This document presents a conceptual framework for analyzing benefit and burden sharing mechanisms for REDD+. It defines benefits as direct monetary gains or indirect benefits from REDD+, while burdens include opportunity costs, implementation costs, and risks. A benefit sharing mechanism distributes the net benefits. The framework assesses options based on their effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. It draws lessons from other sectors on targeting beneficiaries, participation in decision-making across levels of governance, and balancing the distribution of benefits and burdens locally. The framework is meant to guide comparative assessments of policy options based on country contexts.

1. Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+:
A conceptual framework
Grace Wong (CIFOR) and Lasse Loft (SGN)
ISEE 2014
Reykjavik, Iceland, August 13-15, 2014

2. CIFOR’s REDD+ Benefit Sharing project
Objective:To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners with policy options to improve the design and implementation of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms that are effective, efficient and equitable
Timeframe: 2012-2016
Focal countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam
Framework provides a shared working understanding to guide a comparative assessment of policy options based on research that covers different disciplines, countries and levels/sectors

3. REDD+ benefits and burdens
Benefits= Direct + indirect
•Direct monetary gains from international and national finance related to REDD+ and benefits associated with the increased availability of forest products and ecosystem services
•Indirectbenefits include improved governance and infrastructure provision
Burdens= costs + risks
•Opportunity costs
•Implementation costs (transfers, operations, transactions)
•Risks that could adversely affect access to benefits and achievement of the REDD+ objectives
Benefit sharing mechanism = range of institutional means, governance structures and instruments that distribute the net benefits
Sills , Wunder, Borner and Wong, 2013

4. 4
Other Policies, e.g. Forest Policy
REDD Policy
ObjectivesInstruments
BSM
Admin. Measur.
Direct Regul.
Env.
Social
Econ.
Outcome
Env.
Social
Econ.
Land use change
Regulatees:
Subnat’l: e.g. Province Admin
Local: Land Stewards
Motivation
Change in behaviour
Incentive Distribution
1
Institutional Enabling Factors
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
Property Rights
Definition & Enforcement
Capacity Building & Responsibilities
2
3
Human induced and environmental pressures
Institutional Context Factors
Property Rights
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

5. General assessment criteria
5
Effectiveness
•relates to the environmental, social and economic impacts or performance of the instrument: How much does the instrument contribute to the defined policy objectives?
Efficiency
•the level of administrative and social costs associated with the instrument to achieve the policy objectives
Equity
•proceduralrefers to participation in decision making and inclusion and negotiation of competing views
•distributiverefers to the allocation of outcomes and their impacts on different stakeholders
Luttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013

6. 6
Other Policies, e.g. Forest Policy
REDD Policy
ObjectivesInstruments
BSM
Admin. Measur.
Direct Regul.
Env.
Social
Econ.
Outcome
Env.
Social
Econ.
Land use change
Regulatees: Land Stewards
Motivation
Change in behaviour
Incentive Distribution
1
Institutional Enabling Factors
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
Property Rights
Definition & Enforcement
Capacity Building & Responsibilities
Human induced and environmental pressures
Institutional Context Factors
Property Rights
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
Assessment Step
Specified Definition
Indicator
1. Incentive Distribution
-Participation in the process of defining targeting criteria, and on size, timing and type of benefits.
-Distribution adheres to an agreed normative justiceprinciple
-Targetingaccording to objective
-Participation adheres to procedural justicecriteria
-Benefits reach targeted stakeholders and fitstheir justiceprinciple

7. Targeting beneficiaries
Who should benefit from REDD+?
•Those with legal rights
•Those who are achieving emissions reductions
•The low emitting forest stewards
•Those who are incurring costs
•Those who are active facilitators
•The poorest
Most countries leaning towards actors with legal rights –risk of marginalizing customary rights and perverse spillovers
Lessons from other sectors/practices:
•CCT: target groups are based on specific socio-economic characteristics. Choice of eligibility criteria (more stringent or generalized) can involve trade-offs between additionalityand costs.
Luttrell et al. 2013; Pham et al. 2013; Wong and Luttrell 2014

8. 8
Other Policies, e.g. Forest Policy
REDD Policy
ObjectivesInstruments
BSM
Admin. Measur.
Direct Regul.
Env.
Social
Econ.
Outcome
Env.
Social
Econ.
Land use change
Regulatees: Land Stewards
Motivation
Change in behaviour
Incentive Distribution
Institutional Enabling Factors
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
Property Rights
Definition & Enforcement
Capacity Building & Responsibilities
Human induced and environmental pressures
Institutional Context Factors
Property Rights
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
2
Assessment Step
Specified Definition
Indicator
2. Institutional Change
-Stakeholdersare enabled to, and actually participate in the process,
-Changes with distributional effects, such as definitionof property rights, adhere to an agreed justiceprinciple
-Level of participation across sectors and levels in decisions about institutions, infrastructure and organization
-Definition of property rightsadheres to an agreed justiceprinciple

9. Participation and decisions across multi-level governance and sectors
MLG (Indonesia): while political decentralization is downward, bureaucratic accountability is upward –shifting responsibilities and blame leads to a gap in representation
•State sees justice as compensation and benefit sharing
•Local people consider justice as recognizing control access over land
Carbon rights are not differentiated in most countries –land and forest rights act as proxy –implications for access to benefits from certified emissions reductions
Lessons from other sectors/practices:
•Anti-corruption measures: Complex chain of transactions of creates opportunities for corruption. The lack of institutional linkages between the carbon and financial MRV at jurisdictional levels also facilitates corruption
Myers 2014; Loft, Andersson and Mwangi 2014; Mardiah and Arwida 2014

10. 10
Other Policies, e.g. Forest Policy
REDD Policy
ObjectivesInstruments
BSM
Admin. Measur.
Direct Regul.
Env.
Social
Econ.
Outcome
Env.
Social
Econ.
Land use change
Regulatees: Land Stewards
Motivation
Change in behaviour
Incentive Distribution
Institutional Enabling Factors
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
Property Rights
Definition & Enforcement
Capacity Building & Responsibilities
Human induced and environmental pressures
Institutional Context Factors
Property Rights
InstitutionalCapacity & Structure
3
Assessment Step
Specified Definition
Indicator
3. Outcome
-Incentives, costs and risks are being distributed according to an agreed justiceprinciple
-Beneficiaries have the freedom of choice on how to use benefits
-Level of benefits and costsdistributed among stakeholders
-Freedom of choice on how to use benefits

11. Distribution of benefits and burdens at local level
Local perceptions of fairness in Vietnam relate to egalitarian principle –but may not be equitable as it tends to overlook merit- based actions
Under-representation of certain groups of stakeholders in decision- making creates risks of elite capture and limits payment options
Lessons from decentralization suggest that it is easier to devolve costs rather than benefits.
Lessons from other sectors/practices:
•Community forestry: stringent guidelines (Nepal) for protecting interests of marginalized groups may be useful for REDD+, but comes with high transaction costs. Community forests in Indonesia are largely on state land with only usufruct rights with responsibility for managing and restoring forests. Potential conflict with carbon rights.
Pham et al. 2014, 2013; Nawir and Paudel 2014

12. Negotiating choices and options
Clarity of national REDD+ objectives is critical –will define who should benefit and what are the relevant mix of policy instruments
There is no ‘one size fits all’ –framework is a guide to assessing BSM policy options based on the country contexts
Lessons being derived from:
•Decentralized management systems: community forestry systems, PES, conditional cash transfers
•Public administration: anti corruption measures, multi level governance structures
•Financial structures: fiscal transfers, trust funds, concession fees and taxes
•Industry processes: FLEGT, forest standards

13. Thank you!
For further information: g.wong@cgiar.org
With co-financing from:
The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is funded by: