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.

The Context of REDD+ in Ethiopia (2015)


Published on

Presentation by Melaku Bekele on April 5, 2019 at Workshop in Ethiopia ("Forests and climate change: research results and implications for REDD+ and forest governance in Ethiopia")

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Context of REDD+ in Ethiopia (2015)

  1. 1. The Context of REDD+ in Ethiopia (2015) Bekele, M.; Tesfaye, Y.; Mohammed, Z.; Zewdie, S.; Tebikew, Y.; Brockhaus, M.; Kassa, H. 2015. The REDD+ Context: in Ethiopia, Drivers, agents and institutions. CIFOR Occasional Paper no. 127, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. ISBN: 978-602-387- 003-5 DOI: 10.17528/cifor/005654
  2. 2. Study Background
  3. 3. GCS: Country profile (2013-2015) Global Comparative Study (GCS) of the REDD+ policy was about: - Agents and factors of D&D in Ethiopia - Forest governance, rights, etc.. - Political-economy of D&D - Policy context/environment, and, - Implication of all the above on the 3Es effectiveness, efficiency and equity of REDD+ in fulfilling the global and national requirements  The assessment used common methods in 15 countries  Three countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam) done more than one update
  4. 4. The Context of REDD+ in Ethiopia Country Profile Update (2015-2018) Presented: Forests and climate change: Research results and implications for REDD+ and forest governance in Ethiopia. Nexus Hotel, Addis Ababa, 5 April 2019Nexus
  5. 5. Presentation objective: Look at the changes that took place b/n 2015 and 2018 in areas of: • Forest conditions (REDD+ MRV) • Governance, • Political economy of deforestation and forest degradation (D&D) • REDD+ policy events • Reflection on 3Es in REDD+: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Equity • REDD+ success: What is needed?
  6. 6. Methods  Focus period: 2015 – 2018  Document review (from 2015)  Discussion groups with informed facilitators  Participants filled pre- prepared indicators independently and groups produced one consensus  Each group was also asked to respond to: • REDD+ performance in light of the 3Es, and, • Limitations in REDD+ performance 2018 Country Profile Update
  7. 7. Findings
  8. 8. Indicator 2013-2015 2015-2018 Forest area estimate 13.4 million Ha 17.7 million ha Most relevant sector driving deforestation and degradation? Small scale agriculture Indirect causes of deforestation and degradation Demographic pressure + Conflicting dev’t strategy Forest sector contribution to GDP No data 5.2% Assessment of carbon stock and MRV capacity Little Improved I. Forest conditions
  9. 9. Indicator 2013-2015 2015-2018 Carbon emission from deforestation 17.98 MtCO2e based on Tier2 C. accounting method Predictions for business as usual projects on CO2 emissions Increase Increase Total area affected by fires (average 2000–2008) Medium >0% Medium >0% Forest conditions..
  10. 10. Indicator 2013-2015 2015-2018 Country accounting system and the MRV capacity improved as a result of -MRV Directorate ets. -Capacity training at WGCF- -REDD+MRV Units at regions -- Forest inventory capacity enhanced (FAO /WGCF- NRs). Forest conditions..
  11. 11. Indicators 2013-2015 2015-2018 International treaties: CBD, CITES, Ratified, partly implemented Governance in the forest margins: Monitoring of sustainable logging No Laws that specify rights of local users to make own decisions in forested areas None 2018 forest law, but needs clear regulation Governance in land use planning (LUP) None road map for national LUP formulation II. Institutional, environmental, distributional aspect
  12. 12. Indicators 2013-2015 2015-2018 Law that delegates forest management decisions to local government None PFM? Laws/regulations delegating FM decisions directly to local forest users PFM? PFM, Private, Association, Community Elite capture High Indigenous* legal rights over forest None Carbon rights None Recognized II. Institutional, environmental, distributional aspects *The term “Indigenous” is confused with settlers under the generic name of COMMUNITY
  13. 13. II. Institutional, cont. …. Political decentralisation (2015-2018) » Regional autonomy law?: (Yes) » Applied in practice?: (Partly) » Government elected (Yes) ??? Financial decentralization » Regional States collect some taxes for their own use an receive subsidy from Federal state » Regions distribute and woreda allocate budget to tasks
  14. 14. III. Political-economy of D & D Condition  Revolutionary democracy is the Political orientation: it was neither revolutionary nor democratic PLUS  “free market” which was not really free! is the economic guiding principle Outcome  Growth policy damaging to forests &wildlife resources  Ignored community/individual rights (state & private projects)  Huge corruption in the name of growth  Incompatible with REDD+ Safeguards (national & global)  Impact of the Current political opening???
  15. 15. IV.REDD+ Policy events (2015-2018) Policy Event Month/Yr New Forest Definition communicated to the UNFCCC Jan’16 REDD+ coordinating units established in four regional states 2016 Final FREL is released following the UNFCCC technical team approval Mar’17 MRV directorate established in CEFCC Jun’17 The REDD+ Ethiopia R-Package formally endorsed by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Participants Committee (FCPF) in Laos PDR Sep’17 New forest law issued with improvement in areas of community, private participation; carbon rights Jan’18 National Forest Inventory findings released in a dissemination workshop Mar’18
  16. 16. REDD+ Policy events …  REDD+ Strategy prepared in consultation with REDD+ actors  Four safeguard instruments developed to reduce potential environmental and social risks and enhance benefits • Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) • Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), • Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and • Process Framework (PF)
  17. 17. Effectiveness, Efficiency, Equity (from group discussion) REDD+ assessed how the 3Es stand in light of  REDD+MRV activities  Institutional issues  Coordination and commitment  Benefit sharing Result  Org. and technical limitations for effective of REDD+ MRV  Institutional gaps (unsustainable policies and legal gaps)  Poor coordination and political commitment (failure in the realization of existing laws like EIA  Benefit sharing: mechanism (decision) pending!
  18. 18. Conclusion  The REDD+ has made progress in establishing itself at national and 4 regional states  The REDD+ has made good progress in putting in place the REDD+ Safeguard frameworks  REDD+ is serving as a link b/n national & global partners in forestry  The coming of REDD+ brought about the creation of CEFCC after 20 years of org. vacuum at federal level  REDD+ has improved
  19. 19. What is needed for REDD+ success?  No forested land for agriculture  Extend forestry structure & develop F. extension package  Recognize and legalize customary rights over forests  Scale-up autonomous PFM, with better economic incentives  Tax & other incentive to forest developers,; certification (as in 2018 forest law)  Act immediately on charcoal and gum-resin production & marketing  keep forest records  Land use policy and plan  Value addition of forest products  Fight corruption  Improve cross sectoral coordination  Create charcoal & gum and resin regulatory agency  Enhance participation of civil society (Most of the above can be done with some political will & input) Transformational change entails broader policy reform in & outside the forest sector
  20. 20. Thank You Thank you