evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Indonesia's National Carbon Accounting System (INCAS) — Satellite MRV Behind Two Results-Based REDD+ Payments

Indonesia · Jakarta · See the Indonesia profile · See the Jakarta profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 33% 53/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Indonesia's Landsat-based national forest-carbon MRV system verified emission cuts that triggered two results-based payments: $56m from Norway (11.23 Mt CO2e, 2017) and $103.8m from the Green Climate Fund (20.25 Mt CO2e, 2014–16).

530 million krone (≈US$56 million) payment
Norway results-based payment (2019, for 2017 results)
11.23 Mt CO2e
Emission reductions verified for Norway payment (2017 vs reference level)
US$103.8 million payment
Green Climate Fund results-based payment (approved 2021, for 2014–2016 results)
20.25 Mt CO2e
Emission reductions verified for GCF payment (2014–2016)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), Indonesia
Period
2009–2021
Keywords
forest carbon, MRV, remote sensing, climate finance, REDD+

Context

The Indonesia National Carbon Accounting System (INCAS) is a wall-to-wall, annual forest-cover-change monitoring system built on time-series Landsat imagery, covering the whole of Indonesia from 2000 to the present. Development began in 2009 under the Indonesia–Australia Forest Carbon Partnership, adapting methods from Australia's own National Carbon Accounting System.

Activities

The pipeline — ortho-rectification, calibration, cloud masking, mosaicing and multi-temporal probabilistic classification — is documented in peer-reviewed remote-sensing literature, with explicit attention to classification accuracy at each processing step.

Results

INCAS output has directly underpinned two major international results-based payments for verified emission reductions. In 2019, Norway agreed to pay Indonesia 530 million krone (about US$56 million) after Indonesia's national reporting, grounded in INCAS-derived land-cover-change data, showed 11.23 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions avoided in 2017 compared to a reference level. Separately, the Green Climate Fund's Board approved US$103.8 million in results-based payments in 2021 for a reported 20.25 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation over 2014–2016.

Conclusions

The system illustrates both the promise and the limits of nationally-run satellite MRV: it gives Indonesia sovereign, wall-to-wall monitoring capacity rather than dependence on external verifiers, and has been technically credible enough to unlock large multilateral and bilateral payments. At the same time, the broader Indonesia–Norway REDD+ relationship has been diplomatically volatile — the original $1 billion agreement was suspended by Indonesia in 2021 over delayed payment before a narrower partnership resumed in 2022 — and INCAS' technical monitoring layer has proven more durable and less contested than the political payment relationships built on top of it.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), Indonesia, Indonesia–Australia Forest Carbon Partnership technical teams

Conditions for success

  • wall-to-wall, annual satellite monitoring rather than sampling, giving national sovereign monitoring capacity
  • peer-reviewed, accuracy-assessed processing pipeline (ortho-rectification, cloud masking, classification)
  • international technology-transfer partnership (Indonesia–Australia) to build initial capacity

Common failure modes

  • underlying emissions data is self-reported by the national system rather than third-party certified
  • the political payment relationships built on top of the monitoring system have proven volatile — the original $1 billion Indonesia–Norway agreement was suspended in 2021 over delayed payment

Where it fits

Governance type
national government-run MRV system underpinning bilateral/multilateral results-based finance
Scale
national
Income level
lower-middle-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful