Presentation by Grace Wong, Maria Brockhaus, Lasse Loft, Pham Thu Thuy, and Anastasia Yang at the Global Landscapes Forum 2015, in Paris, France alongside COP21. For more information go to: www.landscapes.org.

1. Governance, rights and the role of
politics in REDD+ equity
discourses
Grace Wong, Maria Brockhaus, Lasse Loft, Pham
Thu Thuy, Anastasia Yang
Global Landscape Forum, 6 Dec 2015

2. Outline
1. CIFOR research assessing REDD+
policies and measures for benefit
sharing
2. Framework for evaluating REDD+
policies and measures
3. A case study of PFES benefit sharing
options in Vietnam: Multi-level
governance, rights and politics

3. 1. CIFOR’s 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 Jan 2016
 Focal countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam
 Funding by EC with co-financing from NORAD and AusAID

4. 1. Research assessing REDD+
policies and measures for benefit
sharing
 Efficiency
• Costs of national policy and measures for forests and REDD+
• Costs of subnational REDD+ initiatives or REDD+ projects
 Effectiveness (of enabling institutions)
• Multi-level governance and decision making on forests
• Rights and tenurial arrangements
 Equity
• Who should benefit from REDD+? Who decides? Who bears the costs and risks?
• Local perceptions and preferences

5. 2. Framework for evaluating
REDD+ policies and measures
 Challenge to evaluate a benefit sharing mechanism because of interlinked
institutional and policy factors, and local socio-cultural and economic
contexts.
 We develop a evaluation framework to provide a shared working
understanding for comparative assessment of policy options based on our
research that covers different disciplines, countries and levels/sectors.
 Important to be flexible to different contexts with appropriate indicators
to capture effectiveness, efficiency and equity.
 Provides guidance to interpret findings and identify actions towards a
more efficient, effective and equitable implementation of benefit sharing
mechanism in the context of REDD+.

6. 2. Framework for evaluating REDD+
policies and measures

7. 2. Framework assessment criteria
 Effectiveness
• relates to the environmental, social and economic impacts or performance of
the instrument: How much does the instrument contribute to the defined
policy objectives?
 Efficiency
• the level of administrative and social costs associated with the instrument to
achieve the policy objectives
 Equity
• procedural refers to participation in decision making and inclusion and
negotiation of competing views
• distributive refers to the allocation of outcomes and their impacts on
different stakeholders
• contextual refers to existing social factors, capabilitiesLuttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013; Angelsen xxx

8. 3. Applying the evaluation framework
to case study of Vietnam PFES:
Institutional context
The Forest Land
Allocation (FLA) process
of issuing forest rights to
local communities

9. 3. Applying the evaluation
framework to case study of Vietnam
PFES: Outcomes
Local perspectives of
equity – as an underlying
motivation for protecting
forests and delivering
outcomes

10. 3. Some results
 Effectiveness: FLA processes vary, leading to uneven application across regions;
poor monitoring and unreliable data leads to conflict
 Efficiency: Incomplete FLA causes delay in PFES benefits; re-doing the FLA (in
some cases) has high transaction costs; participatory processes are time-
intensive but increases legitimacy
 Equity at institutional level: Good practices are associated with inclusive
participatory processes; inequity in cases where good quality forests are within
state management and poor forests are allocated to local communities
 Equity at local level: Limited participation in decision making around PFES
payments; asymmetric information sharing; payment distribution process
considered intransparent; inherent inequity related to allocation of forest land;
inadequate payments relative to effort; buyers’ costs are built into utility bills;
emphasis is on equality

11. 3. Lessons from PFES for REDD+
 The FLA process is characterized by a mis-match in governance and decision-
making at different levels resulting in delayed benefits, and unclear land use
practices.
 FLA implicates rights, access and benefits. FLA processes that are inclusive
and consider historical land use practices are important steps for a more
legitimate REDD+.
 Socio-cultural and political norms color local perceptions on equity (equality)
and can lead to inefficient use of funds and has high transaction costs.
 Local equity perspectives need to be considered in developing a fair REDD+
benefit structure , and avoiding transference of costs.
 Politics matter: who decides on the objectives of a benefit sharing
mechanism, who has the responsibility for reducing deforestation, whose
perspective counts

12. • Key publications from CIFOR’s benefit sharing research:
 Le, QT et al. 2015. The distribution of powers and responsibilities affecting forests, land use, and REDD+ across levels and sectors in
Vietnam: A legal study. CIFOR OP137.
 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.
 Ardiansyah F. et al. 2015. Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: A legal and policy review. CIFOR OP 132.
 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. Post-Crackdown Effectiveness of Field-Based Forest Law Enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon. PLOS One, 10(4)
 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:
 Yang, AL. et al. 2015. What can REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms learn from the European Rural Development Policy? CIFOR Info Brief
126.
 Yang, AL. et al. 2015. Lessons from the perceptions of equity and risks in payments for forest environmental services (PFES) fund distribution:
A case study of Dien Bien and Son La provinces in Vietnam. CIFOR Brief no. 36.
 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
 Gebara et al. 2014. Lessons from local environmental funds for REDD+ benefit sharing with indigenous people in Brazil. CIFOR InfoBrief 98.
 Wong G. 2014. The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR InfoBrief 97.

13. With co-financing from:
The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is funded by:
Merci!
http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing