A third strong discourse is that the actors who shoulder costs should receive benefits. This debate reflects concerns to ensure that actors are compensated for inputs regardless of the emission reductions that they are directly responsible for. And this concern is reflected in the design of many emerging benefit sharing arrangements at the project level partly due to the recognizedneed to give actors upfront incentives in order to get them involved.
Day 1.Presentation 1. grace wong
REDD+ benefit sharing:discourses on who ‘should’ benefitGrace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell, Lasse Loft (BiK-F), Maria Fernanda Gebara (Getulio Vargas Foundation), Demetrius Kwerka, MariaBrockhaus, William Sunderlin, Pham Thu Thuy, Januarti S. Tjajadi
Presentation Outline Definition of benefit sharing Discourses on who should benefit Review of benefit sharing mechanisms from a comparative analysis
What do we mean by ‘benefit sharing’?• Benefit sharing = distribution of direct and indirect net gains from the implementation of REDD+• Benefits come with costs: • Direct financial outlays related to REDD+ (implementation and transaction costs) • Foregone revenues from alternative forest land and resource use (opportunity costs) • Compensation vs. surplus (REDD rent)• Benefit sharing mechanism = range of institutional means, governance structures and instruments that distribute the net benefits
Who Should Benefit? There are several distinct discourses in determining who should gain from REDD+ benefits. Trade-offs involved in these choices and have implications for design of BSMs.Effectiveness/efficiency vs. equity discourses Effectiveness/efficiency = goal of emission reductions Equity = who has the right to benefit
Efficiency & EffectivenessREDD+ as a mechanism for paying forest users and owners to reduce emissions:• Focus on emissions reductions• Payments as incentive to induce change in behaviour• Benefits should go to people providing these services
“REDD benefits should reward large-scaleindustries/companies for reducing forest emissions” Data from CIFOR’s GCS policy network analysis, 2011 – current
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
Equity discourses• Discourse I: Benefits should go to those with legal rights
The legal status of land-use and implications for benefit sharingProject Driver StatuslocationKalimantan Timber, oil palm, mining, Legal(Indonesia) concessions, swidden Small scale logging & Legally ambiguous hunting, fishing, NTFPsTransamazon Subsistence hunting, small scale Legal(Brazil) forest management, NTFPs Swidden, small scale Legal/illegal agriculture, small and large scale depends on type & ranching and logging location Commercial hunting Illegal
Equity discourses• Discourse I: Benefits should go to those with legal rights• Discourse II: Benefits should go to low-emitting stewards
Equity discourses• Discourse I: Benefits should go to those with legal rights• Discourse II: Benefits should go to low-emitting stewards• Discourse III: Benefits should go to those incurring costs
Opportunity cost to whom?Project ….incur the …affect the …create the …contributelocation greatest greatest most the most to financial losses number of significant carbon people change in land emissions use over the largest areaKaliimantan Large scale: Swidden, Large scale: Large scale:(Indonesia) logging, oil palm fishing, NTFP logging, oil logging & oil & mining palm & mining palmTransamazon Small-scale Swidden Small-scale Small-scale(Brazil) cattle cattle cattleAcre (Brazil) Large scale Swidden Large scale Large scale ranching ranching ranching
Equity discourses• Discourse I: Benefits should go to those with legal rights• Discourse II: Benefits should go to low-emitting stewards• Discourse III: Benefits should go to those incurring costs• Discourse IV: Benefits should go to effective facilitators of implementation
A comparative analysis of BSM approaches in 13 countries Pham, T.T. et al. 2013 (in prep)• Only 4 countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Tanzania, Vietnam) have REDD+ national programs that regulate financial distribution.• Many of the “enabling factors” necessary for 3E BSMs (PwC 2012) are lacking in all countries.• All countries lean towards Equity Discourses I (those with legal rights) and III (those incurring costs).• Implementation of multiple-objective REDD+ is a challenge – Equity Discourse II (low emitting stewards) is not a priority, potentially marginalising sustainable forest users.• Most pilot REDD+ projects employ a hybrid ICDP-PES approach, and very few are performance-based.