Transcript afforestation of bad lands financed through joint implementation

ENVIRONMENTAL AND FINANCIAL
SYNERGIES ON AFFORESTATION OF
DEGRADED LANDS
V. Blujdea – Forest Research and Management Institute Bucharest
I. Abrudan – Transilvania University of Brasov
Romania
Climate: mild continental
Temperature: -2.5 ⋯ +11.4 oC
Precipitation:
• 385 mm (L) and >1000 mm (H)
• West/East: 700/ 400 mm
Relief: balanced among
plains\hills\mountains
A place like any other ….
A place like any other ….
but vulnerable to …
Drought intensity areas in Romania
(according to palfay index
corrected by soil
properties, relief and
ground water)
Hazards in Romania
OVERALL, ALL ARRABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF
THE COUNTRY IS AFFECTED BY DROUGHT and
HALF OF THE COUNTRY AREA IS AFFECTED BY
DIFFERENT LAND DEGRADATION TYPE
NAP/UNCCD: Drought and Land Degradation and
their combat ….
Monitoring, warning, prevention of drought
Rehabilitation and improvement of the irrigation system
Improve land use and balance at local/regional scale
(afforestation, …)
Improvement of hydrological regime of the rivers
Improvement of land use practices
Promotion of drought tolerant crops
Promotion of ‘close to nature’ ecosystem’s management
Water management systems
Afforestation of bad lands in Romania
Tradition, Experience, Continuity, Necessity
Financing of afforestation works
• Dedicated sources (special funds: Degraded Lands
Afforestation Fund, own companies effort)
• EU funds (SAPARD and structural)
• Joint Implementation approach (under Kyoto
Protocol)
What is synergy ?
• A mutually advantageous conjunction of distinct
elements (a common dictionary definition)
• Hunt three rabbits with
one single bullet ?
• Share one piece of ….
to three lions ?
KP’s JI/CDM approach in afforestation
of degraded lands
Biological
Diversity
Multiple partners
Financial synergies
Environmental synergies
Long term commitment
Sustainable development
Climate change
Land degradation /
desertification
How we practically deal with …?
Afforestation activity / project cycle:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Development of partnership
Land availability and land use
Type of structure to be created
Technology to be used
Chosen of species to be planted
Incentives
Ensure sustainability of the forest/ administration/
management type / local integration
H. Units of C transfer
A. Partners interested …
• Communities ?
• Private owners ?
• State forests administrator ?
Issues: uncertain land property, financial, uncertain will, long
negotiations, weak/ lack of capacity of administration, technical
solutions “at command”, communication problems
B. Type of structures to be created …
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ecological restoration
Plantations / tree crops
Agroforestry
Energy plantations
Plantations with socio-economical purposes
Pioneer/ transitory plantations
Issues: targeted function of the new forest, local needs, local
threats, local vulnerability, land status, former land use
C. Land availability and actual land use …
•
•
•
•
Ownership on the land
Land use category and real land use
Land status
Aggregation of lands
Issues: cadastral situation, ownership (clear ?), land use correlate with
vegetation type, land status (chemical, physical and biological
degradation), legislation on land use, procedures on LUC, EIA (?), land
consolidation (total area, shape of the contour), conservation approaches,
institutional communication, limited capacity of negotiations of the
different stakeholders or decision makers
D. Technology to be used …
• Land preparation
• Soil preparation
• Planting technology
Issues: former land use, intensivity of the works (terracing, deep
ploughing vs. strips preparation), complexity of the plantations works
E. Chosen of species to be planted …
• A high request of fast growing and dense wood species
• In degraded lands combat is a request of species that
quickly halt the erosional processes and soon provide
services
• Management objectives of the plantations
Issues: Multitude of options regarding species - exotic vs. native; legal
restrictions regarding use of species (Golden Law of Local Provenance);
rate of C sequestration vs. C offsets income; owner wish; endeavored
functions of the new stand; availability of the seedling on recommended
species, collateral problems (genetic introgression, invasion, management,
non-permanence, vulnerability), assess risks related to species used
Area on species and groups of species
(according technical afforestations plans)
Species
Area
(ha)
Indigenous species
Fraxinus communis, Fraxinus ornus, Fraxinus pallisae
178
Populus alba, Populus nigra
1455
Salix sp.
310
Pinus nigra
30
Pyrus pyraster, Prunus cerasifera, Ulmus laevis, Crataegus monogyna, Juglans regia, Morus alba
19
Quercus patraea, Quercus robur, Acer campestre, Acer tataricum, Acer platanoides, Cerasus avium, Alnus
incana, Carpinus betulus
Quercus cerris, Tilia cordata, Tilia argentea
157
Quercus pedunculiflora
1009
Rosa cannina, Ligustrum vulgare
19
Total indigenous species
3313 (55 %)
136
Exotic species
Elaeaganus angustifolia, Ailantus altissima
739
Gleditschia triachantos
274
Quercus rubra
4
Robinia pseudacacia
1688
Ulmus turkmeniaca, Prunus mahaleb
15
Total exotic species
2720 (45 %)
TOTAL afforested area in project
6033 (100 %)
Pattern of C sequestration in tree plantations
Species
(tC/ha)
Total
biomass
Woody
biomass
Soil
(incl. litter)
Quercus sp.
20
13.5
7.5
Populus sp.
31
22
10
Robinia sp.
44
34
15
Sequestration (tC/ha)
70
60
Total Robinia (III)
50
Total Robinia (V)
40
Total Poplar (III)
30
Total Quercus (V)
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9
Plantation age (years)
11
13
15
Project total sequestration
(tC)
C accumulation projection and validation
CO2fix
3PG
Field estimation
Project duration (years)
F. Incentives for …
• Who afford what ? (big administrators vs. small land
owners)
• Local species planting may/should be an incentive
for additional payment by the C offsets buyer? It is a
subject of negotiation
• Free services for local people (no charge for forest
fruits or medicinal, bees keeping)
G. Ensure sustainability of the new forest/
administration/ management type / local integration
• Management plans
• Protection against illegal cut, grazing, insects
outbreaks, forest fires
• Awareness and compensation programme
Issues: long term forest management; decentralization is just happening
in Romania; addressing grass roots problems of the communities compensation measures; limited knowledge on cross sectoral or
integrated management
H. Carbon and biodiversity monitoring
Accumulated CO2
5 years balance
Re - parametyzing the
model
M1
M2
M3
Conclusions
Options & Trade-offs: Which step ?
Scientific soundness is needed every step
Afforestation activity (of degraded lands) could be financially
supported via sequestered carbon transactions
C financing may act as incentive in the mobilizing
national/other partner resources
Plantations of degraded lands creates multi-benefits for local
population and environment