PERKEMBANGAN NEGOSIASI DI COP UNFCCC
E. Kelengkapan Data dan Informasi khusus Gambut 33. Wayan Susi
Dharmawan Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hutan
(KLHK) Anggota
34. Fahmuddin Agus Balai Besar Sumber Daya Lahan Pertanian (BBSDLP) Kementerian Pertanian Anggota
Ditetapkan di Jakarta
pada tanggal 10 Maret 2016
LAMPIRAN NOTA DINAS NO: TATA WAKTU PELAKSANAAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FOREST REFERENCE EMISSIONLEVELINDONESIA NoKegiatan (Tim Assessment dan Tim Party)Tanggal (termasuk rentang)FebruariMaretAprilMeiJuniJuliAgustusSeptemberOktoberNovember 1234123412341234123412341234123412341234 1.Pertemuan pendahuluan16 Februari 2016 2.Distribusi SKMinggu ke-empat bulan Februari 3.Rencana Kerja dan pengumpulan data/ informasi3 weeks 4.Deadline for data/information preparation14 Maret 2016 5.Assessment session in Bonn1 week (14-18 Maret 2016) 6.Seeking additional clarifictions from the partyup to 1 week (21-28 Maret 2016) 7.Party to provide clarifications8 weeks (29 Maret - 23 Mei 2016) 8.Focus Group Discussion (oleh party)4 kali FGD 9.
assessment team to consider modified reference level (applicable in the case that the party modifies its submitted reference level)
4 weeks (23 Mei - 20 Juni 2016) between 12 -16 weeks following the assessment 10.Assesment team to prepare draft reportsession in Bonn (latest 11 Juli 2016) 11.Party to respond to draft report12 weeks (latest 3 oktober 2016) 12.Focus Group Discussion (oleh party)4 kali FGD 13.Assesment team to prepare final report within four weeks following the Party's response 4 weeks (latest 1 November 2016) 14.Final report published and technical assessment completedlatest 21 November 2016
LAMPIRAN 2. RANGKUMAN PERTANYAAN DAN JAWABAN SELAMA PROSES TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FREL – PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
FREL Submission Indonesia: Preliminary Technical Questions by The Assessment Team (and the proposed answer)
Bonn, 7 March 2016 (Jakarta, 14 March 2016)
1. There are references in the submission indicating that Indonesia has developed a forest reference level before the one in this submission. If this is the case, we would like to have more information on this previous reference level, when it has been developed, for what purpose, what are the main differences compared to the current one? And whether the establishment of this one builds on it and how.
Section 1.2, Para 3-4 (page 3) describes the previous three national level initiatives for constructing the national FREL and baseline emission from deforestation. The first initiative (collaboration of the REDD+ Agency and MoFor, 2014) was for the construction of national FREL for REDD+, and the second (under the SNC, 2010) was to develop baseline emission from deforestation for period 2007-2020 and the third initiative (MoFor Decree No. 633/2014) was for FREL from deforestation up to 2020. The different between the three initiatives are the reference period, the activity data (deforestation data) and emission factors used in the construction of the FREL/Baseline emission. The first initiative used the reference period of 2000-2012, and the last two initiatives used the same reference period of 2000- 2006. The change of the reference periods was motivated by the availability of new data set and policy considerations, in particular related to land use (See also our response to question #18). The land cover data (activity data) used for assessing the deforestation rate in the first initiative was the data from the Ministry of Forestry that have been refined (see Annex 1 for further explanation), while in the latter two initiatives are the one that have not been refined. The emission factors (forest carbon stock) data used in the first initiatives were from the National Forest Inventory 1990-2013 (See Annex 3) in which the carbon
More comprehensive text to explain the above information has been added in the updated FREL document.
2. What was the reasoning behind setting the reference period? It would be good to understand how the start date was chosen and how it can be justified that also the earlier years of the reference period are representative of expected land-use change trends in the near future?
In Section 1.4 Para 5, five scenarios have been exercised in setting the reference period. Those are also depending on data reliability and consistency of the date during the reference period (1990 to 2012) derived from NFMS. From this process, as elaborated in sub section 4.2.1, we concluded that the longest reference periods captured plausible dynamics of policy and social aspects, which provides opportunity to appropriately predict national circumstances affecting land use policy, for example: change of government regime, anthropogenic disaster and market demand for commodities (please see our response to question #18). Some text to better explain the reasons have been added.
3. Could Indonesia provide some information on whether the same data sources and methods used in the GHG inventory of the LULUCF sector have also been used for the development of this FREL?
As seen in Section 1.2 Para 3 (page 3), for this FREL submission we use the improved activity data and updated emission factor (see our response to question
#1). MoEF has refined the land cover map over the last 24 years (1990 – 2014) as more satellite data become publicly available (please refer to annex 1, page 50 – 54). This land cover data was used for both FREL construction and the development of GHG Inventory prepared for the first BUR. In the development of GHG Inventory all activities occurred in the six land-use categories have been included, while in the FREL, we only calculated the emission from deforestation and forest degradation.
The method used for calculating the emission follows the IPCC Methodology.
4. Regarding the calculation of uncertainties of emission factors in Annex 7, were the uncertainties for deforestation and forest degradation emission factors calculated from confidence intervals presented in Table 2 on page 16? If yes, how can it be explained that in all cases the percentage uncertainty for deforestation and for forest degradation are equal?
Yes, uncertainties of emission factors in what was Annex 7 (we inserted new annex as annex 7 to explain the SE, so that uncertainty would be in annex 8) were calculated from AGB stocks (with 95% confidence intervals) presented in re- arranged Table 2 (Page 16). The uncertainties of emission factor were generated from standard error (SE) of carbon stock values from every forest types/classes in each major island/group of island. Information on the SE has been added in the revised table 2 on the updated FREL document. In the updated FREL, uncertainties explained in annex 8.1 to 8.7 and in revised table 4. The uncertainty values were calculated from activity data as well as from emission factor (as seen in section 4.2.5. Para 2, page 22). Those numbers represent the average of SE that will reflect the difference of the uncertainty between the deforestation and forest degradation. These two uncertainties will be combined to reflect the uncertainty of the total historical emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Thank you for your observation, and we will carefully re-check the appropriate improvement before make it final.
5. How the forest definition was used is not very clear. The submission states that the definition of the MoFor is relevant because it was made for CDM purposes, but then in the next para it is stated that the definition used for reporting to FAO, which is different from the MoFor one, has been, for the purpose of this submission, adjusted to the country natural tropical forest ecosystems, excluding other tree covers and wood land areas. Please clarify whether the two definitions have been used, how and whether the definition used is different from the one used for the national GHG inventory of the LULUCF sector reported in National communications, and give more rationale on how and why the used definition is chosen from the different available definitions.
Many forest definitions have been introduced in the submitted FREL for giving an overview in how the forests have been defined for many purposes. Yet, not all definition is practicable. Forest definitions that used in SNC and BUR included Natural Forests (Primary and Secondary Forests) and Plantation Forest, but in the submitted FREL we only include Natural Forests (Primary and Secondary Forest), and excluded the plantation forest. CDM definition was used by the Ministry of
Refer to section 1.2. General Approach, this FREL does not only merely apply TACCC concepts, but also considers concept of “practicality” and cost effectiveness especially in measuring the REDD+ performance in the future. Practicality means that definition employed need to refer to operational processes, which related to data availability and reliability. The definition call up here leads to what we named working definition. In order to give more comprehensive information on definition used, we added some boxes in the updated document, in which each of the box explains the existing renowned definition, and how it is connected to what we mean in the FREL document.
6. The definition of deforestation of the MoFor is consistent with FAO and IPCC. What is the rationale for the Party to make (chose) another definition of deforestation for the purpose of this submission, which as in sections 2.2, reads “In this submission, deforestation was defined as a conversion of natural forest cover into other land- cover categories that has only occurred one time in particular areas. While the definition of MoFor in the same para reads “The Minister of Forestry No. 30/2009 that stated deforestation as the permanent alteration from forested area into a non-forested area as a result of human activities (MoFor, 2009)”. Please explain what is the difference, what is meant by “other land-cover categories”, does it also include forests?
As referring to our response to question #5, we have clarified forests definition used in the submitted FREL. As described in section 2.2. (Page 6), in this submission the deforestation only refers to the conversion of natural forest cover into non-forested lands. In most cases in Indonesia, when natural forest has been changed into non-forested lands, they rarely grow back into natural forest. Other land-cover categories in our definition are non-forest class plus plantation forest.
Non-forest class includes crop, agriculture, shrub, savanna and grasses; paddy field, transmigration areas, settlement areas, port & harbor, mining areas, and bare lands (Refer to Table Annex 1.1 page 50). In the case of The Minister of Forestry No. 30/2009, “deforestation as the permanent alteration from forested area into a non-forested area as a result of human activities”, refers to natural forest and plantation forest. The box for forest and deforestation respectively, have been added in the updated FREL document.
7. What does it mean in practice that section 2.2 explains that deforestation “has only occurred one time in particular areas”? It would be good to understand how the measurement approach accounts for the case that the same location loses tree cover more than once during the reference period. For example, how about the case that a specific location had forest cover in 1990, is deforestation in 1997, regrows in 2001 and again loses forest cover in 2007?
Does the approach count this same area as deforested twice (namely in 1997 and in 2007)?
The deforestation in this submission estimated emission from gross deforestation of natural forest or loss of natural forest at one particular time at particular area.
This means that the deforested area that might regenerate and meet again the forest definition was not taken into account in the calculation of the emission. As previously mentioned in our response to question #6, in most cases in Indonesia, when natural forest has been changed into non forested land, they rarely grow back into natural forest. The box for forest and deforestation respectively, have been added in the updated FREL document.
8. How is temporary unstocking dealt with and the carbon removals in subsequent regeneration?
Section 2 explains that deforestation also includes conversion of secondary forest to non-forest. Secondary forest seems to include both regeneration after temporary unstocking and also forests that suffered from selective logging but did not undergo unstocking. For the former case of conversion from regeneration forest to non- forest - would you agree that carbon emission in this process are matched by carbon removals in the preceding regeneration process? What was the rationale for not including the regeneration process in the scope of the reference level?
See our response to questions #6 and #7. As we defined above, the intention of Indonesia submission is to develop reference emission level only from the change of natural forest into other land categories, and from the change of primary forest into secondary forest (log-over forest; see also section 4.2.3. para 2). Please also noted that the class named secondary forest is a class that represents only
to assess the further degradation occurring in the secondary forest. This is one of the areas for improvement in the next FREL submission (see section 7.5). In the current submission Indonesian objective to submit the FREL is to evaluate Indonesian performance for reducing emission from the deforestation of natural forest and from degradation of the natural forest (loss of carbon stock from primary to secondary forest, as elaborated in class description in Annex 1). See also our added explanation for box of forest, deforestation and forest degradation: definition and understanding, respectively, in the updated FREL document.
9. Can you explain how the forest types and the occurrence of peatlands relate to the occurrence of mineral / organic soils? Some of the listed forest types in Table 1 seem to imply that they occur on organic soils: notably swamp forests and possibly mangroves. Others seem to imply that they occur on mineral soil: notably dryland forests. The calculations, however, seem to also identify organic soils under dryland forests and mineral soils under swamp forests. Related to this, the Table Annex 6.1 and Annex 6.2 show some transitions that are hard to imagine. How can there be transition from dryland forest to swamps, for example?
Table annexes 6.1 and 6.2 actually presenting the emission from peat decomposition, not presenting emission from land-use transition. This issue appears due to the use of two independent data sets, in this case (a) land cover data as elaborated in table Annex 1.1, and (b) peatland data set as elaborated in section 2.4 and Annex 2. During the calculation of emission from peat decomposition, the process of spatial overlaying between those two data sets resulted in what named “sliver”
areas. These sliver areas, might be recognized as dryland within peat lands. The algorithm we used here: in the case of sliver areas is the dryland within the peat lands, we consider that area as a peat; while in the case of sliver area is within swamp forest outside the peat land, we consider that area as fresh water swamp (no peat). So, with this algorithm it is possible emission estimates appear in cell representing transition from dryland to swamp. Thank you for your observation, we will enhance the clarity on this issue in the final revised version, including explains the concept of custodian data under the One-Map Policy (as a background situation) in additional annex.
Questions on section 3: Areas and Activities Covered
10. Section 3.1: It is not clear why non-natural-forested peatland are excluded from the FREL. Wouldn’t they also be subjected to human activities resulting in emissions and removals and most likely have better records of data to estimate their gains and losses? There is a need to maintain consistency with national GHGs inventory in developing the FREL, please explain why this land type was excluded here but is included in the LULUCF inventory of the NC and BUR.
In the construction of FREL we did include non-natural forested peatland which was deforested in 1990 since we have to calculate the inherited emission come from peat soil of deforested peat land occurred in 1990. Thus, we only excluded the peat decomposition from non-natural forested peatland which already existed before 1990 (see area covered in section 3.1. Para 1 page 9). In the case of secondary forest, we calculated peat decomposition for all area across Indonesia as the secondary forest that already existed in 1990 is considered as disturbed natural forest. In the calculation of emission from LULUCF inventory in SNC and BUR, both emissions from non-natural forest and natural forested peatland are included. As already mention before the intention of submitted FREL for REDD+
in Indonesia is confined in natural forest exist from 1990 only.
11. In section 3.2 it is stated “The data of deforestation and forest degradation from available monitoring system are methodologically consistent, which is important in the FREL development process.” What is meant by consistency here? Is the same data also used in the national forest inventory in the national communication?
This FREL submission employs nation-wide land cover data set which was generated using the same methods/approaches since the establishments of land cover data sets from 1990s up to now (see Annex 1). The activity data for deforestation and forest degradation is part of national forest inventory, and has been used in the national communication, though some data adjustment has been done to match the current technology, as explained in Annex 1 para 6 and para 8.
12. In section 3.2 it is also stated “Despite the availability of long time-series of activity
Given the availability of long time series land cover data, this submission focused on the emission from deforestation and forest degradation. Besides, we have limited data on carbon sequestration across land cover types in Indonesia. So in this case, as seen in Chapter 7, we described the plan for improving our estimate to include the other REDD+ activities.
13. What was the thinking behind not including carbon stock enhancement in standing forests (opposite of forest degradation)? Forest degradation is included and quantified as corresponding to the change from primary forest to secondary forest. The inverse change is not included. It seems, though, that the exact same data sources being used to quantify change from primary to secondary forest could also be used to quantify change from secondary forest to primary forest. Is this correct?
See our response to question #5-7.
14. How were land-use change areas measured and calculated? Do we understand correctly that (a) the satellite images from the individual time points were interpreted separately to generate separate land-use maps, and (b) land-use change areas were calculated from overlaying these maps, i.e., area classified as primary forest in an earlier map and as secondary forest in a later map are degradation areas?
Thank you for your clarification, we agree to your comments as we did similar sequential processes as you mentioned.
15. Could Indonesia provide more detail on some emission factors and activity data?
Could you please provide a table with the emission factors applied for deforestation and forest degradation next to their standard deviations? We had difficulties to locate the peatland EF provided in Table 3 of Indonesia’s FREL submission in the IPCC guidelines. Could you provide the exact in-document references for the emission factors used? Information provided in Annex 6 implies that full land-use change matrices are available. Could you provide us with the full land-use change matrices showing hectare estimates across the reference period?
Yes, certainly we could. We provide the complete emission factors for each forest cover type as seen in the updated table 2 (04_160321_EF_SE_Rearrange_Table_2.
xlsx specific for Supplementary Table 1) and Annex 7 (table annex 7.1 and annex 7.2). We also provide the complete land cover transition matrices from 1990 to