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.

Assessing REDD+ Benefit Sharing for Efficiency, Effectiveness and Equity

474 views

Published on

Presented by Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell, Lasse Loft, Anastasia Yang, Maria Brockhaus, Shintia Arwida, Januarti Tjajadi, Pham Thu Thuy and Samuel Assembe-Mvondo at a workshop on 'Sharing insights across REDD+ countries: Opportunities and obstacles for effective, efficient, and equitable carbon and non-carbon results' from 21-23 February 2017 in Naypyidaw, Myanmar.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Assessing REDD+ Benefit Sharing for Efficiency, Effectiveness and Equity

  1. 1. Assessing REDD+ Benefit Sharing for Efficiency, Effectiveness and Equity Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell, Lasse Loft, Anastasia Yang, Maria Brockhaus, Shintia Arwida, Januarti Tjajadi, Pham Thu Thuy, Samuel Assembe-Mvondo Sharing Insights Across REDD+ Countries Naypyidaw, Myanmar, 23 February, 2016
  2. 2. Presentation Outline 1. What do we mean by benefit sharing or benefit distribution in REDD+? 2. Common benefit sharing approaches and key lessons 3. Who should benefit from REDD+?  Implications and trade-offs between Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity
  3. 3. CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project  Objective: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners with policy options and guidance to improve the design, development and implementation of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms. The evidence-based policy options will be framed by experience in six focal study countries and draws on analysis, pilot schemes and lessons learned globally.  Timeframe: 1 Feb 2012 – 31 July 2016  Focal countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam  Funding by EC with co-financing from NORAD and AusAID
  4. 4. 1. What do we mean by ‘benefit sharing’ in REDD+?  Paris Agreement sets the stage for REDD+ results-based finance  Benefit sharing = distribution of direct and indirect net gains from the implementation of REDD+  Direct multiple benefits:  Monetary gains from finance related to REDD+  Benefits associated with the increased availability of forest products and ecosystem services  Indirect benefits include improved governance, capacity building and infrastructure provision
  5. 5.  Benefits come with costs and risks:  Direct financial outlays (implementation and transaction costs)  Foregone revenues from alternative forest land and resource use (opportunity costs)  Risks related to changing forest/ land use, tenure, representation, governance, and management of finance  Benefit sharing mechanism = range of institutional means, governance structures and instruments that distribute the net benefits 1. What do we mean by ‘benefit sharing’ in REDD+?
  6. 6. 1. The 3E criteria for evaluation  Effectiveness: environmental, social, economic outcomes or performance  Efficiency: the level of administrative and social costs associated  Equity: procedural refers to participation in decision making and negotiation of competing interests; distributive refers to the allocation of benefits and costs between different stakeholders; contextual refers to existing social factors, capabilities Luttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013
  7. 7.  Market-based instruments: PES (national-level mechanisms in Brazil and Vietnam; projects implemented in almost all countries, most notably in Latin America)  Community forestry systems: Mixed success in most countries, Nepal and Tanzania are best known  Fund-based approaches: Amazon Fund (Brazil), Reforestation Fund (Indonesia), PFES (Vietnam), PROFONANPE (Peru)  Forest financing instruments: forest and wildlife revenue redistribution (Cameroon), forest concessions (common) 2. Common approaches to benefit sharing Pham, T.T. et al. (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries
  8. 8.  Market-based systems are more efficient …weak monitoring and evaluation systems mean effectiveness is unknown  Community forestry is both equitable and effective due to highly participatory nature …high transaction costs  Fund-based systems can be effective and efficient, if functioning institutions and sectoral coordination are in place  Forest financing instruments are potentially effective and easy to scale-up …marginalizes local people, top-down bureaucracy  Elite capture is a big problem in all cases and in all countries  Co-benefits are uncertain 2. Some key lessons
  9. 9. 3. Who should benefit from REDD+?  A REDD+ incentive is only one of many factors influencing behavior in land use and forest governance – to induce change towards reducing deforestation and forest degradation  Effectiveness/ efficiency = payments to those who can provide services in most cost-efficient manner
  10. 10. “REDD benefits should reward industries/companies for potential to reduce large-scale forest emissions” Data from CIFOR’s GCS policy network analysis, 2011–2013
  11. 11. 3. Who should benefit from REDD+?  A REDD+ incentive is only one of many factors influencing behavior in land use and forest governance – to induce change towards reducing deforestation and forest degradation  Effectiveness/ efficiency = payments to those who can provide services in most cost-efficient manner  Equity = who has the right to benefit?  Trade-offs need to be properly weighed and negotiated amongst relevant stakeholders
  12. 12. Equity discourses and implications (1)  All countries lean towards allocating benefits to those with legal rights  Unclear and insecure land tenure creates inequity:  Conflicts between customary and formal rights over land are evident in almost all countries studied  Carbon rights are in infancy with no legal framework
  13. 13. The legal status of landuse and rights: implications for benefit sharing Project location Driver of deforestation Status Kalimantan (Indonesia) Timber, oil palm, mining, concessions, swidden Legal Small scale logging & hunting, fishing, NTFPs Legally ambiguous Transamazon (Brazil) Subsistence hunting, small scale forest management, NTFPs Legal Swidden, small scale agriculture, small and large scale ranching and logging Legal/illegal depends on type & location Commercial hunting Illegal
  14. 14. Equity discourses and implications (2)  Allocation of REDD+ benefits to low emitting stewards is not a priority  Seen as a reward to forest communities  Additionality concerns vs. reducing risk of perverse incentives
  15. 15. Equity discourses and implications (3)  Allocation of REDD+ benefits to compensate the actors who incur costs in REDD+ actions
  16. 16. What costs? Costs to whom? Data from CIFOR’s GCS study of sub-national REDD+ initiatives, 2011–2013 Project location ….incur the greatest financial losses …affect the greatest number of people …create the most significant change in land use over the largest area …contribute the most to carbon emissions Kalimantan (Indonesia) Large scale: logging, oil palm & mining Swidden, fishing, NTFP Large scale: logging, oil palm & mining Large scale: logging & oil palm Transamazon (Brazil) Small-scale cattle Swidden Small-scale cattle Small-scale cattle Acre (Brazil) Large scale ranching Swidden Large scale ranching Large scale ranching
  17. 17. Equity implications and discourses (4)  Benefits should go to effective facilitators of implementation  Important as incentive to motivate effective implementation by Government at different levels and project developers, but proportion of benefits to be shared are contentious
  18. 18.  There is no ‘one size fits all’  Clarifying objectives of national REDD+ before design of a BSM is critical - clear objectives will help to identify who has the right to benefit from REDD+  Understanding the risks and winners/losers for each of the potential policy options is critical for design of equitable BSM  Mix of multiple benefits and beneficiaries– in many cases, indirect and non-cash benefits are important for motivating buy-in at different levels  Dialogue with actors at all levels are critical – due process and inclusive participation in decision-making increases legitimacy and credibility 4. Negotiating policy options
  19. 19. Identifying lessons from different sectors and experiences  Decentralized management systems: community forestry systems in Nepal and Indonesia, PES, conditional cash transfers  Public administration/governance: anti corruption measures, multi level governance structures  Financial structures: trust funds, ecological fiscal transfers, forest and agriculture fees and taxes, extractive industries (oil, gas and mining) and royalties  Specific industry processes: FLEGT, forest standards and certification Series of info briefs downloadable from: cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/publications/
  20. 20. • Key publications from CIFOR’s benefit sharing research:  Wong et al. Forthcoming. An assessment framework for REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms within a forest policy mix, Environment Policy & Governance  Luttrell et al. 2017. Lessons for multi-level REDD+ benefit sharing from revenue distribution in extractive sectors (oil and gas, mining). CIFOR OP.  Pham et al. 2016. Distribution of PFES: research evidence to inform payment guidelines. CIFOR OP 163.  Loft, L. et al. 2016. Risks to REDD+: Potential pitfalls for policy design and implementation. Environmental Conservation.  Le et al. 2016. Being equitable is not always fair: An assessment of PFES implementation in Dien Bien, Vietnam. CIFOR WP  Assembe-Mvondo S. et al. 2015. Comparative Assessment of Forest and Wildlife Revenue Redistribution in Cameroon. CIFOR WP190.  Luttrell C. et al. 2015. Lessons from voluntary partnership agreements for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR OP 134.  May P. et al. 2015. Environmental reserve quotas in Brazil’s new forest legislation: An ex ante appraisal . CIFOR Occasional Paper 131.  Loft, L. et al. 2015. Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: Concept meets reality. Forests 6:1031-60.  Börner, J. et al. 2015. Mixing Carrots and Sticks to Conserve Forests in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Probabilistic Modeling Approach. PLOS One 10 (2).  Torpey-Saboe N. et al. 2015. Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights. World Development, Vol 72  Luttrell, C. et al. 2014 Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 52.  Pham ,T.T. et al. 2014. Local preferences and strategies for effective, efficient and equitable PES benefit distribution options in Vietnam: Lessons for REDD+. Human Ecology DOI: 10.1007/s10745-014-9703-3  Pham T.T. et al. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries CIFOR WP108.  Assembe-Mvondo, S. et al. 2013. Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of benefit sharing schemes under large-scale agriculture: Lessons from land fees in Cameroon, European Journal of Development Research • Series of information briefs:  Wong G et al. 2016. Results based payments for REDD+: Lessons on finance, performance and non-carbon benefits. CIFOR Info Brief 138.  Yang, AL. et al. 2015. What can REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms learn from the European Rural Development Policy? CIFOR Info Brief 126.  Arwida, S. et al. 2015. Lessons from anti-corruption measures in Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 120.  Tjajadi , JS et al. 2015. Lessons from environmental and social sustainability standards. CIFOR InfoBrief 119.  Myers, R. et al. 2015. Benefit sharing in context: A comparative analysis of 10 land use change case studies in Indonesia. CIFOR InfoBrief 118.  Nawir, AA. et al. 2015. Lessons from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 112.  Brockhaus M. et al. 2014. Operationalizing safeguards in national REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR REDD+ Safeguards Brief no. 2.  Kowler, L. et al. 2014. The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures for benefit sharing REDD+ and other low emissions options in Peru. CIFOR InfoBrief 101  Wong G. 2014. The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR InfoBrief 97.  Loft L. et al. 2014. Lessons from payments for ecosystem services for REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms. CIFOR InfoBrief 68.
  21. 21. Thank you! http://www.cifor.org/knowledge-tree http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing http://www.cifor.org/gcs

×