Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM):
Lessons from Community Forestry (CF)
in Nepal [ and Indonesia]
Naya Sharma Paudel &...
Benefit sharing: why lessons from CF to REDD+?
• CF institutions have developed well established
BSM that are legitimate, ...
Management
role
Patterns of ownership
Private Communal State
Private Privately managed
forests around
households
(e.g. far...
Community forestry: a major forest regime in Nepal
• Government’s major programme
• Over 18000 community groups
(35% of po...
CF: a unique tenure arrangement
• Government owns forestlands
• Bundle of rights are transferred to CF group (access, use,...
Existing BSM in CF
With state
• CF groups enjoy 100% benefit
from forests
• Includes – timber, non-timber,
other ecosystem...
Piloting REDD benefit sharing
Payment Criteria
carbon stock and
increment (40%)
Social criteria
(60%)+
REDD
Payment =
Innovations on equitable BSM
Procedural equity
• Inclusive representation in
decision making bodies
• Social criteria for ...
Contestations on
CF benefit sharing
CF expansion in
valuable Terai forests
Guidelines on benefit
sharing
Proposed 50%
reve...
Benefit sharing is closely linked with tenure arrangement –
clear, comprehensive and secure tenure is a pre-condition
Proc...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal (and Indonesia)

525

Published on

This presentation by Naya Sharma Paudel & Ani Adiwinata Nawir given during the Forests Asia Summit in the discussion forum "Equitable development: What is the fairest of them all? Assessing aspects of equity in incentive mechanisms for natural resource conservation and management" focuses on why CF can provide some lessons for REDD+, the importance of community forestry in Nepal and CF as an unique tenure arrangement.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
525
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal (and Indonesia)"

  1. 1. REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal [ and Indonesia] Naya Sharma Paudel & Ani Adiwinata Nawir Forest Asia Summit Jakarta 5-6 May 2014
  2. 2. Benefit sharing: why lessons from CF to REDD+? • CF institutions have developed well established BSM that are legitimate, recognised by national law and incentivise forest conservation • Nepal’s CF scheme is regarded as a successful approach in forest conservation and therefore its lessons on BSM provide good basis • CF generates and distributes co-benefits beyond carbon therefore provides relevant lessons for REDD+
  3. 3. Management role Patterns of ownership Private Communal State Private Privately managed forests around households (e.g. farm forestry) Privately-managed on community lands (e.g. Customary land in Borneo: tembawang) Public land allocation scheme for individually managed (e.g. Community-Based Plantation) Communal Private land organised by community institutions Communal mgm on community lands (e.g. Village Forest in Indonesia) State land allocated for community management: (e.g. reforestation projects in Indonesia; CF in Nepal) State Co-management Co-management on privately-owned lands (e.g. outgrower schemes) Co-management on communal lands (e.g. JFM in India) State lands allocated to community group (e.g. CFM in Nepal & the Philippines) Sources: Adapted from FAO (1985); Mayers (2000); Arnold (2001); Calderon and Nawir (2004); and Nawir (2012)
  4. 4. Community forestry: a major forest regime in Nepal • Government’s major programme • Over 18000 community groups (35% of pop) • A quarter of forest area under CF • Substantial livelihoods benefits, community infrastructure, social services
  5. 5. CF: a unique tenure arrangement • Government owns forestlands • Bundle of rights are transferred to CF group (access, use, management and exclusion) • There is no time limit, but the Operation Plan requires periodic renewal (in every 10 yrs) • CF groups are required to get permission from DFO for harvesting, sale, enterprise operation The DFO may handover any part of a National Forest to a users' group in the form of a Community Forest as prescribed entitling to develop, conserve, use and manage the forest and sell and distribute the forest products independently by fixing their prices according to OP.
  6. 6. Existing BSM in CF With state • CF groups enjoy 100% benefit from forests • Includes – timber, non-timber, other ecosystem services • Pay 15% royalty only for two species, it timber is sold outside the group • State provides basic services including administrative, capacity building, forest inventory, management plan etc. Within group • Forest products: based on availability, traditional use and current need • CF funds – community infrastructure, social services, pro-poor activities, forest management • No cash benefits to individual members • CF funds should be invested – 25% forest development, 35% pro-poor activities and rest on community priority
  7. 7. Piloting REDD benefit sharing
  8. 8. Payment Criteria carbon stock and increment (40%) Social criteria (60%)+ REDD Payment =
  9. 9. Innovations on equitable BSM Procedural equity • Inclusive representation in decision making bodies • Social criteria for REDD+ payment • Conditions for CF fund/REDD fund use (e.g. 35% for pro-poor activities) Substantive equity • Wellbeing ranking and integrating it in benefit sharing framework • Forest based employment to poor • Support during difficulty • Land allocation to poor households • Differential price of forest products
  10. 10. Contestations on CF benefit sharing CF expansion in valuable Terai forests Guidelines on benefit sharing Proposed 50% revenue to the government Government owns land and therefore the soil carbon Regulatory control on trade and enterprise Suggested provisions in benefit sharing
  11. 11. Benefit sharing is closely linked with tenure arrangement – clear, comprehensive and secure tenure is a pre-condition Procedural equity at all levels of environmental governance is important to ensure substantive equity at local level Forest management for multiple benefits serves equity purpose better than focusing on single benefit Key messages
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×