セッション 2「REDD プラスの『活動』をどのように実施し、これをスケールアップするか？」
モデレーター：天野 正博（早稲田大学 教授）(1)スケール・アップのためのアプローチ（天野） セッション 2 は、REDD プラスのデモンストレーション活動が今までどのように実施され、どういう知見を得てきたかということに触れられる。また、REDD そのものは最終的に National レベルあるいは Sub-National レベルでの事業になっていくが、そこにどう結び付けていくのかについてという話を伺いたい。

The Verified Carbon Standard
Scaling up REDD+: Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+
Naomi Swickard (VCS1)

I am going to start with a quick overview of the VCS just for those of you who are not familiar.
Then I will talk a bit about scaling up and how we can move from project activities to into morejurisdictional and larger scale approaches to REDD+.

1

http://www.v-c-s.org/

1

The VCS was established by a number of leading NGOs2 to provide a rigorous and trustworthy
standard for the voluntary market. We are managed by the VCS Association in Washington DC.
We are also working on opening an office in Santiago, Chile.. We are a non-profit organization and
we really have a single focus. We run the program for developing an offset project in the voluntarymarket. We are not involved in any consulting or project development work.

In terms of where we are at in the market, VCS has about 700 registered projects so far with avolume of close to 80 million tons. The VCU3 is a voluntary carbon unit that stands for 1 ton of
CO2. Those come from a number of different types of projects, about 5 million tons from theagriculture and forestry sector, and another 1 million tons that we have in the AFOLU 4 pooled
buffer account that manages permanence risk for AFOLU projects.

This map is from Ecosystem Marketplace and it lists 195 different project activities that are moving
forward at this time. These are all at very different stages: some of them are very preliminary,
while others have already issued credits under the VCS, for example.

There are a large number ofproject activities moving forward on the ground now. We have seen significant leadership in theREDD space by project activities that have helped to establish that REDD can work on the ground2

Non-Governmental Operations

3

Voluntary Carbon Units: Represents emission reduction of 1 metric ton of CO 2

4

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses

2and that we have methodologies for accounting for carbon.

At the same time, there is significant development at the jurisdictional scale.

There has beensignificant progress made in number of jurisdictions and we need to bring these two scales together.
Project activities need to be able to fit underneath the umbrella of sub-national and national scaleaccounting. We also see a number of emerging markets that may lead to somewhat of a fragmented
system. As we all know, the agreement in Durban progressed to some extent, but without anagreement, there are very few clear rules in place for REDD+. . We are unlikely to see a realagreement until 2020, which means that a fully operational system may not be in place for severalyears after that.

At the same time, we see the potential for domestic offset systems moving forward and potentiallyallowing international credits, for example in Japan, perhaps in the future in Korea, and theAustralian market is really gearing up. Australia has set out that international forestry projects may
be eligible after 2015. That means over the next few years, the system internationally looks quite
fragmented and may consist of a number of different systems of rules. This makes it potentiallyvery difficult for a jurisdiction that needs to develop a REDD program that can fit into these different
markets. We need a common set of blueprints. We need a common set of requirements and apathway for project and larger-scale accounting that allows countries to move forward sooner. We
know that we cannot wait until 2020 to advance REDD, and to be able to reduce emissions, and stop
the conversion of forests.

3

In terms of funding, this information is a bit out-of-date, but what has been committed so far is notgoing to be enough to achieve the scales of REDD+ that we are all hoping can emerge from thissystem. This graph shows the amount that has been pledged versus the amount that has actually
been deposited, approved or dispersed for REDD around the world. It is obvious that a lot of what
has been committed has not come through yet. It is also obvious that the total amount of funding is
nowhere near what is needed. It is not going to come close to the $18 to $26 billion that is needed
annually just to halve deforestation. How do we create a mechanism that can incentivize theprivate sector?

Because very clearly we will need that investment in order to make REDD

successful.

Next, I will talk about the nested approach or why a nested type of system might be more attractive
to the private sector and important for REDD as we scale up.

Nesting really refers to the ability to

account and possibly credit at multiple scales. For example, there may be a project activities within a
sub-national or national accounting scheme that can account for reductions at those different scales,both from project activities as well as from policies and programs that are implemented at thegovernment level. A nested system is also structured in a way that can help to direct benefits towhere those emission reductions are occurring.
Obviously, it is very important when you start thinking about these different scales and emission
reductions happening within larger frameworks that there is a way to ensure that those emission
reductions add up, that there is no double counting, and that system can be designed in a way that4

ensures environmental integrity is maintained at the higher scale. A nested system can be built on
the experience that has already been achieved in project activities. It helps increase scale to larger
scale accounting, which we know is necessary in order to ensure effective accounting for leakage,for example.

It also is possible that a nested system will help to incentivize private sector

engagement. There are ways within that that you can reduce the risk to a private sector investor,
particularly where they can have a direct relationship with an ongoing project activity.

The VCS, recognizing this need and the lack of real detailed requirements or policies on how tocreate a nested system, started a new initiative called the Jurisdictional and Nested REDD Initiative.
We are working to develop guidance and criteria for these jurisdictional scale REDD programs toenable crediting at multiple scales. When I say jurisdiction, I mean an administrative unit at thenational level, at a sub-national level, for example state or province. In some cases, a jurisdiction
could also be an ecoregion within a country.
This initiative will help to create a pathway for nesting projects into larger scale accounting, andhopefully will help to develop what is best practice for these types of systems. This framework
could potentially serve a number of different markets, including voluntary markets. It may also help
to establish for jurisdictions a pathway towards transitioning to an eventual UNFCCC5 Framework anumber of other pre-compliance or compliance markets.

5United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change：国連気候変動枠組条約

5

Our current thinking is that this type of nested framework has a number of different potential
crediting pathways. The first is where you have project crediting only within a larger scale baseline.
The benefit there is that where a jurisdiction is not quite ready to move to full sub-national or
national scale accounting, it is still very important that a consistent baseline is used across project
activities. The risk we have right now is that you have a number of different activities in a similararea, and they are all independently setting baselines, they are all independently assessing leakage,there may be an overlap in some of project or leakage areas, or it may create inconsistencies inbaselines that are in the same region. This would allow a jurisdictional baseline to be establishedthat all the project activities could use.
The second scenario is a more fully nested system, with crediting and accounting at multiple scales,including at the project level as well as the national or sub-national level. This would allow crediting
directly at those different levels as well. Nesting can really occur at multiple scales, for example, aproject within a sub-national jurisdiction within a national jurisdiction.
The third scenario is where there is jurisdictional crediting only.

For some jurisdictions, there may

be an interest to account and credit only at the jurisdictional scale rather than allowing direct
crediting to project activities. That does not mean there are no nested project activities, but rather
those project activities are credited or benefits are allocated from the higher level jurisdiction.

To give you a bit of a visual representation of this; if you look at the boxes, these represent thejurisdictional boundaries. The circles represent project activities. In Scenario 1, you can see
6credits running from a registry to the project activities directly, but there is no crediting oraccounting at the jurisdictional level. On the far end is Scenario 3 , where accounting and crediting
are both at the jurisdictional scale. There is an internal allocation to projects that may be credits, orother benefits. Scenario 2 is more complicated in some ways, and yet at the same time has the mostpotential benefit in terms of what a nested system can provide. Here you have the opportunity tocredit at multiple scales, including jurisdictional and project activities and through using a consistentframework you are able to ensure that those different levels add up.

In terms of process, the system functions slightly different depending on the scale and the scenariothat you are working with.

A nested system requires addressing a number of technical issues. The VCS Jurisdictional andNested REDD Initiative has developed a set of technical recommendations on each of these. The
technical recommendations are publicly available if you are interested in looking at the detail. We
will have another version coming out soon as well.
There are ways to ensure, depending on the timing that these different systems emerge that we arestill able to make sure that they align down the road. We have a number of other issues that havebeen dealt with in terms of leakage, crediting and reversals. One example quickly in terms ofreversal and natural disturbances: the VCS operates quite differently than the CDM7 has with7

Clean Development Mechanism: http://cdm.unfccc.int

7

afforestation and reforestation projects.

CDM A/R projects had a term limit that has not functioned

particularly well. As a result there are not very many CDM AR8 projects because of those limitedterms.
The VCS developed a buffer approach to assessing permanence. The project risk is assessed using atool, and a portion of credits are set aside in a buffer pool. Where there is a reversal, credits can becanceled from that pool to ensure that the credits that have been issued remain permanent. The
jurisdictional scale is likely to use the same system.

This would allow a credit or a portion of

credits from the various jurisdictions to be put into a global pool that could then be used to cancel
credits in the event of any reversal or natural disturbance that occurs in the jurisdiction.

In terms of our process; we have put together an advisory committee of leading jurisdictions as wellas technical experts to feed into this process. They are really overseeing the development of therequirements, along with a set of technical experts. We will also conducting a peer review andpublic comment coming up quite soon. I welcome the feedback from all of you on that process.

The JNRI was convened in early 2011. We released a set of technical recommendations in October,and are set to have another draft of that based on feedback that will be released probably by the endof this week. We are aiming to have the set of requirements issued by the end of the first quarter of2011 with piloting beginning later in 2012.

8Afforestation/Reforestation

8

For more information, you can see our website. There are a number of documents that you canreview, including a fact sheet and the detailed technical recommendations.

9