Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Technical Assessment: Final - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Technical Assessment: Final ER-PD for Dominican Republic

Twentieth Meeting of the Carbon Fund (CF20) Washington DC, July 8 – 11, 2019

Presentation of TAP

2

▪ The technical assessment was conducted from December 17, 2018 to June 10, 2019 by the following team:

Person TAP expertise Juan Andres Lopez Team Lead Javier Cano Martin Carbon accounting expert Sixto Incháustegui Local expert Moritz von Unger Legal expert Josh Lichtenstein Safeguards expert

Overall assessment of final ER-PD

3

Initial review 2nd assessment 3rd assessment

• II. Level of Ambition

YES 3 3 3 NO N.A.

• III. Carbon Accounting

YES 22 32 34 NO 11 3 N.A. 10 8 9

• IV. Safeguards

YES 2 3 6 NO 4 3 N.A. 1 1 1

• V. Sustainable Program Design

and Implementation YES 3 9 10 NO 7 1 N.A. 4 4 4

• VI. ER Program Transactions

YES 1 3 8 NO 7 5 1 N.A. 3 3 2

• III. Carbon Accounting

4

▪ OBSERVATION: although the calculations of the uncertainty estimate have

been reported transparently and completely, the final results are too low. Bearing in mind that there is an amount of uncertainty that is irreducible, it is considered highly unlikely that a general uncertainty is so low, if activity data uncertainty is estimated between 20 and 50%. ▪ It is recommended to revise the estimate of uncertainty to ensure that the methods described in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines are correctly applied, i.e. confidence interval is defined as the interval between the 95% and 5% percentiles.

• Ind. 9.1. Uncertainty associated with activity data and emission factors is quantified using

accepted international standards, for example by providing accuracy, confidence interval, distribution of error, and propagation of error. Where errors in data and methods are considered large as defined in IPCC Guidelines, Monte Carlo methods (numerical simulations) should be used to estimate uncertainty Ind 9.3 Uncertainty of Emissions Reductions associated with deforestation, forest degradation and enhancements are reported separately if measured through separate (i.e., non-integrated) approaches and when degradation is estimated using proxy data.

YES

• III. Carbon Accounting

5

▪ The country is not using an integrated approach to measure deforestation, forest degradation and enhancements of carbon stocks, so this is deemed not applicable.

• Ind. 9.2. Uncertainty of the estimate of Emission Reductions is quantified using

Monte Carlo methods. Underlying sources of error in data and methods for integrated measurements of deforestation, forest degradation and enhancements (e.g., as in a national forest inventory) are combined into a single combined uncertainty estimate and are reported at the two-tailed 90% confidence level

N.A.

• V. Sustainable Program Design and

Implementation

6

▪ OBSERVATION: Title transfer in DR will depend on a solid Benefit

Sharing Plan, which is to be governed by a Benefit Sharing Decision- Making Body to be created. Therefore, it will be important to look at the following key aspects when validating the final benefit sharing plan: (i) guarantee accessibility to the BSP, (ii) ensure inclusiveness; (iii) secure adequate representation; (iv) guarantee transparency of the decision-making process; and (v) provide for the the existence of functioning complaint and redress procedures.

Ind 33.1 The design and implementation of the Benefit-Sharing Plan comply with relevant applicable laws, including national laws and any legally binding national obligations under relevant international laws

YES

• VI. ER Program Transactions

7

▪ It is observed that the respective inter-institutional agreement between the

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) and the Ministry of Finance as the competent authority to sign the ERPA must be in place and well documented as to form and content before ERPA negotiations can begin

Ind 36.1 The ER Program Entity demonstrates its authority to enter into an ERPA with the Carbon Fund prior to the start of ERPA negotiations, either through:

• i. Reference to an existing legal and regulatory framework stipulating such authority; and/or
• ii. In the form of a letter from the relevant overarching governmental authority (e.g., the

presidency, chancellery, etc.) or from the relevant governmental body authorized to confirm such authority. YES

• VI. ER Program Transactions

8

• Given the considerable risks related to the transfer of title, the ER-PD should include a

mechanism to ensure that contested ERs be not part of any transfer.

• Such mechanism would foresee that each sub-fund / sub-program participating in the ER

Program must be vetted and cleared prior to the actual title transfer to the Carbon Fund. The vetting process would consist in an evaluation whether the sub-fund/sub-program concerned has implemented the authorization of title in line with the requirements and thresholds listed in Indicator 36.2 (in particular: definition of applicable REDD+ activities is in place; access is open, transparent and non-discriminatory to stakeholders; transfer of title in exchange for benefits as per the BSP is agreed through individual contracts).

• If any sub-funds and sub-programs participating in the ER Program are not vetted

successfully, a percentile of ERs – equal to the ratio of [sub-program / total Accounting Area] – into a reserve, on the understanding that this reserve represents the number of ERs for which title cannot be demonstrated.

• Non-compliance is deemed MAJOR as the issue has a substantial impact on a key element
• f the ER Program and the ERPA. However, it is expected that the necessary remedial

action is readily available and simple to implement.

Ind 36.3 The ER Program Entity demonstrates its ability to transfer Title to ERs prior to ERPA signature, or at the latest, at the time of transfer of ERs to the Carbon Fund….

NO

• The ER-PD shows two type of activities: (i) enabling activities; and (ii)

programs oriented to promote and improve agroforestry practices,

• riented to develop shade cash crops and improve livelihoods while

enhancing forest coverage.

• When the activities relate to specific programs located in priority

areas, beneficiaries will need to sign-up, and formally engage in carbon offset activities that will lead to ER title transfer. There is a challenge in ensuring all beneficiaries are formally contracting the transfer of carbon rights, while receiving the program benefits.

• A risk management mechanism has been proposed by the TAP, so

that potentially unclear or contested ERs are put aside in a reserve, while the title issues get resolved.

9

Concluding remarks

Thank You!

10

• The TAP Team commends the Government of

Dominican Republic for the efforts and achievements regarding their R-Readiness and ER Program, and would like to especially thank the Country Team for its responsiveness to suggestions and comments posed by TAP along the process.