Day 2. Presentation. diji chandrasekharan

  • 95 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
95
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • You have heard from our colleagues about some of the issues and challenges they are facing with respect to benefit sharing at the national level and efforts they are making to address these issues in specific country contexts. One of the objectives of this scoping dialogue is to hear from you about efforts to deliver effective, equitable and efficient benefit sharing and advance on addressing the issues with benefit sharing. This will be the focus of the dialogue tomorrowIn this presentation I wanted to share with you some work that has been done and used to inform discussions on benefit sharing and help stakeholders advance in how they are thinking about specific issues. These are tools/frameworks/guidance that has been developed to assist stakeholders in a country.
  • Very simple structure – just a few slides on what I mean by challenges and then a few more specifically on frameworks and instruments.
  • Heard from the earlier about some of the that still need for further clarity and discussion – who should benefit, how to determine benefits (whether they are opportunity costs based, or based on negotiations, etc.), and so on. These issues also surfaced when PROFOR and FCPF hosted virtual dialogues with 12 FCPF countries and at the workshops we have held on benefit sharingThese issues have various challenges associated with them. For example, SLIDE with respect to who benefits – there is the question of who should be rewarded and whose behavior needs to be changed. There is also the challenge of thinking through SLIDE how the beneficiaries are identified, whether it is based on rights, claims or interest. SLIDE How multiple forms of rights can be accommodated and SLIDE How multiple categories of holders of rights and interests are all included. Mulitple forms of rights:Formal lawCustomary lawNormative practices, perception, history, etc.
  • SLIDE Another example of a challenge is how benefits be distributed (on what basis benefits should be determined and what mechanism should be used to transfer benefits SLIDE How to establish arrangements that are effective, transparent and practicalSLIDE How to determine capacity requirements for these arrangements or how to work within the capacity available in the countrySLIDE How to tie these arrangements in with existing institutional arrangementsSLIDE How to link the benefit sharing arrangements with other key pieces of the REDD+ architecture – such as the MRV effortsSLIDE How to ensure the appropriate benefits are transferred through the systemYou all know these are not simple challenges and as a result there are [SLIDE]
  • That said, in the last 18 months the release of a set of tools, assessment frameworks, guidance materials have “deconstructed” processes and concrete approaches to help countries think through benefit sharing arrangements and all the fundamental issues associated with it.
  • These products are designed to equip stakeholders with approaches that can be tailored to a country context and that can help generate, through participatory processes, information and insights to steer dialogues and processes on benefit sharing in a country. They are not prescriptive
  • For purpose of illustration I will briefly describe two products associated with work that PROFOR led on benefit sharing. The first is guidance for identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The logic underlying this product was that in most countries, while the goal of REDD+ approaches should be strengthen and secure local claims to resources and forests. This can take time. Where stakeholders are willing to engage in REDD+ activities while working on strengthening and securing local rights, there is, therefore, the need to have some instruments that help stakeholders identify and work with individuals and groups who need to be engaged in REDD+ while efforts are underway to make rights more clear
  • Makes the case for adopting a pluralistic legal framework for purposes of designing initiatives Helps Identify all beneficiaries whose claims to and use of the resource base should be recognized and addressed (under all legal systems) It puts in place a fair and equitable because it acknowledges rights of the people who live in or near the forests, are often dependent on forests and forest resources for livelihoods It helps inform how to incentivize behavior and determine whose incentives need to be changed among local stakeholdersUsing such a framing then informs how beneficiaries should be identified and the product provides guidance on how this can be done. Madagascar has a pluralistic legal environment governing land. In the Makira Forest Protected Area project where project sells emission reductions from avoided deforestation to provide financial incentives for community-led land stewardship. The identification of rights and interests of stakeholders and information regarding the existing administrative structure helped project planners design an appropriate project governance structure and also determine who to include in the REDD activity
  • Adopting a pluralistic legal framework means operating outside any one legal system. Need to create a structure for the REDD+ initiative that makes rights and responsibilities clear and offers predictability of outcomes. Legal instrument should provide clarity -- establish the law – the rules everyone agrees toMust provide predictability. What happens if non performance.Depending on the country context some legal instruments may be more suited than other to achieve this level of clarity and predictability.For example in Madagascar, the formal law states that all forests except for those on titled land are state property. Madagascar’s customary law, on the other hand, supports the rights of local communities to access forestland and use forest products. Customary law has a high degree of social legitimacy. Efforts to harmonize the systems have resulted in legislation for comanagement between the state and local communities. Because of the legal context of Madagascar, for the Makira Project, the legal measure that was needed to further formalize what is allowed and not allowed was simpler legal instrument that clarified the transfer of responsibilities for forest management and use of forest resources to local communities. This was done with a decree on and forest management contracts.
  • Framework that is built on the experience with 18 concrete cases of benefit sharing arrangements that span the different mechanism types I just mentioned. It is also a framework that is developed as an e-tool and can be used to facilitate discussions
  • The framework also breaks down mechanisms for sharing benefits into four fundamental building blocks (and associated with each of these are specific components). The framework enables stakeholders in a country who are apply it (whether at the subnational or national level) to determine what is in place in their country with respect to each these building blocks and make informed decisions regarding the mechanism types to pursue and what enabling actions to invest in to put in place the selected mechanism types.
  • For each basic building block the framework lists various components
  • For each component have a list of elements and examples to make more tangible what is associated with each elementThe framework is structured so that the users can “score” the situation on the ground against each of these elements to identify what is needed to effectively deliver a particular mechanism type
  • The two approaches I have described, and the others I mentioned earlier are not blue printThey are designed to be used in a participatory way with representative stakeholders, in a facilitated consultative process and they are designed to be tailored for a particular use Mentioned earlier that there are no simple solutions…
  • Decisions on benefit sharing are not technical, they are political decisions
  • These are decisions that need to be well informed about who is using the resources and how, what costs are, the most appropriate form of benefit and more, because getting benefit sharing right is necessary for achieving the objectives of REDD+
  • For each basic building block the framework lists various components
  • For each component have a list of elements and examples of each element

Transcript

  • 1. Challenges and Ways Forward with Benefit Sharing Diji Chandrasekharan Behr dchandrasekharan@worldbank.org
  • 2. Structure of the presentation1. Challenges2. Frameworks / instruments for tackling challenges • Legal instruments • Developing mechanisms
  • 3. “Challenges” …• Who should benefit? …..rights, claims and interest Multiple forms of rights Multiple categories of holders of rights and interests
  • 4. “Challenges”…• How should benefits be distributed (basis and mechanism) • Effective, transparent and practical • Capacity • Existing institutional arrangements • Monitoring and reporting • Appropriate benefits
  • 5. No simple solutions
  • 6. Frameworks / Instruments / Guidance
  • 7. Help equip stakeholders.. Advisory Board Meeting 2011
  • 8. An illustration Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits
  • 9. An illustration Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits
  • 10. Identification of Beneficiaries• Benefits of adopting a legal pluralism framework • Identify all beneficiaries • Equity and fairness • Incentivize behavior• Steps for identifying beneficiaries • Participatory approach for identification • Legal framework analysis • Assessment of land/natural resource rights and interests, past/present/future benefit streams, etc. • Examination of governance institutions, local organizations
  • 11. Selecting legal instruments for working with beneficiaries Role for legal instruments -- Provide clarity and predictability Primary legislation Secondary (delegated/subordinate) legislation Contracts  Formal  Informal  Tiered and nested
  • 12. An illustration Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits
  • 13. What is the options assessment framework?Assists in assessing how a specific (orrange of) benefit sharing mechanismtype(s) can be delivered effectively
  • 14. How to share benefits : Four main types of benefit sharing mechanisms Poverty National reduction fund National level reforestation payments for funds hydrological National National services input based performance based mechanism mechanismOut-grower Sub-national Sub-nationalschemes input based performance based Tax redistribution mechanism mechanism schemes Conservation trust Community BioCF projects Payment for based natural watershed resource services management
  • 15. Who and what do thesemechanisms involve?
  • 16. A mechanism in practice (Socio Bosque, Ecuador)
  • 17. Building blocks of mechanisms for sharing benefitsI. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private Sector Institutional CapacityII. Appropriate National or Subnational Legal Framework Relevant to REDD+III. Strong Financial Management Capacity and ExperienceIV. Strong Monitoring Capacity and Experience*
  • 18. What is part of a building block?I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private Sector Institutional Capacity i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing agency ii. Capacity of CSOs iii. Capacity of communities iv. Capacity of private sector
  • 19. What is part of a building block (cont.)I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private Sector Institutional Capacityi. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing agency Effective cooperation with national and subnational government agencies working on SFM Ability to engage with CSO and private sector in forest policy development Physical presence Working relationship with Ministry of Finance or Treasury Capacity in SFM, community development Prior experience in benefit sharing
  • 20. Why use an options assessment framework?• To learn from experience - 17 key learning points for successful benefit sharing mechanism• Assess levels of readiness within country for implementing particular benefit sharing mechanism types• Inform discussions on the mechanism types to pursue• Identify key enabling actions to prioritize
  • 21. No prescriptions /for adapting and informing
  • 22. It is complicated
  • 23. No “one size fits all”
  • 24. Help frame and inform process
  • 25. THANK YOUFor more information on these frameworks please visit www.profor.info/node/2010 If you have questions, please contact: Diji Chandrasekharan dchandrasekharan@worldbank.org
  • 26. EXTRA SLIDES (MORE FYI)
  • 27. Framework of a nationalperformance based mechanism
  • 28. What is the options assessment framework?Assists in assessing how a specific (ordifferent) benefit sharing mechanismtype(s) can be delivered effectively
  • 29. What is part of a building block?I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private Sector Institutional Capacity i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing agency ii. Capacity of CSOs iii. Capacity of communities iv. Capacity of private sector
  • 30. What is part of a building block (cont.)I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private Sector Institutional Capacityi. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing agency Effective cooperation with national and subnational government agencies working on SFM Ability to engage with CSO and private sector in forest policy development Physical presence Working relationship with Ministry of Finance or Treasury Capacity in SFM, community development Prior experience in benefit sharing
  • 31. How is the assessment done?Users score the country context against each component (0 = absent, 1 =partially present, 2 = present).i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism Score implementing agencyEffective cooperation with national and subnational 0-2government of SFMAbility to engage with CSO and private sector in forest policy 0-2developmentPhysical presence 0-2Working relationship with Ministry of Finance or Treasury 0-2Capacity in SFM, community development 0-2Prior experience in benefit sharing 0-2 What is the options assessment framework?
  • 32. What does the aggregate score tell us?% score is obtained based on country’s total score/maximum scoreScoring Range Benefit Sharing Mechanism Type Feasibility Level of Enabling Action Required Lowest REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type not Very high level of enabling action required currently feasible given the country context. across all building blocks. REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type not Very high level of enabling action required for a currently feasible but may become so over the selection of building blocks or long term (3–5+ years) if appropriate enabling High level of enabling action required across all actions are undertaken. building blocks. REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type may High level of enabling action required for a become feasible over the medium term (2–3 selection of building blocks or years) if appropriate enabling actions are Moderate level of enabling action required undertaken. across all building blocks. REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type may Moderate level of enabling action required for a become feasible over the short term (1–2 yrs) if selection of building blocks or appropriate enabling actions are undertaken. Low level of enabling action required across all building blocks. Highest REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism appears Low level of enabling action required across a ready to be feasible. small number of building blocks.
  • 33. To use or learn more about theOptions Assessment Framework http://www.profor.info/node/2010 Advisory Board Meeting 2011