Looking REDD at landscape level: learning from CBNRM in Nepal

669 views

Published on

This presentation by Naya Sharma Paudel and Dil Bahadur Khatri Experiences of CF talks about watershed and landscape level forest management initiatives, REDD/PES piloting at different scale and lessons & insights on institutional aspects.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
669
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Looking REDD at landscape level: learning from CBNRM in Nepal

  1. 1. Looking REDD at landscape level: learning from CBNRM in Nepal Naya Sharma Paudel Dil Bahadur Khatri
  2. 2. Outline • Experiences of CF, watershed and landscape level forest management initiatives • REDD/PES piloting at different scale • Lessons and insights on institutional aspects
  3. 3. Community forestry: a successful model • Government’s major programme • Over 18000 community groups (35% of pop) • A quarter of forest area under CF • Regeneration of once barren hills despite all gloomy predictions • Substantial livelihoods benefits, community infrastructure, social services
  4. 4. Watershed and PAs: narrow focus on forests Examples: ACAP (in 1986), buffer zone (in 1996), terai arc landscape & eastern Himalayan landscape (in late 1990s), protected forests (2010) Structural asymmetry: Three DFOs with their territorial authorities; FECOFUN organised at district level Conflicting mandate: Programme relies on forest authority, Local governments have mandates for infrastructure development, not conservation
  5. 5. Landscape conservation: multiple challenges Examples: Western Terai Arc Landscape, Kailash Sacred Landscape; Sacred Himalaya Landscape 1. 2. 3. 4. Narrow focus on forest, biodiversity Deforestation and degradation at high level No effective mechanism to deal with diverse actors Undefined accountability structure – blame each other
  6. 6. Unsustainable extraction of forest products Illegal logging Fuelwood collection Grazing NTFPs collection Agriculture Sukumbasisettlem ents Gradual encroachment Shifting cultivation Infrastructure  Road contruction  Hydro-power  Mining  Urbanisation  Industrial area  Buildings Others Forest fire Invasive species Agriculture, infrastructure and energy are key non-forestry drivers of deforestation Economic, socio-political and governance related issues are at the heart of deforestation Economic Increased demand for forest products Increased access to market High price of substitute Poverty and high dependency on forests Policy, institution &governance 1.Poor transparency and participation 2.Weak law enforcement 3.Corruption 4.Weak tenure Socio-political Prolonged political transition, instability Differentiated and fragile society Rent seeking behaviour Demographic drivers Population growth Migration Identity movements Technological drivers Poor technology in forest management Low agriculture productivity
  7. 7. Piloting of watershed level REDD • A ‘multi-stakeholder’ advisory committee at national and at watershed level • Internal monitoring but independent verification • Bundling of CFUGs at watershed level • Core forest management functions at CFUG level
  8. 8. • REDD-Net has become instrumental for effective coordination among CFUGs and project implementation • Uneasy relation between REDD-net and FECOFUN (REDD-Net is seeking formal identity including mandate to manage fund that creates latent conflict with FECOFUN) • Challenges of integrating watershed level institutions to political and administrative bodies (DDC, DFO, DADO, DFCC or other M-SHs bodies) Institutional misfit
  9. 9. PES initiatives in Kulekhani watershed 12.5% of electricity tax goes to local region for watershed protection DDC allocates 20% of this sum to the special fund for upstream 8 VDCs in the region equally divide this money Poor ecosystem services due to • No watershed level institution for planning and implementation • Program relied on local government that spends on roads • Poor monitoring (of fund use and ecosystem services) Major spending in road construction Sedimentatio n has increased due to roads
  10. 10. Experiences of NRM at different scale Scale Management regime Experiences Forest patch Community forestry Strong robust institutions, clear benefit distribution arrangements Watershed PES piloting (Kulekhani), REDD piloting (3 sites) Some level of confusion over benefit sharing, high transaction costs Landscape Terai arc landscape, Sacred Himalayan landscape No compatible institution operate at this scale, external agency facilitates the project Key lessons • Grassroots institutions are robust, multi-purpose, • Watershed level institutions are beginning to develop as federated bodies • There are no organic, indigenous institutions or compatible administrative agencies at landscape level. Projects structures manage such areas • Higher level resource management initiative narrowly focus on forest/forestry and have failed to establish effective cross-sectoral coordination
  11. 11. Government initiatives to develop ER-PIN for TAL • Larger emission reduction potential • Biodiversity hotspot (Potential co-benefit) • Inhabited by Tharu Community (Indigenous People) • No match between administrative and ecological boundaries • No single authority to manage resources, monitor and store data • No established governance system (community institutions, CSOs and private sector organised and functionl at this level)
  12. 12. Key messages • Robust institutions with strong collective action are key to resource conservation, effective monitoring and equitable benefit sharing • Resource conservation initiatives at higher scale have been less successful primarily due to lack of political, administrative and civic institutions symmetrical to the ecological units • Landscape level REDD may introduce new institutions thereby inducing latent conflicts with the existing authority which could jeopardies the scheme • Landscape should not only refer to higher scale of resource management but must adequately embrace the diversity and complexity of the actors and their dynamics

×