaimana
dimaksud pada ayat (2) dengan Pemerintah Daerah, Pemerintah Daerah dapat mengkoordinir pengusulan dan pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana tersebut pada Pasal 3 ayat (2) di wilayahnya.
BAB IV PERSYARATAN REDD
Pasal 5 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk areal IUPHHK-HA, areal IUPHHK-HT, areal IUPHHK-HTR,
areal IUPHH-HKM, areal IUPHHK-RE adalah : a. Memiliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri tentang IUPHHK-HA, IUPHHK-HT,
IUPHH-HKM, IUPHHK-HTR atau IUPHHK-RE. b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 6 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk KPHP, KPHL/KPHK adalah :
a. Memliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri tentang Penetapan Pembentukan KPHP/KPHL/KPHK.
b. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. c. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai pada peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 7 (1) Persyaratan REDD pada hutan konservasi adalah :
a. Memiliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri tentang Penunjukan/Penetapan Hutan Konservasi.
b. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. c. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan konservasi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 8 ...
Pasal 8
(1) Persyaratan REDD untuk hutan adat adalah : a. Memiliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri sebagai pengelola hutan adat.
b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan adat sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat(1) huruf a sesuai pada peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 9 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk hutan hak adalah :
a. Memiliki sertifikat hak milik atas tanah atau keterangan pemilikan tanah dari Pemerintah Daerah.
b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan hak sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 10 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk hutan desa adalah
a. Memiliki Surat Keterangan dari Pemerintah Daerah sebagai pengelola hutan desa.
b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan desa sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 11 (1) Pedoman pemberian rekomendasi oleh Pemerintah Daerah untuk pelaksanaan
REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf b, Pasal 8 ayat (1) huruf b, pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf b dan pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf b sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 1 Peraturan ini.
(2) Kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf c, Pasal 6 ayat (1) huruf b, Pasal 7 ayat (1) huruf b, Pasal 8 ayat (1) huruf c, pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf c dan pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf c, Pasal 11 ayat (1) huruf b sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 2 Peraturan ini.
(3) Pedoman …
(3) Pedoman penyusunan rencana pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada
Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf d, Pasal 6 ayat (1) huruf c, Pasal 7 ayat (1) huruf c , Pasal 8 ayat (1) huruf d, pasal 9 ayat (1) furuf d dan pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf d, Pasal 11 ayat (1) huruf c sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 3 Peraturan ini.
BAB V TATA CARA PERMOHONAN, PENILAIAN DAN PERSETUJUAN
Pasal 12 (1) Pelaku REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 4, mengajukan permohonan
kepada Menteri dengan melampirkan persyaratan sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 5, Pasal 6, Pasal 7, Pasal 8, Pasal 9, dan Pasal 10.
(2) Menteri menugaskan Komisi REDD untuk melakukan penilaian atas permohonan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1).
(3) Paling lambat 14 (empat belas) hari kerja setelah menerima hasil penilaian Komisi REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2), Menteri dapat menyetujui atau menolak usulan permohonan REDD dalam bentuk surat persetujuan pelaksanaan REDD.
(4) Paling lambat 90 (sembilan puluh) hari kerja setelah mendapat persetujuan dari Menteri, pemohon dapat segera melaksanakan kegiatan REDD.
(5) Apabila setelah 90 (sembilan puluh) hari kerja, pemohon tidak memulai kegiatan REDD, maka persetujuan Menteri sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) dibatalkan.
(6) Pedoman penilaian permohonan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2), sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 4 Peraturan ini.
BAB VI JANGKA WAKTU
Pasal 13 Jangka waktu pelaksanaan REDD paling lama 30 tahun dan dapat diperpanjang sesuai
dengan peraturan yang berlaku. BAB VII
HAK DAN KEWAJIBAN Pasal 14 (1) Pelaku REDD mempunyai hak :
a. Entitas nasional memperoleh pembayaran dari entitas internasional atas penurunan emisi yang dihasilkan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
b. Entitas internasional menggunakan sertifikat REDD sebagai bagian dari pemenuhan komitmen pengurangan emisi negara maju sesuai peraturan yang berlaku. c. Memperjual-belikan …
c. Memperjual-belikan sertifikat REDD bagi perdagangan karbon REDD pasca 2012
yang dikaitkan dengan pelaksanaan komitmen pengurangan emisi negara maju. (2) Pelaku REDD mempunyai kewajiban : a. Melakukan kegiatan pengelolaan hutan dalam rangka pelaksanaan REDD.
b. Menetapkan referensi emisi sebelum pelaksanaan REDD. c. Melakukan pemantauan sesuai dengan rencana. d. Menyampaikan laporan hasil pemantauan kepada Menteri melalui Komisi REDD.
BAB VIII PENETAPAN REFERENSI EMISI, PEMANTAUAN, DAN PELAPORAN
Pasal 15 (1) Direktur Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan menetapkan referensi emisi nasional.
(2) Pedoman penetapan referensi emisi, pemantauan, dan pelaporan sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 141 ayat (2), sebagaimana pada Lampiran 5 Peraturan ini.
BAB IX VERIFIKASI DAN SERTIFIKASI
Pasal 16 (1) Paling lambat 14 hari kerja setelah laporan hasil pemantauan dari pelaku REDD
seperti tersebut pada Pasal 17 diterima Komisi REDD, Komisi REDD menugaskan Lembaga Penilai Independen untuk melakukan verifikasi.
(2) Lembaga Penilai Independen melaporkan hasil verifikasi kepada Komisi REDD dan kepada pelaku REDD.
(3) Biaya verifikasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dibebankan kepada Pelaku REDD .
(4) Dalam hal semua persyaratan terpenuhi, paling lambat 30 (tiga puluh) hari kerja setelah menerima laporan hasil verifikasi dari Lembaga Penilai Independen, Komisi REDD menerbitkan Sertifikat Pengurangan Emisi Karbon.
(5) Sertifikat Pengurangan Emisi Karbon sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (4) dapat diperjualbelikan.
Pasal 17 Pedoman verifikasi dan sertifikasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 16, sebagaimana
dalam Lampiran 6 Peraturan ini. Pasal 18 (1) Sebelum ada keputusan negara pihak Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa
Tentang Perubahan Iklim mengenai mekanisme pelaksanaan REDD di tingkat internasional, Komisi REDD meminta Komite Akreditasi Nasional (KAN) untuk melakukan akreditasi Lembaga Penilai Independen.
(2) Setelah ada Keputusan negara pihak Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa
Tentang Perubahan Iklim mengenai mekanisme pelaksanaan REDD ditingkat internasional, maka akreditasi Lembaga Penilai Independen mengacu pada Keputusan tersebut dan konsisten dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
Pasal 19 Komisi REDD secara berkala menyampaikan laporan pelaksanaan REDD kepada Menteri
dan Focal Point Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim untuk selanjutnya dilaporkan kepada Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim.
BAB X DISTRIBUSI INSENTIF DAN LIABILITAS
Pasal 20 (1) Perimbangan keuangan atas Penerimaan negara yang bersumber dari pelaksanaan
REDD diatur dengan peraturan perundang-undangan tersendiri. (2) Tata cara pengenaan, pemungutan, penyetoran dan penggunaan penerimaan
negara dari REDD diatur dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Pasal 21
(1) Sebagian penerimaan negara yang bersumber dari pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 20 digunakan sebagai jaminan pelaksanaan REDD pada tingkat nasional.
(2) Jaminan pelaksanaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) di atas, dapat digunakan oleh Pemerintah untuk :
a. Pengelolaan registrasi nasional dan/atau; b. Penanganan pengurangan emisi nasional. (3) Mekanisme dan tata cara penggunaan jaminan pelaksanaan REDD diatur dengan
peraturan perundang-undangan.
BAB XI
PERALIHAN Pasal 22 (1) Sebelum ada keputusan negara para pihak konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa
Tentang Perubahan Iklim mengenai mekanisme pelaksanaan REDD ditingkat internasional, kegiatan REDD dilaksanakan melalui demonstration activity REDD, peningkatan kapasitas dan transfer teknologi, serta perdagangan karbon sukarela.
(2) Demonstration ...
(2) Demonstration Activities REDD dapat dijadikan/dialihkan menjadi kegiatan REDD sepanjang memenuhi persyaratan.
(3) Dana untuk pelaksanaan kegiatan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud ayat (1) bersumber dari partisipasi para pihak Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim dan sumber pendanaan lain yang sah.
BAB XII
KETENTUAN PENUTUP
Pasal 23
Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan ini mulai berlaku pada tanggal diundangkan.
Agar setiap orang mengetahuinya, Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan ini diundangkan dengan penempatannya dalam Berita Negara Republik Indonesia. Ditetapkan di Jakarta pada tanggal 1 Mei 2009
MENTERI KEHUTANAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA
ttd.
Diundangkan di Jakarta pada tanggal 1 Mei 2009
H.M.S. K A B A N
MENTERI HUKUM DAN HAM REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
ttd.
ANDI MATTALATTA
BERITA NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA TAHUN 2009 NOMOR 88
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi ttd. SUPARNO, SH NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 1 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN PEMBERIAN REKOMENDASI PEMERINTAH DAERAH UNTUK PELAKSANAAN REDD
Untuk pemberian rekomendasi pelaksanaan REDD, Pemerintah Daerah terlebih dahulu melakukan penilaian terhadap :
1. Kebenaran status dan luasan hutan yang dimintakan rekomendasi oleh pelaku. 2. Kesesuaian antara rencana lokasi REDD dengan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Administrasi yang bersangkutan. 3. Kesesuaian dengan kriteria lokasi REDD. 4. Kesesuaian antara rencana pelaksanaan REDD dengan prioritas pembangunan termasuk program pengentasan kemiskinan. Atas dasar penilaian tersebut pada butir 1 sampai dengan 4, Pemerintah Daerah dapat memberikan rekomendasi pelaksanaan REDD di daerahnya.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 2 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
KRITERIA PEMILIHAN LOKASI REDD
A. Pemilihan lokasi pelaksanaan REDD ditinjau dari aspek-aspek sebagai berikut : 1. Data dan informasi.
2. Biofisik dan ekologi.
3. Ancaman terhadap sumber daya hutan.
4. Sosial, ekonomi dan budaya. 5. Kelayakan ekonomi. 6. Tata kelola ( governance).
Data dan Informasi : ketersediaan dan kelengkapan data dan informasi (historis) jumlah dan luas hutan dan stok karbon serta data terkait yang diperlukan untuk pelaksanaan REDD.
Biofisik dan ekologi: keragaman ekosistem; stok karbon; keanekaragaman hayati dan keunikannya.
Ancaman terhadap sumber daya hutan: jenis dan tingkat ancaman; tingkat resiko lokasi terhadap deforestasi dan/atau degradasi.
Sosial, ekonomi dan budaya: ketergantungan masyarakat terhadap lokasi; ada/tidaknya konfllik; keterlibatan para pihak dalam pengelolaan hutan, dan kejelasan tentang dimensi pengentasan kemiskinan .
Kelayakan ekonomi: estimasi pendapatan dari REDD dan biaya yang diperlukan untuk menjamin terlaksananya pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan/atau degradasi hutan jangka panjang pada lokasi yang bersangkutan dan sekitarnya.
Tata kelola (governance): efisiensi dan efektifitas birokrasi (kejelasan tentang peran, tanggung jawab dan tanggung gugat antar pihak), dan kerangka hukum, serta komitmen pelaku REDD untuk mengubah perilaku (pola produksi dan tata guna lahan yang ramah lingkungan) .
B. Pemilihan lokasi REDD untuk demonstration activity mempertimbangkan distribusi biogeografis wilayah Indonesia.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 3 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN PENYUSUNAN RENCANA PELAKSANAAN REDD
Rencana pelaksanaan REDD ditulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Format rencana pelaksanaan REDD terdiri dari halaman depan, ringkasan, daftar isi, pendahuluan/latar belakang, dan sedikitnya 3 (tiga) bagian utama rencana pelaksanaan REDD. 1. Halaman depan berisi informasi dasar seperti judul, institusi yang akan melaksanakan kegiatan REDD, lokasi, dan jangka waktu pelaksanaan REDD.
2. Ringkasan, berisi informasi singkat tentang keseluruhan pelaksanaan REDD. 3. Daftar isi. 4. Pendahuluan/latar belakang menjelaskan kegiatan REDD dalam konteks
internasional, relevansi/konsistensi dengan prioritas pembangunan nasional dan daerah dimana kegiatan REDD diusulkan.
5. Bagian utama rencana pelaksanaan REDD berisi informasi tentang : a. Kondisi biofisik dan ekologi lokasi yang diusulkan dan sekitarnya, ancaman
terhadap sumber daya hutan, sosial, ekonomi, dan budaya, kelayakan ekonomi, tata kelola hutan ( governance).
b. Ketersediaan data dan informasi termasuk peta lokasi REDD dan kawasan sekitarnya , penjelasan tentang penggunaan metodologi pengumpulan data dan informasi, analisis perubahan tutupan hutan dan stok karbon, termasuk penghitungan dan cara penanganan pengalihan deforestasi/degradasi akibat adanya REDD di lokasi yang diusulkan ( displacement of activities/emissions ), dan monitoring.
c. Penjelasan tentang pengelolaan kegiatan termasuk rencana investasi/ketersediaan dana dan rencana penggunaannya, analisis dampak, manajemen kendala dan resiko, pembagian hak dan kewajiban antar pelaku, dan peran para pihak.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 4 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN PENILAIAN PERMOHONAN REDD
Penilaian permohonan REDD dilakukan dengan analisis terhadap : 1. Pemenuhan kriteria lokasi dan kegiatan seperti tercantum pada Lampiran 2 Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan ini, yaitu : (1) Ketersediaan data dan informasi (2) Kondisi biofisik dan ekologi, (3) Ancaman terhadap sumber daya hutan, (4) Sosial ekonomi dan budaya (5) Kelayakan ekonomi dan (6) Tata kelola ( governance).
2. Kelengkapan dan kejelasan informasi yang tertuang dalam dokumen usulan, kesesuaian dengan pedoman terkait yang tertuang dalam Keputusan ini, dan konsistensi dengan tujuan konvensi dan prioritas pembangunan nasional.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 5 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009 PEDOMAN PENETAPAN TINGKAT REFERENSI EMISI ( REL), PEMANTAUAN ( MONITORING) DAN PELAPORAN (REPORTING) KEGIATAN REDD
A. Referensi Emisi ( Reference Emission Level/REL) 1. REDD di Indonesia menggunakan pendekatan nasional dengan
implementasi di tingkat sub-nasional (provinsi atau kabupaten/kota atau unit manajemen). Dengan demikian referensi emisi (REL) ditetapkan di tingkat nasional, sub nasional dan di lokasi kegiatan REDD.
2. Referensi Emisi (REL) di tingkat nasional ditetapkan oleh Departemen Kehutanan, sedangkan emisi di tingkat sub-nasional ditetapkan oleh Pemerintah Daerah (provinsi atau kabupaten/kota) dan dikonfirmasikan dengan referensi emisi tingkat nasional.
3. Referensi Emisi (REL) di lokasi kegiatan REDD ditetapkan oleh pelaku dan dikonfirmasikan dengan referensi emisi tingkat nasional dan sub-nasional.
B. Pengukuran perubahan tutupan hutan dan stok karbon 1. Pengukuran perubahan tutupan hutan dan stok karbon menggunakan
petunjuk Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change /IPCC (IPCC Guidelines atau IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry/GPG-LULUCF ).
2. Pelaku dapat memilih pendekatan ( approach) dan tingkat ketelitian ( tiers) yang tertuang dalam petunjuk IPCC sesuai tingkat kesiapan/kapasitas yang dimiliki mulai dari tier 2 dan secara bertahap menuju penggunaan approach (Approach 3) dan tiers yang tertinggi (tier 3).
3. Tabel pilihan Approach dan Tiers.
Pendekatan untuk menentukan perubahan luas areal ( Activity Data)
Tingkat kerincian faktor emisi ( Tier): perubahan cadangan karbon
1. Berdasarkan peta, hasil survey dan data statistik nasional/lokal Tier 2. Data spesifik dari tiap negara (nasional/lokal) untuk beberapa jenis hutan yang dominan atau yang utama
2. Data spatial dari interpretasi penginderaan jauh dengan resolusi tinggi Tier 3. Data cadangan karbon dari Inventarisasi Nasional, yang diukur secara berkala atau dengan modelling
C. Pemantauan ( Monitoring)
1. Pemantauan kegiatan REDD dilakukan untuk mengetahui perubahan stok karbon dari Referensi Emisi (REL) dan manfaat lainnya
2. Elemen penting yang harus diperhatikan dalam pemantauan adalah kredibilitas, transparansi, akurasi, berdasarkan kaidah ilmiah dan konsistensi dengan peraturan internasional yang disepakati.
3. Pemantauan dilakukan secara periodik oleh pelaku, Pemerintah Daerah dan Departemen Kehutanan paling lama setiap 5 (lima) tahun sekali kecuali untuk periode sampai dengan 2012 dilakukan setiap tahun.
D. Pelaporan ( Reporting)
Pelaporan kegiatan REDD dilakukan secara periodik sesuai periode pemantauan.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 6 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN VERIFIKASI KEGIATAN REDD
1. Sebelum ada keputusan COP tentang Tata Cara REDD, maka verifikasi kegiatan REDD antara lain mengacu petunjuk pada Lampiran Keputusan COP 13 No.2 tahun 2007. Verifikasi dilakukan terhadap butir-butir sebagai berikut : a. Penghitungan pengurangan /peningkatan emisi harus sesuai hasil, terukur, transparan, dan konsisten sepanjang waktu.
b. Dasar penetapan referensi emisi (REL). c. Pengurangan emisi yang dihasilkan (pelaporan menggunakan reporting
guidelines (Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry )).
d. Ada/tidaknya pengalihan deforestasi dan/atau degradasi (displacement of activities/emissions ) sebagai dampak dari kegiatan dimaksud dan bagaimana hal tersebut diperhitungkan dan ditangani.
e. Konsistensi dengan provisi di bawah UNFF, CCD, dan CBD. f. Transparansi dan fairness dalam pembagian insentif kegiatan REDD dan
kontribusi terhadap tujuan konvensi dan pembangunan nasional yang berkelanjutan.
2. Setelah ada Keputusan COP tentang Tata Cara REDD, maka verifikasi kegiatan REDD berdasarkan Keputusan COP dan konsisten dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009. /Menhut-II/2009 TENTANG
TATA CARA PENGURANGAN EMISI DARI DEFORESTASI DAN DEGRADASI HUTAN (REDD)
DENGAN RAHMAT TUHAN YANG MAHA ESA MENTERI KEHUTANAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
Menimbang : a. bahwa sebagai tindak lanjut Keputusan Konferensi Negara Pihak ( Parties) Konvensi Perubahan Iklim ke-13, Departemen Kehutanan telah menetapkan kebijakan untuk meningkatkan kegiatan pengelolaan hutan lestari dalam rangka pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan (REDD);
b. bahwa sehubungan dengan hal tersebut di atas, dipandang perlu untuk menetapkan Tata Cara Pengurangan Emisi dari Deforestasi dan Degradasi Hutan (REDD) dengan Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan.
Mengingat : 1. Undang-undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1994 tentang Pengesahan United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Konvensi Kerangka Kerja Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Mengenai Perubahan Iklim) (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1994 Nomor 42, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3557);
2. Undang-undang No. 20 tahun 1997 tentang Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak;
3. Undang-undang Nomor 23 Tahun 1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1997 Nomor 68, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3699);
4. Undang-undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1999 Nomor 167, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3888) sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2004 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2004 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang Undang Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 tentang Kehutanan menjadi Undang Undang (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 86, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4412);
5. Undang ...
Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara
(Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2003 Nomor 47, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4286);
6. Undang-undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2004 tentang Perbendaharaan Negara (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 15, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4355);
7. Undang-undang Nomor 15 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemeriksaan Pengelolaan dan Tanggung Jawab Keuangan Negara (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 66, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4400);
8. Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2004 tentang Pengesahan Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (Protokol Kyoto Atas Konvensi Kerangka Kerja Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Tentang Perubahan Iklim) (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 72, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4403);
9. Undang-undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2004 tentang Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 104, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4421);
10. Undang-undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 tentang Pemerintah Daerah (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2004 Nomor 125, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4437);
11. Undang-undang Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 tentang Penataan Ruang (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2007 Nomor 68, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4725);
12. Undang-undang No. 36/2008 tentang Perubahan keempat atas UU No. 7/1983 tentang Pajak Penghasilan;
13. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 6 Tahun 2007 tentang Tata Hutan dan Penyusunan Rencana Pengelolaan Hutan, serta Pemanfaatan Hutan (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2007 Nomor 22, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4696) sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 3 Tahun 2008 (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2008 Nomor 16, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4814);
14. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor P.68/Menhut-II/2008 tentang Penyelenggaraan Demonstration Activities Pengurangan Emisi Karbon dari Deforestasi dan Degradasi Hutan;
15. Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan Nomor P.13/Menhut-II/2004 tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Departemen Kehutanan, sebagaimana telah beberapa kali disempurnakan terakhir dengan Nomor P.64/Menhut- II/2008.
MEMUTUSKAN : ...
MEMUTUSKAN :
Menetapkan : PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN TENTANG TATA CARA PENGURANGAN EMISI DARI DEFORESTASI DAN DEGRADASI HUTAN (REDD). BAB I
PENGERTIAN Pasal 1 Dalam Peraturan ini yang dimaksud dengan :
1. Hutan adalah suatu kesatuan ekosistem berupa hamparan lahan berisi sumber daya alam hayati yang didominasi pepohonan dalam persekutuan alam lingkungannya, yang satu dengan lainnya tidak dapat dipisahkan.
2. Kawasan hutan adalah wilayah tertentu yang ditunjuk dan atau ditetapkan oleh pemerintah untuk dipertahankan keberadaannya sebagai hutan tetap.
3. Hutan hak adalah hutan yang berada pada tanah yang dibebani hak atas tanah. 4. Hutan negara adalah hutan yang berada pada tanah yang tidak dibebani hak atas
tanah. 5. Hutan adat adalah hutan negara yang berada dalam wilayah masyarakat hukum
adat. 6. Hutan Desa adalah hutan negara yang dikelola oleh desa dan dimanfaatkan untuk
kesejahteraan desa serta belum dibebani ijin/hak. 7. Hutan produksi adalah kawasan hutan yang mempunyai fungsi pokok memproduksi
hasil hutan. 8. Hutan lindung adalah kawasan hutan yang mempunyai fungsi pokok sebagai
perlindungan sistem penyangga kehidupan untuk mengatur tata air, mencegah banjir, mengendalikan erosi, mencegah intrusi air laut, dan memelihara kesuburan tanah.
9. Hutan konservasi adalah kawasan hutan dengan ciri khas tertentu, yang mempunyai fungsi pokok pengawetan keanekaragaman tumbuhan dan satwa serta ekosistemnya.
10. Deforestasi adalah perubahan secara permanen dari areal berhutan menjadi tidak berhutan yang diakibatkan oleh kegiatan manusia.
11. Degradasi hutan adalah penurunan kuantitas tutupan hutan dan stok karbon selama periode tertentu yang diakibatkan oleh kegiatan manusia
12. Pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan yang selanjutnya disebut REDD adalah semua upaya pengelolaan hutan dalam rangka pencegahan dan atau pengurangan penurunan kuantitas tutupan hutan dan stok karbon yang dilakukan melalui berbagai kegiatan untuk mendukung pembangunan nasional yang berkelanjutan
13. Referensi Emisi adalah tingkat emisi yang berasal dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan dalam kondisi tidak ada skema REDD dan dapat ditetapkan berdasarkan trend historis maupun skenario pembangunan di masa datang.
14. Perdagangan ...
14. Perdagangan karbon REDD adalah kegiatan perdagangan jasa yang berasal dari
kegiatan pengelolaan hutan yang menghasilkan pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan degradasi hutan.
15. Lembaga Penilai Independen adalah lembaga yang berhak melaksanakan verifikasi laporan hasil kegiatan REDD.
16. Komisi REDD adalah Komisi yang dibentuk oleh Menteri dan bertugas dalam pengurusan pelaksanaan REDD.
17. Menteri adalah Menteri yang bertanggung jawab di bidang kehutanan. 18. Pemerintah daerah adalah Gubernur, Bupati, atau Walikota, dan perangkat daerah
sebagai unsur penyelenggara pemerintahan daerah. 19. Registrasi Nasional adalah lembaga atau institusi yang mempunyai tugas
melakukan pencatatan atas semua kegiatan REDD. 20. Entitas nasional adalah Pemegang Izin Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan pada
Kawasan Hutan, Pengelola Hutan Negara dan Pemilik atau Pengelola Hutan Hak 21. Entitas internasional adalah mitra penyandang dana untuk pelaksanaan REDD. 22. Focal Point adalah wakil negara yang ditugaskan untuk berkomunikasi dengan
Sekretariat Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim 23. Sertifikat REDD adalah suatu bentuk dokumen pengakuan tentang pengurangan
emisi dan manfaat lain yang diperoleh dari kegiatan REDD yang diberikan kepada pelaku REDD
24. Insentif merupakan manfaat yang diperoleh dari kegiatan REDD berupa dukungan finansial dan atau transfer teknologi dan atau peningkatan kapasitas. BAB II
MAKSUD DAN TUJUAN Pasal 2 (1) Maksud dari kegiatan REDD adalah untuk mencegah dan mengurangi emisi dari
deforestasi dan degradasi hutan dalam rangka memantapkan tata kelola kehutanan.
(2) Tujuan dari kegiatan REDD adalah untuk menekan terjadinya deforestasi dan degradasi hutan dalam rangka mencapai pengelolaan hutan berkelanjutan dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan masyarakat.
BAB III LOKASI DAN PELAKU REDD
Pasal 3 (1) REDD dapat dilakukan pada :
a. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu pada Hutan Alam (IUPHHK- HA).
b. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu pada Hutan Tanaman (IUPHHK-HT).
c. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan Hutan Kemasyarakatan (IUPHH- HKM).
d. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu pada Hutan Tanaman Rakyat (IUPHHK-HTR).
e. Areal Kerja Usaha Pemanfataan Hasil Hutan Kayu Restorasi Ekosistem (IUPHHK- RE).
f. Areal Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi (KPHP). g. Areal Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Lindung (KPHL). h. Areal Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan Konservasi (KPHK). i. Hutan Konservasi j. Hutan Adat. k. Hutan Hak. l. Hutan Desa.
(2) Pelaksanaan REDD pada dua atau lebih areal sebagaimana tersebut pada ayat (1) huruf a – l yang berada di dalam satu wilayah Kabupaten atau Propinsi dapat digabung menjadi satu unit REDD.
Pasal 4 (1) Pelaku REDD adalah :
a. Entitas nasional. b. Entitas internasional.
(2) Pelaku dari entitas nasional terdiri dari : a. Pemegang IUPHHK-HA.
b. Pemegang IUPHHK-HT. c. Pemegang IUPHH-HKM. d. Pemegang IUPHHK-HTR. e. Pemegang IUPHHK-RE. f. Kepala KPHP. g. Kepala KPHL. h. Kepala KPHK. i. Kepala Unit Pelaksana Teknis Konservasi Sumberdaya Alam atau Kepala Unit
Pelaksana Teknis Taman Nasional j. Pengelola Hutan Adat. k. Pemilik atau Pengelola Hutan Hak. l. Pengelola Hutan Desa.
(3) Pelaku dari entitas internasional terdiri dari : a. Pemerintah.
b. Badan ...
b. Badan Usaha. c. Organisasi internasional/yayasan/perorangan yang menyandang dana untuk
pelaksanaan REDD. (4) Dalam hal terdapat kesepakatan antara pelaku entitas nasional sebagaimana
dimaksud pada ayat (2) dengan Pemerintah Daerah, Pemerintah Daerah dapat mengkoordinir pengusulan dan pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana tersebut pada Pasal 3 ayat (2) di wilayahnya.
BAB IV PERSYARATAN REDD
Pasal 5 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk areal IUPHHK-HA, areal IUPHHK-HT, areal IUPHHK-HTR,
areal IUPHH-HKM, areal IUPHHK-RE adalah : a. Memiliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri tentang IUPHHK-HA, IUPHHK-HT,
IUPHH-HKM, IUPHHK-HTR atau IUPHHK-RE. b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang Izin Usaha Pemanfaatan Hasil Hutan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 6 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk KPHP, KPHL/KPHK adalah :
a. Memliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri tentang Penetapan Pembentukan KPHP/KPHL/KPHK.
b. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. c. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai pada peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 7 (1) Persyaratan REDD pada hutan konservasi adalah :
a. Memiliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri tentang Penunjukan/Penetapan Hutan Konservasi.
b. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. c. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan konservasi sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 8 ...
Pasal 8
(1) Persyaratan REDD untuk hutan adat adalah : a. Memiliki salinan Surat Keputusan Menteri sebagai pengelola hutan adat.
b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan adat sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat(1) huruf a sesuai pada peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 9 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk hutan hak adalah :
a. Memiliki sertifikat hak milik atas tanah atau keterangan pemilikan tanah dari Pemerintah Daerah.
b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan hak sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 10 (1) Persyaratan REDD untuk hutan desa adalah
a. Memiliki Surat Keterangan dari Pemerintah Daerah sebagai pengelola hutan desa.
b. Memperoleh rekomendasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD dari Pemerintah Daerah. c. Memenuhi kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD. d. Memiliki rencana pelaksanaan REDD.
(2) Ketentuan tentang pengelolaan hutan desa sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) huruf a sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan.
Pasal 11 (1) Pedoman pemberian rekomendasi oleh Pemerintah Daerah untuk pelaksanaan
REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf b, Pasal 8 ayat (1) huruf b, pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf b dan pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf b sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 1 Peraturan ini.
(2) Kriteria lokasi untuk pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf c, Pasal 6 ayat (1) huruf b, Pasal 7 ayat (1) huruf b, Pasal 8 ayat (1) huruf c, pasal 9 ayat (1) huruf c dan pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf c, Pasal 11 ayat (1) huruf b sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 2 Peraturan ini.
(3) Pedoman …
(3) Pedoman penyusunan rencana pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada
Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf d, Pasal 6 ayat (1) huruf c, Pasal 7 ayat (1) huruf c , Pasal 8 ayat (1) huruf d, pasal 9 ayat (1) furuf d dan pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf d, Pasal 11 ayat (1) huruf c sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 3 Peraturan ini.
BAB V TATA CARA PERMOHONAN, PENILAIAN DAN PERSETUJUAN
Pasal 12 (1) Pelaku REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 4, mengajukan permohonan
kepada Menteri dengan melampirkan persyaratan sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 5, Pasal 6, Pasal 7, Pasal 8, Pasal 9, dan Pasal 10.
(2) Menteri menugaskan Komisi REDD untuk melakukan penilaian atas permohonan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1).
(3) Paling lambat 14 (empat belas) hari kerja setelah menerima hasil penilaian Komisi REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2), Menteri dapat menyetujui atau menolak usulan permohonan REDD dalam bentuk surat persetujuan pelaksanaan REDD.
(4) Paling lambat 90 (sembilan puluh) hari kerja setelah mendapat persetujuan dari Menteri, pemohon dapat segera melaksanakan kegiatan REDD.
(5) Apabila setelah 90 (sembilan puluh) hari kerja, pemohon tidak memulai kegiatan REDD, maka persetujuan Menteri sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3) dibatalkan.
(6) Pedoman penilaian permohonan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2), sebagaimana tercantum pada Lampiran 4 Peraturan ini.
BAB VI JANGKA WAKTU
Pasal 13 Jangka waktu pelaksanaan REDD paling lama 30 tahun dan dapat diperpanjang sesuai
dengan peraturan yang berlaku. BAB VII
HAK DAN KEWAJIBAN Pasal 14 (1) Pelaku REDD mempunyai hak :
a. Entitas nasional memperoleh pembayaran dari entitas internasional atas penurunan emisi yang dihasilkan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
b. Entitas internasional menggunakan sertifikat REDD sebagai bagian dari pemenuhan komitmen pengurangan emisi negara maju sesuai peraturan yang berlaku. c. Memperjual-belikan …
c. Memperjual-belikan sertifikat REDD bagi perdagangan karbon REDD pasca 2012
yang dikaitkan dengan pelaksanaan komitmen pengurangan emisi negara maju. (2) Pelaku REDD mempunyai kewajiban : a. Melakukan kegiatan pengelolaan hutan dalam rangka pelaksanaan REDD.
b. Menetapkan referensi emisi sebelum pelaksanaan REDD. c. Melakukan pemantauan sesuai dengan rencana. d. Menyampaikan laporan hasil pemantauan kepada Menteri melalui Komisi REDD.
BAB VIII PENETAPAN REFERENSI EMISI, PEMANTAUAN, DAN PELAPORAN
Pasal 15 (1) Direktur Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan menetapkan referensi emisi nasional.
(2) Pedoman penetapan referensi emisi, pemantauan, dan pelaporan sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 141 ayat (2), sebagaimana pada Lampiran 5 Peraturan ini.
BAB IX VERIFIKASI DAN SERTIFIKASI
Pasal 16 (1) Paling lambat 14 hari kerja setelah laporan hasil pemantauan dari pelaku REDD
seperti tersebut pada Pasal 17 diterima Komisi REDD, Komisi REDD menugaskan Lembaga Penilai Independen untuk melakukan verifikasi.
(2) Lembaga Penilai Independen melaporkan hasil verifikasi kepada Komisi REDD dan kepada pelaku REDD.
(3) Biaya verifikasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) dibebankan kepada Pelaku REDD .
(4) Dalam hal semua persyaratan terpenuhi, paling lambat 30 (tiga puluh) hari kerja setelah menerima laporan hasil verifikasi dari Lembaga Penilai Independen, Komisi REDD menerbitkan Sertifikat Pengurangan Emisi Karbon.
(5) Sertifikat Pengurangan Emisi Karbon sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (4) dapat diperjualbelikan.
Pasal 17 Pedoman verifikasi dan sertifikasi sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 16, sebagaimana
dalam Lampiran 6 Peraturan ini. Pasal 18 (1) Sebelum ada keputusan negara pihak Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa
Tentang Perubahan Iklim mengenai mekanisme pelaksanaan REDD di tingkat internasional, Komisi REDD meminta Komite Akreditasi Nasional (KAN) untuk melakukan akreditasi Lembaga Penilai Independen.
(2) Setelah ada Keputusan negara pihak Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa
Tentang Perubahan Iklim mengenai mekanisme pelaksanaan REDD ditingkat internasional, maka akreditasi Lembaga Penilai Independen mengacu pada Keputusan tersebut dan konsisten dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
Pasal 19 Komisi REDD secara berkala menyampaikan laporan pelaksanaan REDD kepada Menteri
dan Focal Point Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim untuk selanjutnya dilaporkan kepada Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim.
BAB X DISTRIBUSI INSENTIF DAN LIABILITAS
Pasal 20 (1) Perimbangan keuangan atas Penerimaan negara yang bersumber dari pelaksanaan
REDD diatur dengan peraturan perundang-undangan tersendiri. (2) Tata cara pengenaan, pemungutan, penyetoran dan penggunaan penerimaan
negara dari REDD diatur dengan peraturan perundang-undangan. Pasal 21
(1) Sebagian penerimaan negara yang bersumber dari pelaksanaan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 20 digunakan sebagai jaminan pelaksanaan REDD pada tingkat nasional.
(2) Jaminan pelaksanaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) di atas, dapat digunakan oleh Pemerintah untuk :
a. Pengelolaan registrasi nasional dan/atau; b. Penanganan pengurangan emisi nasional. (3) Mekanisme dan tata cara penggunaan jaminan pelaksanaan REDD diatur dengan
peraturan perundang-undangan.
BAB XI
PERALIHAN Pasal 22 (1) Sebelum ada keputusan negara para pihak konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa
Tentang Perubahan Iklim mengenai mekanisme pelaksanaan REDD ditingkat internasional, kegiatan REDD dilaksanakan melalui demonstration activity REDD, peningkatan kapasitas dan transfer teknologi, serta perdagangan karbon sukarela.
(2) Demonstration ...
(2) Demonstration Activities REDD dapat dijadikan/dialihkan menjadi kegiatan REDD sepanjang memenuhi persyaratan.
(3) Dana untuk pelaksanaan kegiatan REDD sebagaimana dimaksud ayat (1) bersumber dari partisipasi para pihak Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Perubahan Iklim dan sumber pendanaan lain yang sah.
BAB XII
KETENTUAN PENUTUP
Pasal 23
Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan ini mulai berlaku pada tanggal diundangkan.
Agar setiap orang mengetahuinya, Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan ini diundangkan dengan penempatannya dalam Berita Negara Republik Indonesia. Ditetapkan di Jakarta pada tanggal 1 Mei 2009
MENTERI KEHUTANAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA
ttd.
Diundangkan di Jakarta pada tanggal 1 Mei 2009
H.M.S. K A B A N
MENTERI HUKUM DAN HAM REPUBLIK INDONESIA,
ttd.
ANDI MATTALATTA
BERITA NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA TAHUN 2009 NOMOR 88
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi ttd. SUPARNO, SH NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 1 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN PEMBERIAN REKOMENDASI PEMERINTAH DAERAH UNTUK PELAKSANAAN REDD
Untuk pemberian rekomendasi pelaksanaan REDD, Pemerintah Daerah terlebih dahulu melakukan penilaian terhadap :
1. Kebenaran status dan luasan hutan yang dimintakan rekomendasi oleh pelaku. 2. Kesesuaian antara rencana lokasi REDD dengan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Administrasi yang bersangkutan. 3. Kesesuaian dengan kriteria lokasi REDD. 4. Kesesuaian antara rencana pelaksanaan REDD dengan prioritas pembangunan termasuk program pengentasan kemiskinan. Atas dasar penilaian tersebut pada butir 1 sampai dengan 4, Pemerintah Daerah dapat memberikan rekomendasi pelaksanaan REDD di daerahnya.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 2 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
KRITERIA PEMILIHAN LOKASI REDD
A. Pemilihan lokasi pelaksanaan REDD ditinjau dari aspek-aspek sebagai berikut : 1. Data dan informasi.
2. Biofisik dan ekologi.
3. Ancaman terhadap sumber daya hutan.
4. Sosial, ekonomi dan budaya. 5. Kelayakan ekonomi. 6. Tata kelola ( governance).
Data dan Informasi : ketersediaan dan kelengkapan data dan informasi (historis) jumlah dan luas hutan dan stok karbon serta data terkait yang diperlukan untuk pelaksanaan REDD.
Biofisik dan ekologi: keragaman ekosistem; stok karbon; keanekaragaman hayati dan keunikannya.
Ancaman terhadap sumber daya hutan: jenis dan tingkat ancaman; tingkat resiko lokasi terhadap deforestasi dan/atau degradasi.
Sosial, ekonomi dan budaya: ketergantungan masyarakat terhadap lokasi; ada/tidaknya konfllik; keterlibatan para pihak dalam pengelolaan hutan, dan kejelasan tentang dimensi pengentasan kemiskinan .
Kelayakan ekonomi: estimasi pendapatan dari REDD dan biaya yang diperlukan untuk menjamin terlaksananya pengurangan emisi dari deforestasi dan/atau degradasi hutan jangka panjang pada lokasi yang bersangkutan dan sekitarnya.
Tata kelola (governance): efisiensi dan efektifitas birokrasi (kejelasan tentang peran, tanggung jawab dan tanggung gugat antar pihak), dan kerangka hukum, serta komitmen pelaku REDD untuk mengubah perilaku (pola produksi dan tata guna lahan yang ramah lingkungan) .
B. Pemilihan lokasi REDD untuk demonstration activity mempertimbangkan distribusi biogeografis wilayah Indonesia.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 3 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN PENYUSUNAN RENCANA PELAKSANAAN REDD
Rencana pelaksanaan REDD ditulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Format rencana pelaksanaan REDD terdiri dari halaman depan, ringkasan, daftar isi, pendahuluan/latar belakang, dan sedikitnya 3 (tiga) bagian utama rencana pelaksanaan REDD. 1. Halaman depan berisi informasi dasar seperti judul, institusi yang akan melaksanakan kegiatan REDD, lokasi, dan jangka waktu pelaksanaan REDD.
2. Ringkasan, berisi informasi singkat tentang keseluruhan pelaksanaan REDD. 3. Daftar isi. 4. Pendahuluan/latar belakang menjelaskan kegiatan REDD dalam konteks
internasional, relevansi/konsistensi dengan prioritas pembangunan nasional dan daerah dimana kegiatan REDD diusulkan.
5. Bagian utama rencana pelaksanaan REDD berisi informasi tentang : a. Kondisi biofisik dan ekologi lokasi yang diusulkan dan sekitarnya, ancaman
terhadap sumber daya hutan, sosial, ekonomi, dan budaya, kelayakan ekonomi, tata kelola hutan ( governance).
b. Ketersediaan data dan informasi termasuk peta lokasi REDD dan kawasan sekitarnya , penjelasan tentang penggunaan metodologi pengumpulan data dan informasi, analisis perubahan tutupan hutan dan stok karbon, termasuk penghitungan dan cara penanganan pengalihan deforestasi/degradasi akibat adanya REDD di lokasi yang diusulkan ( displacement of activities/emissions ), dan monitoring.
c. Penjelasan tentang pengelolaan kegiatan termasuk rencana investasi/ketersediaan dana dan rencana penggunaannya, analisis dampak, manajemen kendala dan resiko, pembagian hak dan kewajiban antar pelaku, dan peran para pihak.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 4 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN PENILAIAN PERMOHONAN REDD
Penilaian permohonan REDD dilakukan dengan analisis terhadap : 1. Pemenuhan kriteria lokasi dan kegiatan seperti tercantum pada Lampiran 2 Peraturan Menteri Kehutanan ini, yaitu : (1) Ketersediaan data dan informasi (2) Kondisi biofisik dan ekologi, (3) Ancaman terhadap sumber daya hutan, (4) Sosial ekonomi dan budaya (5) Kelayakan ekonomi dan (6) Tata kelola ( governance).
2. Kelengkapan dan kejelasan informasi yang tertuang dalam dokumen usulan, kesesuaian dengan pedoman terkait yang tertuang dalam Keputusan ini, dan konsistensi dengan tujuan konvensi dan prioritas pembangunan nasional.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 5 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN
Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009 PEDOMAN PENETAPAN TINGKAT REFERENSI EMISI ( REL), PEMANTAUAN ( MONITORING) DAN PELAPORAN (REPORTING) KEGIATAN REDD
A. Referensi Emisi ( Reference Emission Level/REL) 1. REDD di Indonesia menggunakan pendekatan nasional dengan
implementasi di tingkat sub-nasional (provinsi atau kabupaten/kota atau unit manajemen). Dengan demikian referensi emisi (REL) ditetapkan di tingkat nasional, sub nasional dan di lokasi kegiatan REDD.
2. Referensi Emisi (REL) di tingkat nasional ditetapkan oleh Departemen Kehutanan, sedangkan emisi di tingkat sub-nasional ditetapkan oleh Pemerintah Daerah (provinsi atau kabupaten/kota) dan dikonfirmasikan dengan referensi emisi tingkat nasional.
3. Referensi Emisi (REL) di lokasi kegiatan REDD ditetapkan oleh pelaku dan dikonfirmasikan dengan referensi emisi tingkat nasional dan sub-nasional.
B. Pengukuran perubahan tutupan hutan dan stok karbon 1. Pengukuran perubahan tutupan hutan dan stok karbon menggunakan
petunjuk Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change /IPCC (IPCC Guidelines atau IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry/GPG-LULUCF ).
2. Pelaku dapat memilih pendekatan ( approach) dan tingkat ketelitian ( tiers) yang tertuang dalam petunjuk IPCC sesuai tingkat kesiapan/kapasitas yang dimiliki mulai dari tier 2 dan secara bertahap menuju penggunaan approach (Approach 3) dan tiers yang tertinggi (tier 3).
3. Tabel pilihan Approach dan Tiers.
Pendekatan untuk menentukan perubahan luas areal ( Activity Data)
Tingkat kerincian faktor emisi ( Tier): perubahan cadangan karbon
1. Berdasarkan peta, hasil survey dan data statistik nasional/lokal Tier 2. Data spesifik dari tiap negara (nasional/lokal) untuk beberapa jenis hutan yang dominan atau yang utama
2. Data spatial dari interpretasi penginderaan jauh dengan resolusi tinggi Tier 3. Data cadangan karbon dari Inventarisasi Nasional, yang diukur secara berkala atau dengan modelling
C. Pemantauan ( Monitoring)
1. Pemantauan kegiatan REDD dilakukan untuk mengetahui perubahan stok karbon dari Referensi Emisi (REL) dan manfaat lainnya
2. Elemen penting yang harus diperhatikan dalam pemantauan adalah kredibilitas, transparansi, akurasi, berdasarkan kaidah ilmiah dan konsistensi dengan peraturan internasional yang disepakati.
3. Pemantauan dilakukan secara periodik oleh pelaku, Pemerintah Daerah dan Departemen Kehutanan paling lama setiap 5 (lima) tahun sekali kecuali untuk periode sampai dengan 2012 dilakukan setiap tahun.
D. Pelaporan ( Reporting)
Pelaporan kegiatan REDD dilakukan secara periodik sesuai periode pemantauan.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
LAMPIRAN 6 PERATURAN MENTERI KEHUTANAN Nomor : P. 30/Menhut-II/2009 Tanggal : 1 Mei 2009
PEDOMAN VERIFIKASI KEGIATAN REDD
1. Sebelum ada keputusan COP tentang Tata Cara REDD, maka verifikasi kegiatan REDD antara lain mengacu petunjuk pada Lampiran Keputusan COP 13 No.2 tahun 2007. Verifikasi dilakukan terhadap butir-butir sebagai berikut : a. Penghitungan pengurangan /peningkatan emisi harus sesuai hasil, terukur, transparan, dan konsisten sepanjang waktu.
b. Dasar penetapan referensi emisi (REL). c. Pengurangan emisi yang dihasilkan (pelaporan menggunakan reporting
guidelines (Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry )).
d. Ada/tidaknya pengalihan deforestasi dan/atau degradasi (displacement of activities/emissions ) sebagai dampak dari kegiatan dimaksud dan bagaimana hal tersebut diperhitungkan dan ditangani.
e. Konsistensi dengan provisi di bawah UNFF, CCD, dan CBD. f. Transparansi dan fairness dalam pembagian insentif kegiatan REDD dan
kontribusi terhadap tujuan konvensi dan pembangunan nasional yang berkelanjutan.
2. Setelah ada Keputusan COP tentang Tata Cara REDD, maka verifikasi kegiatan REDD berdasarkan Keputusan COP dan konsisten dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
Salinan sesuai dengan aslinya MENTERI KEHUTANAN Kepala Biro Hukum dan Organisasi REPUBLIK INDONESIA ttd. ttd. SUPARNO, SH H.M.S. K A B A N NIP. 19500514 198303 1 001
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
