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.

Managing risks and avoiding pitfalls to REDD+ policy design and benefit sharing

670 views

Published on

Presentation given by Lasse Loft at COP22 on 9 November 2016 in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Managing risks and avoiding pitfalls to REDD+ policy design and benefit sharing

  1. 1. BLF LBG LSA LSE LWH SO Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) LAND USE AND IMPACTS LAND USE CONFLICTS AND GOVERNANCELANDSCAPE FUNCTIONING SO Managing risks and avoiding pitfalls to REDD+ policy design and benefit sharing L. Loft, T.T. Pham, G.Y. Wong, M. Brockhaus, D.N. Le, S.N. Tjajadi, C. Luttrell Marrakech, November 9, 2016 LAND USE CONFLICTS AND GOVERNANCE
  2. 2. www.zalf.de Introduction Source: Adapted from Wertz-Kanounnikoff & Angelsen 2009  Occur at different governance levels  Affect different stakeholders within national REDD+ architectures  During different stages of the implementation process  Aim is to is to identify, assess and categorize major governance risks of national REDD+ implementation Subnationalactivities Incentives Performance based payments (e.g. PES) Monitoring, Reporting Institutions Forest management types State(production) State(conservation) Private Community Carbon rights holder Land owner Concession holder Government agencies Community Other stakeholders Energyusers Ecosystemservices users Farmers Consumers Information Policies and measures (PAM) Regular budgets (national / subnational government) Global readiness funds Global funds Internationalcarbon markets REDD funds (National/ subnational)Verification Policy formu- lation Policy Design Policy Imple- mentation M & E Agenda Setting Complex design and implementation processes create risks for sustainable emissions reductions and social and environmental side-objectives
  3. 3. www.zalf.de Method Qualitative assessment of implementation risks, applying a hybrid approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis Data: findings of CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ country profiles  Description of drivers of deforestation; analysis of political, economic and institutional contexts; the policy options for REDD+ in the country.  Based on extensive literature reviews, expert interviews and consultation workshops Additional scientific literature, donor reports and policy documents Verification of results through consultation with in-country experts
  4. 4. www.zalf.de Countries in the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ Source: http://www.cifor.org/gcs/modules/redd-policies/ ( ) ( )
  5. 5. www.zalf.de Risks analysed Policy Formu- lation Policy Design Policy Imple- mentation M & E Agenda Setting 1.Overlapping policies, contradicting measures, inequitable distribution of benefits and burdens 2.MRV: risks of artificial baseline setting and asymmetric information 3.Accessing REDD+ finance: risks in meeting and measuring ‘performance’ 4.REDD+ BSMs: risks to equity from inadequate design 5.Risks of illegitimate decision-making processes and policy implementation 6.Carbon and tenure rights: risks of powerful elites securing rights to benefits 7.Challenges of multilevel governance Implementation stage Risks
  6. 6. www.zalf.de Policy formulation: Definition of objectives Risks: 1. Overlapping policies and contradicting measures 2. Inequitable distribution of benefits and burdens Definition of national REDD+ objectives determines scope of activities and targeted stakeholders Examples:  In Tanzania REDD+ goals are overshadowed by well- funded donor initiatives that aim to develop small- and large-scale commercial agriculture  85% of Vietnam’s forest area is managed by state-owned companies; large scale land owners in Brazil account for about 80% of deforestation Source: Loft et al. 2016; Luttrell et al. 2013
  7. 7. www.zalf.de Policy design: Reference emissions levels and monitoring Risks:  Inaccurate setting of reference levels and monitoring  Creation of artificial emissions reductions  Market distortion due to asymmetric information Determines emissions reductions, impacts potentially targeted stakeholders Examples:  Improvements in remote sensing and data availability, but…  Administrative capacity for MRV still considered  low in PNG, Nepal, Laos and Mozambique  moderate in Burkina Faso and Cameroon  high in Bolivia, Peru and Vietnam  very high in Indonesia, Brazil and DRC  Different sources of relevant data,  Vietnam and Indonesia with separate Source: Ochieng et al. 2016; Loft et al. 2016
  8. 8. www.zalf.de Policy design: Benefit sharing Determines eligible benefitting stakeholders, sets incentives for land use change Benefit Sharing Mechanism Countries Challenges Fund-based approaches* *incl. PES elements Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DRC, Tanzania, Indonesia and Vietnam Potentially large amount of payments channelled to the funds provokes organizational competitions and conflicts over power and interests Nested approaches* *incl. PES elements Brazil, Peru Require a clear devolution of rights and a multilevel governance system in order to be effective Building on existing systems* *incl. PES elements Cameroon, Nepal, Vietnam Risk of reinforcing any systemic regulatory, procedural or governance flaws inherent in the system Not yet defined Bolivia, Laos PDR, Risk of disincentivizing performance in reducing
  9. 9. www.zalf.de Policy implementation: Stakeholder participation Risks:  Domination by powerful groups, elite capture of benefits, corruption  REDD+ policies and measures perceived as inequitable and illegitimate, may lead to opposition to implementation Determines procedural equity and legitimacy of implementation Examples:  DRC, Cameroon: participation in agenda setting is very much limited to a few state and international actors,  Laos PDR, Peru: in early stages with FPIC not well implemented  In Vietnam those forest stewards that are not eligible to PFES are among main actors of deforestation
  10. 10. www.zalf.de Managing risks and avoiding pitfalls …how REDD+ PAMs are designed, such as…  Perceived inequity and illegitimacy of cost and burden sharing  Capacity constraints at subnational governance levels Some of the risks are related to… … a country’s political and economic context, e.g.  Differences in data collection and discrepancies in forest data;  Lack of legal clarity on carbon rights and occurrence of common tenure rights problems;  Could be managed through reflexive policy learning and adaptive implementation  Need to be carefully considered; room for mitigation but often beyond the scope of control
  11. 11. www.zalf.de Conclusions  Clear objectives of national REDD+ implementation need to be set early in the policy process  Understanding country specific risks and how they might influence the design of a REDD+ policy is a necessary step early in the design and implementation process  A possible approach to identifying and evaluating existing and potential risks and solutions is through inclusive multi-stakeholder forums  Ongoing development of REDD+ safeguards would benefit from a careful review of these risks, and the development of specific criteria and indicators
  12. 12. www.zalf.de Open access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journal s/environmental-conservation We acknowledge the support from: the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the European Union (EU), the UK Government, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) with financial support from the CGIAR Fund. Thank you!

×