Securing Land, Forest, Tree and Carbon Tenure for REDD+(+) in Kenya

1,479 views

Published on

Securing Land, Forest, Tree and Carbon Tenure for REDD+(+) in Kenya
Security of tenure has been identified as key in ensuring the success of REDD+.
It is important to recognize and secure new kinds of property rights anticipated from REDD+ to ensure success of the programs.
Land tenure, while forming the basis for granting rights to land and its resources, is insufficient and there is need to clarify and incorporate forest, tree and carbon tenure.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,479
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
52
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • FAO classifies Kenya as a low-forest country as its forests cover about 6% of its total land area. Many of the indigenous forests, which account for less than 2% of total land area are protected and managed by the State through its agencies, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). This is a far cry from the estimated 10% cover at independence in 1963. Much of this change has occurred in the past two decades as changes in land use have occurred due to demand for agricultural land and development, as well as illegal logging and unsustainable use of the forests. Deforestation and forest degradation are estimated to cost the country about 12,000 hectares of forest each year therefore emitting approximately 1.6 million tons of carbon with an additional 406 tons of carbon lost from “other woodlands”. These include indigenous closed canopy, indigenous mangrove, open woodlands, public plantation forests, and private plantation forests.
  • Insecure tenure is a driver of deforestation as communities may have little incentive to protect a resource they do not own. It can also make them vulnerable to disposession
  • generally categorized as: private where an individual/individuals hold exclusive rights to land; communal where each member of a community has the right to use land to the exclusion of members outside that community; open access where no one is assigned specific rights and no one is excluded from use of the land; and state where rights are assigned to a public authority or government Formal tenure – codified into laws and regulations and have legal backing Informal tenure – not written down but agreed upon by members of a community/user groups. Enforcement through informal means
  • Most African forests are still controlled by central government, with ownership and management rights usually transferred to other stakeholders only when it is obvious that the State itself cannot protect forests from further degradation. More efficient and equitable management does not yet seem to be an aim in itself. The forest areas owned by individuals or communities tend to be small. Central governments have exclusive control over 16 percent of Africa’s public forest. For another 61 percent, they grant very limited user rights (such as to collect non-wood forest products for personal consumption), and retain the overall management responsibility. These areas are often left unmanaged and uncontrolled, because governments lack resources and capacity. In an assessment of forests in 17 African countries, FAO determined that 95% were owned and controlled by the State
  • Among the most important tasks of governments seeking ways to conserve, restore and manage forest resources sustainably are the examination and overhaul of forest tenure systems, to give people and institutions control over their resources and the rights to manage and profit from them. A tenure system cannot benefit poor and vulnerable people unless they are involved in all stages of its planning and implementation
  • Carbon rights have emerged as a novel form of land interest under REDD+. They give the holder a right to the incorporeal benefit of carbon sequestration on a piece of forested land. Where property rights of local communities are yet to be settled, introducing carbon rights over land used and occupied by these people may have the potential to further compromise their tenure and use of land. Where they are well developed, they are usually registered on the land title and ideally should be perpetually enforceable or established over long time frames to ensure permanence for the buyer. clear that there is a need to develop a consistent approach to the concept of “carbon rights” in national REDD+ regimes. In relation to the commercialisation of REDD+ at scale, a consistent approach to carbon rights reduces both uncertainty and complexity; thus, it also reduces the costs and risks of participation Caution
  • The three countries have carried out extensive reforms to their land and forest policies Cameroon – contradiction because land is a pre-requisite for tree planting yet productive use i.e. tree planting is a pre-condition for land ownership Customary land rights not recognized and locals can only harvest forest products for personal use only Devolved rights limited to management and area limited to 5000 haIn Cameroon, land is either state or privately owned. However, only 3% of the land is privately owned In Cameroon, land is either state or privately owned. However, only 3% of the land is privately owned Access to forests is gained through local “customary” systems of tenure Natural forests belong to government but planted trees belong to the one who plants them State exercises rights over trees in private fields so little incentive to plant trees In Indonesia, land is either state or titled but, similar to Cameroon, most land is not registered State forest resources are property of the State Customary rights often disregarded and community is powerless against land acquisitions Although reforms devolved forest management, there is gradual recentralization In contrast to the two, there are varied tenure systems in Tanzania and tenure is devolved to the local level Tanzania allows private ownership of forests Access to forests is gained through local “customary” systems of tenure Natural forests belong to government but planted trees belong to the one who plants them State exercises rights over trees in private fields so little incentive to plant trees In Indonesia, land is either state or titled but, similar to Cameroon, most land is not registered State forest resources are property of the State Customary rights often disregarded and community is powerless against land acquisitions Although reforms devolved forest management, there is gradual recentralization In contrast to the two, there are varied tenure systems in Tanzania and tenure is devolved to the local level Tanzania allows private ownership of forests
  • Constitution of Kenya (2010) Land Policy (2007) Forest Act (2005) Vision 2030 National Climate Change Response Strategy (2010) Legal Notice 166
  • National REDD+ program headed by KFS mainly implemented in gazetted forests although support will be provided to projects outside these forests government owns the land carbon rights to be negotiated on a project-by-project basis Important to emphasize other ecosystem benefits of conservation Rukinga Ranch (coordinated by Wildlife Works) Located in Kasigau, in the costal region between Tsavo E. and Tsavo W. national parks Land owned by Rukinga Ranching Co Ltd (group ranch) Rukinga owns the carbon Communities present are Taita and Duruma who all have varying customary tenure systems Community involved in managing and monitoring the dryland forest and benefit from community projects implemented by RRC IGAs are an organic clothing factory, an organic greenhouse, and a dryland farming scheme, ecotourism, school construction and bursary schemes Carbon rights to be via carbon easements for phase II Imbirikani Ranch (coordinated by Africa Wildlife Foundation) Located in Southern Kenya bordered by the Chyulu Hills national park and the Tanzanian Border Currently developing a PDD Land owned and run communally (group ranch) Carbon owned by the community (divided up by number of members – 4,500) and individual members will get payments for carbon AWF held meeting with community to explain REDD and gained approval Community involved in management of forests Alternative livelihoods projects initiated e.g. alternative energy sources and agriculture Mt. Kenya and Abadere range (coordinated by the Green Belt Movement) 5 projects located in central Kenya Arose from the need to rehabilitate 2000 ha of degraded forest lands – eventually did 1543 ha CDM project via the WB Land owned by State under the KFS Carbon owned by community – they reimburse GBM for project costs GBM raises seedlings for planting in the sites and provide technical expertise e.g. in measuring biomass – has to interpret the technical aspects for the community to understand CFAs (Community Forest Associations) – carry out rehabilitation and management of the forests KFS – custodian of forests GBM and CFAs have a benefit sharing agreement – GBM takes cost of implementing the project, rest goes to the CFA. Usually 20 – 80 but varies depending on actual project costs 60 year agreement between KFS and CFAs that allow them to manage the forest. These agreements are governed by the Forest Act 2005 GBM and KFS have an MoU Rights are usually negotiated. Starts out by the three parties drawing up a list of responsibilities and then apportioning these. Rights are allocated based on amount of responsibility. In these projects, KFS and GBM have zero carbon rights but community will compensate GBM for project costs It is difficult to talk of covering the opportunity cost for the communities because costs are high and benefits uncertain. Benefits therefore encompass ecosystem services yielded. Carbon stored is an “extra benefit”. Cost of carbon is too low at between 5 and 10 dollars per ton Conservation is therefore more core
  • It doesn’t matter what kind of tenure exists – clarity is key
  • For community lands such as group ranches, rights can be registered in the district land register/cadaster Yet to do: Conceptual framework Interview with Kasigau ongoing
  • Securing Land, Forest, Tree and Carbon Tenure for REDD+(+) in Kenya

    1. 1. ASB SEMINAR PRESENTATION SUSAN WAMBUGU 08/16/2011 Securing Land, Forest, Tree and Carbon Tenure for REDD+(+) in Kenya
    2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Security of tenure has been identified as key in ensuring the success of REDD+ </li></ul><ul><li>It is important to recognize and secure new kinds of property rights anticipated from REDD+ to ensure success of the programs </li></ul><ul><li>Land tenure, while forming the basis for granting rights to land and its resources, is insufficient and there is need to clarify and incorporate forest, tree and carbon tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Tenure reforms are an important vehicle for securing rights to land and land resources and present an opportunity to address these arising property rights. </li></ul><ul><li>A tension exists between the urgency of REDD+ and the slow nature of the reform process and there is need to identify ways to bridge the gap </li></ul>
    3. 3. Problem Statement <ul><li>“ Moving ahead with REDD+ initiatives in the absence of (this) clarity… could be counterproductive and lead to conflict and marginalization of weaker claimants.” (Mwayafu, 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>This is especially crucial in the African context where existing tenure systems are likely to pose a great challenge for emissions reductions and carbon sequestration projects. (Unruh, 2008) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Research Question and Hypothesis <ul><li>To what extent have land, forest, tree, and carbon rights been articulated in Kenya’s tenure reform process policies as the country prepares for the implementation of REDD+? </li></ul><ul><li>Null: The tenure reforms in Kenya do not inhibit emission reduction </li></ul>
    5. 5. Aims of the Paper <ul><li>Distinguish between land, forest, tree, and carbon rights and tenure in the context of emissions reduction, </li></ul><ul><li>examine the land, forest, tree, and carbon tenure requirements of REDD+, and </li></ul><ul><li>determine whether they align with tenure provisions as provided for by Kenyan reforms and make recommendations on any existing gaps between the two. </li></ul>
    6. 6. The Kenyan Context <ul><li>Kenya is classified as low forest country (FAO 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Many of the indigenous forests, which account for less than 2% of total land area are protected and managed by the State through its agencies, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). </li></ul><ul><li>Drivers of deforestation have been the demand for agricultural land and development, as well as illegal logging and unsustainable use of the forests. </li></ul><ul><li>The country is estimated to lose about 12,000 hectares of forest each year therefore emitting approximately 1.6 million tons of carbon with an additional 406,000 tons of carbon lost from “other woodlands”. </li></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>Gazetted (indigenous) forests form 1.7% of Kenya’s total land cover. Total forest cover about 6% </li></ul><ul><li>Other forests are found on plantations and farms </li></ul><ul><li>Only 20% of the land is suitable for agriculture while the rest is mainly arid and semi-arid </li></ul><ul><li>No communities are allowed to reside within gazetted forests but many live adjacent to them </li></ul>
    8. 8. A Whole Landscape Approach <ul><li>REDD+ as currently outlined does not maximize benefits for Kenya (low forest country) </li></ul><ul><li>Kenya more interested in + components (enhancing forest carbon stocks, conservation, and sustainable management of forests) </li></ul><ul><li>Deforestation and degradation outside forests prevalent </li></ul><ul><li>Leakage a real concern </li></ul><ul><li>A whole landscape approach such as REDD++ (REALU) is therefore more suitable </li></ul>
    9. 9. Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU/REDD++) <ul><li>A definition that includes REDD+ and all transitions in land cover that affect carbon storage </li></ul><ul><li>Inclusive of trees outside forests, agroforests, plantations,and other natural forests not captured in current definitions </li></ul><ul><li>Proposes whole landscape approaches and accounting (AFOLU) as a way of minimizing leakage and definition / eligibility questions that may hamper the implementation of REDD+ </li></ul>
    10. 10. Methodology <ul><li>Desk review of reform documents: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Constitution of Kenya (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Land Policy (2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forest Act (2005) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vision 2030 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Climate Change Response Strategy (2010) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal Notice 166 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Desk Review of Project Documents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kenya RPP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kasigau Phase I PDD (Rukinga Ranch) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Imbirikani Ranch PDD </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Key informant interviews with: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National REDD+ Coordinator </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Green Belt Movement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kasigau Corridor Project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Africa Wildlife Foundation </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Tenure Requirements for REDD+(+) <ul><li>Clarification of land and forest tenure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognition of rights </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enforceability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Allocation of carbon rights </li></ul>
    12. 12. Security of Tenure in REDD+(+) <ul><li>Resource tenure – the system of rights, rules, institutions and processes regulating resource access and use – is key to shaping the distribution of risks, costs and benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Tenure usually taken to mean land tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Security of tenure is therefore “the certainty that a person’s rights to land will be recognized by others and protected in cases of specific challenges.” (reference) </li></ul><ul><li>Land tenure, however, may be insufficient for the purposes of REDD+ due to arising property rights in forests, trees, and carbon </li></ul>
    13. 13. Importance of Secure Tenure <ul><li>Gives communities leverage when relating with government and the private sector regarding land and ensures equitable distribution of benefits from emissions reductions programs. </li></ul><ul><li>Better biodiversity maintenance, community livelihoods and carbon sequestration, and improved forest cover </li></ul><ul><li>Investments in secure tenure have been identified to yield benefits several times more than similar investments in REDD and to cost less (Hatcher </li></ul><ul><li>increased sense of personal security, preservation of cultural identities, and reduced or mitigated conflicts over resources between communities; and increased investments in the community </li></ul>
    14. 14. Land Tenure <ul><li>Land tenure is defined as “the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with respect to land.” (FAO, 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Generally categorized as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>state </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>private </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>communal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>open access </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These categories often overlap and sometimes conflict </li></ul><ul><li>In Africa, tension exists between formal and informal kinds of tenure </li></ul>Formal tenure Informal Tenure
    15. 15. Forest Tenure <ul><li>Forest tenure determines who can use what forest resources for how long and under what conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Most African forests (83%) are still controlled by central government </li></ul><ul><li>Forest areas owned by individuals or communities tend to be small (10%) </li></ul>Forest Ownership Structure (FAO, 2008)
    16. 16. Forest Tenure cont’d <ul><li>Much of forest tenure combines elements of traditional forest management with government-controlled exploitation and/or conservation of forest resources (FAO, 2008). Other forms of tenure also exist. </li></ul><ul><li>Successful tenure reforms have been associated with democratized rather than centralized systems </li></ul><ul><li>Concern that REDD+ favors a centralized system of governance (Phelps et al , 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Fragility, lack of clarity, resistance to change, and a weak supporting environment identified as constraints to tenure security and diversification </li></ul>
    17. 17. Tree Tenure <ul><li>Addresses trees that fall outside forest areas and planted trees </li></ul><ul><li>There is a strong notion that tree-planting/cutting signifies land claim (Unruh, 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>In addition, useful trees and forest resources are viewed as complexes of rights in which different parts of useful trees at different periods of time, differ in terms of who owns, loans, borrows, inherits, uses, or disposes of them (Unruh, 2008) </li></ul>
    18. 18. Carbon Tenure <ul><li>Carbon rights have emerged as a novel form of land interest under REDD+. </li></ul><ul><li>Usually refers to the rights to benefit from REDD+ activities and is often associated with efforts to determine which actors have rights to own carbon as property. (Mwayafu, 2010) </li></ul><ul><li>Where property rights of local communities are yet to be settled, introducing carbon rights over land used and occupied by these people may have the potential to further compromise their tenure and use of land. (Fry, 2008) </li></ul><ul><li>Where they are well developed, they are usually registered on the land title for permanence. </li></ul><ul><li>Land, forest, and tree tenure have implications for how carbon rights are conferred and governed (Norton Rose, 2010) </li></ul>
    19. 19. Distinction between land, forest, tree, and carbon tenure: An example of Cameroon <ul><li>In Cameroon, land is either state or privately owned. However, only 3% of the land is privately owned </li></ul><ul><li>Access to forests is gained through local “customary” systems of tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Natural forests belong to government but planted trees belong to the one who plants them </li></ul><ul><li>State exercises rights over trees in private fields so little incentive to plant trees </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon rights likely vest in the State </li></ul>
    20. 20. Key findings (from review of tenure reforms) <ul><li>Security of land tenure identified as critical for development and incorporated in key reforms </li></ul><ul><li>Resource tenure is highlighted in the land policy but there in no specific reference to forest, tree or carbon tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Reforms have been fairly consistent in providing clarity and providing for institution strengthening </li></ul><ul><li>Aggressive campaign for re-forestation and afforestation e.g. requirement that farmers ensure at least 10% of their land is under tree cover </li></ul>
    21. 21. Key findings (from REDD+ and other Carbon Projects) <ul><li>National REDD+ program headed by KFS </li></ul><ul><li>Rukinga Ranch (coordinated by Wildlife Works) </li></ul><ul><li>Imbirikani Ranch (coordinated by Africa Wildlife Foundation) </li></ul><ul><li>Mt. Kenya and Aberdare range (coordinated by the Green Belt Movement) </li></ul>
    22. 22. Lessons Learned <ul><li>REDD+ considered a means of achieving better forest management rather than an end in itself </li></ul><ul><li>Avoided costs of deforestation cannot be covered by REDD+ therefore other AGIs included in project design </li></ul><ul><li>Land tenure is the most important and influential – whoever owns the land owns the trees and very often, the carbon stored in the trees </li></ul><ul><li>Individual tenure considered the most secure while tenure in lands held by local governments in trust for communities considered least secure </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon rights are defined on a project-by-project basis, sometimes negotiated </li></ul>
    23. 23. Preliminary Conclusions <ul><li>Varying tenure systems means that allocation of rights and therefore benefits will vary across projects </li></ul><ul><li>Tenure arrangements do indeed vary even within the same class of tenure system </li></ul><ul><li>Type of tenure system does not seem to adversely affect implementation of REDD+(+) as long as there is clarity and an agreement on benefit-sharing </li></ul><ul><li>While current reforms are a step in the right direction for providing security of tenure, much is yet to be done to clarify and secure resource rights </li></ul>
    24. 24. Recommendations <ul><li>Strengthen community organizations and use e.g. cooperatives </li></ul><ul><li>In Kenya, REDD+(+) projects shouldbe accompanied by some form of income generating activity geared towards improving livelihoods – carbon credits alone are insufficient to cover opportunity costs </li></ul><ul><li>Reforms should encourage the registration of carbon rights on titles to encourage permanence </li></ul><ul><li>Enforcement needs to be strengthened for tenure systems to gain legitimacy with the community </li></ul>
    25. 25. <ul><li>THANK YOU </li></ul>

    ×