Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary group carried out Indonesia‘s first in-depth analytical studies and
consultations on REDD+, including a detailed report on potential benefit distribution options.
� Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) 154: Indonesia‘s R-PP was prepared by MoFor in 2009 for
submission to the FCPF. The R-PP provides an outline of activities that Indonesia will carry out to
become ―ready‖ for full-scale REDD+ implementation. It contains preliminary notions on benefit
sharing, based on the IFCA report.
� Draft REDD+ strategy: Several REDD+ strategies have been drafted by various government
institutions, including quite different versions from MoFor, BAPPENAS, and the REDD+ Task Force.
This case study will reference the most recent ―consolidated‖ draft prepared by the REDD+ Task Force
in May, 2011.
� MoFor regulations and decrees on REDD+: In 2008 and 2009, MoFor issued three regulations on
REDD+, 155 which provide guidance on REDD+ project implementation, including revenue distribution.
The Ministry of Finance immediately contested the authority of MoFor to regulate revenue distribution,
and it is likely that the MoFor regulations will eventually be revised or replaced.
� REDD+ demonstration projects: Although most REDD+ demonstration projects in Indonesia are in
the very early stages of planning or implementation, some preliminary ideas on benefit sharing are
beginning to emerge.
It is widely believed that Indonesia will pursue some form of a ―national approach to REDD+ with subnational
implementation‖ (also known as a ―nested‖ approach). 156 This approach means that Indonesia will
establish a national system for MRV of emission reductions against a national reference emissions level.
However, REDD+ activities will be designed and implemented at a sub-national level led by local
governments, communities, NGOs, or private developers. Carbon credits would only be issued to subnational
project developers after their emission reductions have been verified and registered within the
national accounting framework. Furthermore, the national government will likely retain a portion of earned
credits in order to finance transaction and implementation costs incurred at the central, provincial, and/or
district levels.
Adoption of a nested approach implies that sub-national REDD+ ―projects‖ will be the focal point of local
benefit distribution. The scale of a project could range from the landscape-level (i.e. crossing different forest
types, legal classifications, and potentially political boundaries) to the site-level (i.e. involving a localized and
homogenous area). This approach generates the potential for a broad spectrum of different sub-national
benefit sharing arrangements, depending on the project design and the socio-economic and legal context
governing the project area. However, it is also probable that the central government will issue national rules,
guidelines, and safeguards to ensure that sub-national benefit sharing approaches meet minimum standards of
equity, efficiency, and effectiveness.
154 See http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/Node/218.
155 Regulation Number 68 of 2008 on the Implementation of Demonstration Activities on Reduction of Emission from Deforestation and
Degradation; Regulation Number 30 of 2009 on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; and Regulation Number 36 of
2009 Regarding Procedures for Licensing of Commercial Utilization of Carbon Sequestration and/or Storage in Production and Protected
Forests.
156 Joint submission to the AWG-LCA and SBSTA by the Governments of Indonesia and Australia.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/unfccc/~/media/submissions/international/Joint-Indonesia-and-Australia-REDD-
SubmissionAUG.ashx.
PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER 93