Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Are there differences between men and women in REDD+ benefit sharing schemes?

467 views

Published on

Presented by CIFOR Principal Scientist and team leader Esther Mwangi at the IUFRO 125th World Congress on 18 September 2017 in Freiburg, Germany.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Are there differences between men and women in REDD+ benefit sharing schemes?

  1. 1. Esther Mwangi IUFRO 125th World Congress 18th September 2017 Freiburg, Germany Are there differences between men and women in REDD+ benefit sharing schemes?
  2. 2. PARTNERS  Sokoine University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Forestry (Josia Katani, Tanzania)  Universidad Nasional La Molina (Zoila Cruz, Peru)  Sanata Dharma University, Faculty of Economics (Titus Kusumajati, Indonesia)  University of Colorado, Boulder (Krister Andersson)  University of Michigan (Maria Claudia Lopez)
  3. 3. OUTLINE  Research questions & justification  Methods  Findings o Description o Determinants  Conclusions and possible meanings
  4. 4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • Are there differences between men and women’s preferences for benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ schemes? • How can policies and/or implementation practices be modified, in light of existing and emerging complexities, to ensure equitable benefit sharing between and women in REDD+ schemes? WHY? Benefit sharing= distribution of gains from REDD+ implementation (reward for conserving, aligning incentives) Rewards and incentives are available for all contributors in ways that they deem to be fair Heterogeneity among forest resource users
  5. 5. METHOD: INTRA-HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS  Individuals responsible for most household decisions (Husband and Wife)  Randomly selected in each village  Indonesia, Peru, Tanzania  1656 individuals distributed in equal proportion between males and females  The sample distribution is 49% for Tanzania, 29% for Peru and 28% for Indonesia. -------------- Key questions in survey included  • Awareness of REDD Benefits distribution and decision making  •Satisfaction with benefit arrangements/distribution  •Forest use & attitudes towards forest conservation
  6. 6. Women Men Total Mean N Std Dev Mean N Std dev Mean N Std Dev Age of respondent 39.8 821 12.656 46.4 824 17.758 43.1 1645 15.762 years completed in school 5.4 819 3.563 6.3 823 3.457 5.8 1642 3.540 Access units hectares 2.2 716 2.736 3.6 719 5.079 2.9 1435 4.143 hectares of land belong to you 1.8 780 2.267 2.6 789 3.679 2.2 1569 3.084 years have you lived in this village 27.0 822 16.421 31.9 825 17.396 29.5 1647 17.085 large animals, such as Cattle, Oxen, owned 1.3 731 5.183 1.6 726 6.164 1.4 1457 5.693
  7. 7. A. Knowledge of REDD+ and involvement in related decisions  41% of the total sample had no knowledge (Indonesia 17%, Tanzania 50%, Peru 50% )  Of those with knowledge: women= 33% and men= 50% Deciding whether or not REDD plus should be implemented: – proportions involved: 33% in Tanzania, 26% in Peru and 23% in Indonesia – 32% of women indicated some involvement and 68% of men. – Those not involved in decision: I. did not know: 71% in Indonesia; 58% in Peru II. not invited: 51% in Tanzania; 25% in Tanzania; 25% in Indonesia; 19% in Peru III. not in village during meeting: 28% in Tanzania
  8. 8. B. Actual benefits distribution Whether or not they participated in deciding on benefits they will receive 73% did not know who decided…..most of these were women compared to men (79% to 66%) Whether or not satisfied with the way in which REDD benefits are distributed 50% satisfied with type of benefit….48% of women and 52% of men 48% satisfied with amount of benefit received….52% women and 45% men Cash benefits (Tanzania & Indonesia) - (50%) of respondents who received cash benefits are satisfied with the type of benefit -48% satisfied with the amount of benefit received -52% women satisfied with the amount and 48% are satisfied by the type of benefit. - 45% men satisfied with the amount received and 52% satisfied with the type of benefit -60% and 29% are satisfied by the type of benefit in Tanzania and Indonesia respectively -40% and 65% are satisfied by the amount of benefit in Tanzania and Indonesia respectively (+ side)…….individual decisions on how to spend the cash…..(- side some receive more cash than others; unfair)
  9. 9. B. Actual benefits distribution (contd) satisfaction with non cash benefits majority of respondents (87%) who received non cash benefits are satisfied by the type of benefit (84% and 98%) in Tanzania and Peru respectively, 83% of women are satisfied by this type of benefit and 90% of males -Money does not solve all problems -Acquire knowledge -Solves problems of many people at once •Those who didn’t like it thought: -Benefits that touch individual so that each can recognize the value of the payments
  10. 10. DETERMINANTS OF SATISFACTION WITH RED BENEFITS DISTRIBUTION Satisfaction with REDD benefits distribution Robust coefficient Std Error Z P>|z| 95% Conf. Interval Country (1=Tanzania 2=Peru 3=Indonesia) -1.2723 0.3931 -3.24 0.001 -2.0428 -0.5018 Sex (1=Men 0=Female) 0.6736 0.1638 4.11 0.000 0.3527 0.9946 Sample (1=Treatment or 0=Control) 0.3724 0.2014 1.85 0.064 -0.0222 0.7671 NGO encouraged conservation (1=Yes 0=NO) 0.3142 0.2060 1.53 0.127 -0.0896 0.7179 Age of respondent -0.0195 0.0067 -2.92 0.003 -0.0326 -0.0064 Number of years in school -0.0386 0.0245 -1.58 0.115 -0.0865 0.0094 Number of hectares respondent can access 0.0023 0.0178 0.13 0.896 -0.0325 0.0372 Number of hectares owned 1.1223 0.1758 6.38 0.000 0.7777 1.4669 Satisfaction with ways of REDD benefits distribution (1=Yes 0=No) -0.1169 0.0669 -1.75 0.081 -0.2481 0.0143 Satisfied with receiving non cash benefits (1=Yes 0=No) -0.8025 0.0541 -14.84 0.000 -0.9085 -0.6965 Heard of REDD before interview (Yes=1 No=0) -0.3249 0.1776 -1.83 0.067 -0.6730 0.0232 Involved in decision for REDD implementation (1=Yes 0=No) 0.4324 0.0668 6.47 0.000 0.3015 0.5633 Involved in design and/or REDD implementation (1=Yes 0=No) -0.2256 0.0517 -4.37 0.000 -0.3269 -0.1243 Noncash benefits received in the last 5 years (1=Yes 0=No) 0.6207 0.1717 3.62 0.000 0.2842 0.9571 Participation in kind of benefits to be received 0.1635 0.0620 2.64 0.008 0.0420 0.2851 Satisfied with receiving cash benefits -0.0456 0.0517 -0.88 0.377 -0.1469 0.0557 Number of years living in the area 0.0120 0.0052 2.3 0.021 0.0018 0.0221 Number of medium animals owned -0.0223 0.0197 -1.13 0.258 -0.0609 0.0163 Constant -0.0668 0.4686 -0.14 0.887 -0.9853 0.8517 Log pseudo-likelihood -553.11674 Number of observations 1345 Wald chi2(18) 418.71 Probability > chi2 0.000 Pseudo R2 0.4048
  11. 11. DETERMINANTS  Men more likely than women to be satisfied with the distribution of benefits  People involved in the decision of whether or not to implement REDD+ more likely to be satisfied with the distribution of benefits  People living in the area longer tend to be satisfied with the distribution of benefits  People with larger land sizes more likely to be satisfied with the distribution of benefits
  12. 12. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS • There doesn’t seem to be clear gender differences—most men and women seem to prefer non-cash based and few prefer cash • The gender difference lies in asymmetry of information about REDD+ and especially in involvement in making decisions about which benefits will be distributed and how • The gender difference also lies in satisfaction with distribution—men are more likely than women to be satisfied. Other factors in satisfaction with distribution include amount of land owned, participation in REDD+ decision making and living in the area longer all of which are higher for men than for women. •
  13. 13. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?  Mixed portfolios of benefits targeting both men and women’s preferences, rather than only one type  If people don’t know what exactly REDD+ is and why it’s being implemented, (i.e. the connection between REDD benefits and forest conservation) it’s unlikely that these schemes will achieve their goals  Lack of involvement—legitimacy and sustainability of the schemes
  14. 14. Thank you! E.mwangi@cgiar.org http://www1.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/home.html

×