Opportunities and challenges to developing REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms in developing countries

2,122 views

Published on

CIFOR scientist Robert Nasi gave this presentation on 15 October 2012 during the 11th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP11).

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,122
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
725
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Opportunities and challenges to developing REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms in developing countries

  1. 1. Opportunities
and
challenges
to developing
REDD+
benefit
sharingmechanisms
in
developing
countries R.
Nasi,
C.
Luttrell,
G.
Wong,
D.A.
Wardell “Mechanisms
for
measuring
and
delivering
biodiversity benefits
from
REDD+” CBD
COP11,
Hyderabad,
15/10/2012
  2. 2. Forests
are
more
than
carbon
  3. 3. REDD+
and
biodiversitySource:
Venter
et
al.,
2009
  4. 4. FinancingMarkets/non‐markets • Elucidating
key
driversPrivate
vs.
public of
deforestation
and‘polluters
pay’
and
‘historical degradation
forresponsibility’ national
settings‘common
but
differentiated’Governance
and
institutional • Institutionalarrangements configurations
neededEquitable
redistribution for
context‐specific enabling
environment • Rights
(access,
use, property)
and
tenure issues
  5. 5. Monitoring, reporting and verificationReference
levels
or • Methods
for
integration
ofReference
emission
levels? historical
deforestation
data
withCarbon
accounting knowledge
of
drivers
of  5
pools?What
to
monitor? deforestation
to
construct  
(C
or
C+
co‐benefits)? scenarios
and
provide
reasonable  Leakage? estimates
of
future
emissions  Finances? • Developing
appropriate
factorsGross
or
net? and
equations
for
project‐
and national‐level
carbon
accounting • Methods
to
address
national
and subnational
monitoring
and accounting
  6. 6. Stakeholder involvementNo
consensus
at
the • Equity
issuesmoment… – Indigenous
people
(IP)
and
minorityCompromise
to
make groupsreference
to
the
need
toengage
local
people? – Gender • Defining
conditions
for – Free,
Prior
and
Informed
Consent – IP
and
communities
involvement
in design
and
implementation • Assessment
of
social
implications of
addressing
factors
to
ensure successful
REDD
  7. 7. Co-benefitsKeep
REDD+
simple
and
use
‘do
no • Develop
objectivelyharm’
standard? verifiable
and
easilyMake
REDD+
pro‐poor
and
pro‐biodiversity? measured
indicatorsBiodiversity
or
local
interests
might • Knowledge
on
contextconflict
with
‘atmospheric’ specific
synergies
andinterests tradeoffs • Market
research
on investors’
attitudes
and concerns
about
co‐ benefits
  8. 8. What do we measure and how? Standards Indicators
  9. 9. Sustainable
Forest REDD+
Project/Program Greenhouse
Gas
Accounting Management
Standards Design
Standards Standards Forest
Stewardship
Council (FSC) Programme
for
Endorsement of
Forest
Certification
(PEFC) CCBA
REDD+
Social
&
Environmental
(S&E)
Standards Climate,
Community
and
Biodiversity
(CCB)
Standards CarbonFix
Standard
(CFS) Global
Conservation
Standard
(GCS) Plan
Vivo
Standards SOCIALCARBON
Standard ISO
14064:2006
Parts
2
and
3 Voluntary
Carbon
Standard (VCS)From
Merger,
Dutschke
and
Verchot
2010 THINKING beyond the canopy
  10. 10. Sustainable
forest
management FSC PEFCFrom
Merger,
Dutschke
and
Verchot
2010
  11. 11. Social‐economical CCB
REDD+
S&E CCBFrom
Merger,
Dutschke
andVerchot
2010 SOCIALCARBON
  12. 12. Net
GHG
benefits CarbonFix VCS
and
ISO
14064From
Merger,
Dutschke
and
Verchot
2010
  13. 13. What do we mean by ‘benefit sharing’?• Benefit
sharing
is
the
distribution
of direct
and
indirect
net
gains
from
the implementation
of
REDD+• 
Two
types
of
direct
benefits: • Monetary
gains
from
international and
national
finance
related
to REDD+ • Benefits

associated
with
the increased
availability
of
forest products
&
ecosystem
services• Indirect
benefits
e.g.
improved governance
infrastructure
provision
  14. 14. Benefits come with costs: net benefits are what matterSource:
Lindhjem,
H.,
Aronsen,
I.,
Bråten,
K.G.and
Gleinsvik,
A.
2010
Experiences
withbenefit
sharing:
issues
and
options
for
REDD‐plus.
Econ
Pöyry,
Oslo,
Norway.
  15. 15. Who should benefit? There
are
tradeoffs
involved
in
these choice
implied
by
the
different
discourses which
the

implications
for
design
of
BSMsEffectiveness/efficiency
vs.
equity discourses Effectiveness/efficiency
=
goal
of
emission reductions Equity

=
who
has
the
right
to
benefit
  16. 16. Efficiency & EffectivenessREDD+
as
a
mechanism
for
paying
forest
users
&
owners
to
reduce
emissions:• Focus
on
emissions
reductions• Payments
as
incentive
for
those
who
change
in
behaviour• Benefits
should
go
to
people
providing
these
services
  17. 17. “REDD benefits should reward large-scale industries/companies for reducing forest emissions”Data from CIFOR’s GCS’ policy network analysis by Maria Brockhaus (coordination), Levania Santosa & Moira Moeliano (Indonesia), Maria Fernanda Gebara & Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil)
  18. 18. Equity discoursesEquity
discourses
take
a
distributional
perspective
and
ask
who
are
the
actors who
have
the
„right“
to
benefit
from
REDD+:• Focus
on
preventing
unfair
distributional
results• Strengthening
moral
and
political
legitimacy
of
REDD+
mechanism
  19. 19. Equity DiscoursesBenefits should go to:• those
with
legal
rights• low
emitting
forest stewards• those
incurring
costs• effective
facilitators
of implementation
  20. 20. REDD+ Benefits Sharing(a project funded by the European Commission)
  21. 21. • To
provide
REDD+
policymakers
and practitioners
with
policy
options
and
guidance to
improve
the
design,
development
and implementation
of
REDD+
benefit
sharing mechanisms.• Target
groups: – Policy
makers
in
developing
and
developed countries – Governments
of
the
six
case
study
countries – REDD+
project
developers
and
investors
  22. 22. Project
Structure WP2:
Outreach
and
dissemination WP5:
Review
of
existing
performance‐based mechanisms WP3: WP6: WP7: WP1:
Options National Costs‐ Multi‐level Rights
to assessments
of benefits governance REDD+ mechanisms of benefits nationalLocal/
Sub‐ policies WP4: national Costs‐ benefits of
sub‐ Project/ nationalHousehold REDD+
  23. 23. Geographic
coverage Brazil Peru Tanzania Cameroon Indonesia Vietnam •WP
3 X X XWP
4 X X X X X XWP
5 X X X X X XWP
6 X X XWP
7 X X X
  24. 24. Further
reading:Luttrell
et
al.
2012.
Who
should
benefit
and
why?
Discourses
on
REDD+
benefitsharing.

Chapter
8
in
Angelsen,
A.,
Brockhaus,
M.,
Sunderlin,
W.D.
and
Verchot,L.V.
(eds)
2012
Analysing
REDD+:
Challenges
and
choices.
CIFOR,
Bogor,
Indonesia.Lindhjem
et
al.
2010.
Experiences
with
benefit
sharing:
issues
and
options
forREDD‐plus.
Econ
Pöyry
Oslo,
Norway.

×