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.
REDD+ BENEFIT SHARING: A COMPARATIVE
ASSESSMENT OF THREE NATIONAL POLICY
APPROACHES
Presentation for ‘REDD+ Partnership Wo...
Flow of presentation
• Forest policy approaches:
-

PES
PFM
Forest Concessions

• Architectural comparison
• Drivers
• Cha...
Payments for Environmental Services (PES)
approach
• Key feature of PES is conditionality of payments on
provision of envi...
PES as REDD+ benefit delivery instrument
• Challenges in delivering benefits to/across local
level…
– Equity, exclusivity,...
Participatory Forest Management (PFM)
approach
• PFM represents decentralized strategy to local
forest management
• Two ma...
PFM: good potential to complement REDD'+'
• PFM promising as REDD+ platform:
– Devolution of forest land ownership and ben...
Forest concession approach
• A default REDD+ benefit-sharing option based on
agreements for splitting concession revenues
...
PES

PFM

Forest Concession

Equity

(+) Potentially
high if
poor/marginal
groups targeted

(-) JFM: likely low
(+) CBFM: ...
Regional deforestation drivers & potential
benefit-sharing implications
Regional deforestation drivers & potential
benefit-sharing implications
Regional deforestation drivers & potential
benefit-sharing implications
Common challenges, lessons & questions
• Need to balance payments between actors and programs
outside and inside forests
•...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

REDD+ Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms: Comparison of Three National Policy Approaches

296 views

Published on

John Costenbader, IUCN Environmental Law Centre
26 November 2010
Presentation for ‘REDD+ Partnership Workshop on Enhancing Coordinated Delivery of
REDD+: Emerging Lessons, Best Practices and Challenges’
REDD+ Partnership Meeting, UNFCCC COP 16
Mexico, Westin Hotel, Boulevard Kukulcan, km 20, Cancún
For further documentation see: http://reddpluspartnership.org/73943/en/

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

REDD+ Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms: Comparison of Three National Policy Approaches

  1. 1. REDD+ BENEFIT SHARING: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THREE NATIONAL POLICY APPROACHES Presentation for ‘REDD+ Partnership Workshop on Enhancing Coordinated Delivery of REDD+: Emerging Lessons, Best Practices and Challenges’ 26 November 2010 John Costenbader IUCN Environmental Law Centre INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
  2. 2. Flow of presentation • Forest policy approaches: - PES PFM Forest Concessions • Architectural comparison • Drivers • Challenges & lessons
  3. 3. Payments for Environmental Services (PES) approach • Key feature of PES is conditionality of payments on provision of environmental services – PES can provide link between national & sub-national REDD+ activities • PES projects so far usually deal with private land, and literature mostly considers payments to individuals • But issues relevant in upscaling PES to REDD+ – PES encompasses wider array of payment arrangements, including national-subnational (IGFT) – Around 80% tropical forests de jure state forest, and some countries have large areas community forest
  4. 4. PES as REDD+ benefit delivery instrument • Challenges in delivering benefits to/across local level… – Equity, exclusivity, efficiency & conditionality • …. but good news, too: – Bundling smallholders (Oddar Meanchey, Cambodia) – Simplified monitoring (Plan Vivo projects, global) – Local carbon inventorying (Kyoto: Think Global Act Local project, global) – Prioritized equitable criteria for accepting payment applicants (PSAH program, Mexico)
  5. 5. Participatory Forest Management (PFM) approach • PFM represents decentralized strategy to local forest management • Two main types of PFM: – Joint (Collaborative) Forest Management (JFM) • State-retained ownership, responsibility • Fewer rights and benefits to local communities – Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) • Devolution of rights, ownership, responsibility, benefits • But with responsibility also comes risk….
  6. 6. PFM: good potential to complement REDD'+' • PFM promising as REDD+ platform: – Devolution of forest land ownership and benefits to local communities often results in improved management and conservation – SFM benefits can complement REDD+ benefits, where either alone might fail to provide adequately to local communities • Major improvements needed to ensure equity & incentives: – Elite capture of benefits (horizontal & vertical) – Administrative controls can overly complicate PFM projects & restrict access to forest benefits – Fuller devolution needed of ownership, benefits • But good news as well: – Recent examples of state devolution of forest management, ownership and benefits to local control
  7. 7. Forest concession approach • A default REDD+ benefit-sharing option based on agreements for splitting concession revenues – Generally state decides a split of revenues between state, loggers and villagers nearby forest • Revenue-sharing percentages determined at national level could miss differing opportunity costs • Vertical & horizontal benefit allocation challenging • Concessions could exclude poor smallholders • But also potential efficiencies as may upscale quickly
  8. 8. PES PFM Forest Concession Equity (+) Potentially high if poor/marginal groups targeted (-) JFM: likely low (+) CBFM: potentially high if poor/marginal groups targeted & liability sharing (-) potential small holder exclusion (both from customary lands & benefits) Efficiency (+) Good if opp. costs continually estimated (-) Transaction costs in upscaling (+) Wide potential group of beneficiaries if mixed w/ SFM (-) Transaction costs in upscaling (+) Low transaction costs, easily upscaled (-) Likely over/underpayments (if national mgmt.) Effectiveness (+) potential for long-term sustainability (+) potential for multiple PES instruments (+) CBFM: incentives if locally-owned /benefits (-) JFM: likely low if state-owned/controlled (+) Provincial mgmt. allowing for local opp. cost estimates (-) National mgmt. using uniform RS split Land Ownership / Tenure Regime Likely private ownership & control (but need to clarify tenure) Mixed: • CBFM: more private ownership/control • JFM: state ownership/ control Likely state ownership; private control for leasehold (but potential land tenure concerns)
  9. 9. Regional deforestation drivers & potential benefit-sharing implications
  10. 10. Regional deforestation drivers & potential benefit-sharing implications
  11. 11. Regional deforestation drivers & potential benefit-sharing implications
  12. 12. Common challenges, lessons & questions • Need to balance payments between actors and programs outside and inside forests • Benefits should target poor/marginal actors or they risk receiving insignificant benefits or even may be negatively affected • Exploring the ‘plus’ in REDD+ can help make viable a transition to sustainable economies and livelihoods • ‘Carbon rights’ determine actors eligible for benefits, but REDD+ benefits may indirectly target actors without rights also • Mechanisms to promote equity, efficiency & effectiveness essential to REDD+ success • Given difficulties of resolving land tenure, alternative indirect benefit-sharing means should be considered

×