Evolution of equity/fairness discourses in REDD+. A presentation by Maria Brockhaus and partners, CGIAR, CIFOR.
 This presentation was given at the Expert Workshop on Equity, Justice and Well-being in Ecosystem Governance, held at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in London, March, 2015.

1. Evolution of equity/fairness discourses in
REDD+
Maria Brockhaus and partners
London. March 2015

2. Outline
• Discourse evolution
– REDD+ is good, or not so good? – some observations ..
– But actors in REDD+ national policy arena want to have it good? –
some data …
• Examples for REDD+ safeguards, risks, equity implications ---
how to measure …
– Discourses on who should benefit
– Other risks
• What hinders a move from agreement on the importance of
equity/justice/fairness and willingness to safeguard risks to
action ?
– Discourses on who should benefit
– Other risks
• Future direction

3. REDD+ as a (good) idea, beside
being quick, cheap, easy ?
• globally : turning tables, countries are no
longer receivers of aid but providers of a
globally needed service
• locally: benefits for forest stewards
(PES), cash and co-benefits
• nationally: incentives for policy mix
supporting conservation PAMs

4. REDD+ maybe not so good?
• incentive to push out holders of informal rights , IPs
rights
• carbonization and monetarization of nature
Some concerns expressed in discourses:
“cheap excuse” for the off- setters, who want to pay
for their sins without changing : “payment for
indulgence”
 ‘the real’ profits for private investors, carbon
cowboys
‘recentralization’ of forests and benefits for the state
and its administration

5. Discourses on how REDD+ should
look like .. (Vijge et al. under prep.)
What should REDD+ achieve?
Carbon storyline Safeguards storyline Co-benefits storyline
What are
the main
objectives
of REDD+?
Carbon benefits Carbon benefits, but
safeguards needed to
prevent negative impacts
on non-carbon benefits
Carbon and non-carbon
benefits
Which
objectives
will be
MRV’ed?
MRV of carbon benefits MRV of carbon benefits
and safeguard
information / monitoring
system
MRV of carbon and
non-carbon benefits
Who should monitor REDD+ outcomes?
Expert-based storyline Expert-based devolution
storyline
Collaboration storyline
At what level should REDD+ be governed?
National storyline Nested storyline Sub-national storyline
How should REDD+ be financed?
Market-based storyline Hybrid storyline Fund-based storyline

6. “All REDD schemes aimed at reducing CO2 emissions
should also require the realization of other key benefits”
X-axis: answers to stances; Y-axis:
reputational power of policy actors
- Least divergent stance> most actors in 4 or 5.
- Nearly every actor sees non-carbon benefits as
important objective of REDD+ (Most actors in 5,
followed by 4. Only 8 actors out of 300+ slightly
disagreed with statement).
- Most IOs in 5.
- Differences between countries not very
pronounced.

7. What should REDD+ achieve?
•Diversity: all R-PPs plan to measure safeguards,
but few contain details on non-carbon MRV
• PNG> Safeguards: REDD+ framed as climate change
mitigation strategy. MRV: safeguards information system
• Cameroon> Co-benefits: REDD+ framed as tool to achieve
sustainable development. MRV: strong focus on non-
carbon MRV. EESS to build development tool
• Nepal/Tanzania/Vietnam/Indonesia> Co-benefits: Carbon
and non-carbon equally important. Cross-sectoral
strategy. MRV: large diversity between countries

8. REDD+ only good if ….
Among many other things ….
• the safeguards are implemented - results
based finance only if reported according to
Warsaw agreement
 guidance for safeguard information systems:
not yet decided upon --- sovereignty, feasibility,
credibility are characteristics of different
positions and discourses (Menton et al. 2014)

9. Case Studies:
Risks, equity implications , and
how to safeguard and measure the
politics within ….

10. Prioritization of high risk areas in BSM
and linkages to specific safeguards and
equity aspects (Pham et al. 2013)
• Mapping exercise shows the complexity of BSM assessment
• BSM country realities are highly diverse, different institutional pathways
established, different BSM funding instruments, often in parallel
 will require different sets of operationalized safeguards
- Where to prioritise?
High risk areas in BSM
1. Risks related to objectives of BSM, e.g. the rationales in identifying beneficiaries
2. Risks related to unclear and insecure land tenure
3. Risks related to representation including elite capture
4. Risks related to horizontal and vertical information sharing and governance
5. Risks related to financial practices (embezzlement, corruption, etc)

11. Discourses on ‘who should benefit’?
(Luttrell et al. 2013)
Different discourses which different implications for design of BSMs
 But there are trade-offs: Effectiveness/efficiency vs. equity discourses
 Effectiveness/efficiency = goal of emission reductions; Equity = who has the
right to benefit
– rationale I: benefits should go to actors with legal rights related to carbon
emission reductions ("legal rights" rationale)
– rationale II: benefits should go to those who reduce emissions ("emission
reductions" rationale)
– rationale III: benefits should go to forest stewards ("stewardship" rationale)
– rationale IV: actors incurring costs should be compensated ("cost-compensation"
rationale)
– rationale V: benefits should go to effective facilitators of implementation
("facilitation" rationale)
– rationale VI: benefits should go to the poor ("pro-poor" rationale)

12. Risks and implications for safeguards and
SIS (governance, rights, social benefits)
Clarify objectives of national REDD+ implementation before
designing BSMs
Clarity on objectives help to define who ‘should‘ benefit
Lack of clarity over what is the ‘competent agency’ with these
decision making powers
Legitimacy of the decision needs the decision to be made by
those with:
• Legal mandate to make them
• Adherence to due process & to procedural rights
Requires a legitimate decision-making process and institution
 Information needed: Legitimacy, following the discourse

13. Risks related to unclear tenure, financial
procédures, elite capture and implications
for SIS – Example Cameroon(Assembe et al 2013 and 2014):
Cameroon has two main mechanisms of benefit- sharing, 1) a
decentralized forestry taxation system; and 2) land fees.
• However, in both, risks are clearly related to institutional path
dependencies (e.g. colonial rules) in the process of
establishing land tenure,
• the top-down approach to establishing a governance system
for the distribution of forest fees, and a lack of transparency in
the fee-distribution process (Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2013,
2014)
 Information needed: rule setting and participation,
information on actual fee distribution (following the money)

14. Risks related to representation -
Procedural equity in implementing BSM :
Example Vietnam (Pham et al 2014)
• decision-making and discussions on REDD+ in
general and benefit sharing in particular are
dominated by selected powerful actors
• Example Vietnam:
- dominant role of government agencies in REDD+
policy-making, limited political space for non-state
actors (e.g., NGOs, CSOs) to exert an influence on
the final policy outputs
 Information needed: participation/representation,
- following the policy actors ..

15. What hinders translating lessons and
realizing transformational change for
equity into policy/practice?
Seeing REDD+ through 4 Is: institutional stickiness, ideas,
interests, information:
- Discursive shifts?
New agency, but rhetorics of powerful are still BAU
- Shifts in incentives?
Yes, incentives, but legitimacy of those that make decisions about it leads to/
reinforces existing patterns of rent seeking ?
- Shifts in power relations ?
Turning tables – not yet, aidification of REDD+, and in international and
national REDD+ policy arenas BAU remains dominant across levels

16. For further reading:
• Pham, T.T., Brockhaus, M., Wong, G., Dung, L.N., Tjajadi, J.S., Loft, L., Luttrell C. and Assembe Mvondo, S., 2013. Approaches to benefit
sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Luttrell, C., L. Loft, F. M. Gebara, D. Kweka, M. Brockhaus, A. Angelsen and W. Sunderlin 2013. Who should benefit from REDD+?
Rationales and Realities. Ecology and Society.
• Assembe-Mvondo, S., Brockhaus, M., Lescuyer, G., 2013. Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency and Equity of Benefit-Sharing
Schemes under Large-Scale Agriculture: Lessons from Land Fees in Cameroon. European Journal of Development Research 25, 641-
656.
• Loft, L., Pham, T.T., and Luttrell, C. 2014. Lessons from payments for ecosystem services for REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms. CIFOR
Infobrief No.68.
• Pham, T.T., Di Gregorio, M., Carmenta, R., Brockhaus, M., Le, D. The REDD+ Policy arena in Vietnam: participation of policy actors.
Ecology & Society.
• Jagger, P., Lawlor, K., Brockhaus, M., Gebara, M. F., Sonwa, D. J., Resosudarmo, I. A. P. 2012. REDD+ safeguards in national policy
discourse and pilot projects. In Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, 301-316. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
• Di Gregorio, M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom E., Santoso, L., Mardiah, S., Büdenbender, M. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the
media: A comparative analysis of policy discourses. Ecology and Society 18(2): 39.
• The context of REDD+ in … - CIFOR country profile series
• Jagger et al. Multi-level Policy Dialogues, Processes, and Actions: Challenges and Opportunities for National REDD+ Safeguards
Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV). Forests
• Pham et al . Local Preferences and Strategies for Effective, Efficient, and Equitable Distribution of PES Revenues in Vietnam: Lessons
for REDD+“. Human Ecology
draft
• Loft, Wong et al. A framework for assessing REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms.
• Pham et al. Business as usual practices can lead to Risky REDD+ outcomes : Preliminary analysis from review of benefit sharing
mechanisms in13 REDD+ countries
www.cifor.org/safeguards

17. Acknowledgements
This work is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS). The methods and guidelines
used in this research component were designed by Maria Brockhaus, Monica Di Gregorio and Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff.
Parts of the methodology are adapted from the research protocol for media and network analysis designed by COMPON
(‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’).
Case leaders: Thuy Thu Pham (Nepal), Thuy Thu Pham & Moira Moeliono (Vietnam), Thuy Thu Pham and Guillaume
Lestrelin (Laos), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton, Kaisa Korhonen-
Kurki, Pablo Pacheco (Bolivia), Mary Menton (Peru), Sven Wunder & Peter May (Brazil), Samuel Assembe & Jolien Schure
(Cameroon), Samuel Assembe (DRC), Salla Rantala (Tanzania), Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Mozambique), Suwadu Sakho-
Jimbira & Houria Djoudi (Burkina Faso), Arild Angelsen (Norway). Special thanks to our national partners from REDES, CEDLA,
Libelula and DAR, REPOA, UEM, CODELT, ICEL, ForestAction, CIEM, CERDA, Son La FD, UPNG, NRI-PNG, and UMB.
Thanks to contributors to case studies, analysis and review : Levania Santoso, Tim Cronin, Giorgio Indrarto, Prayekti
Murharjanti, Josi Khatarina, Irvan Pulungan, Feby Ivalerina, Justitia Rahman, Muhar Nala Prana, Caleb Gallemore (Indonesia)
Nguyen Thi Hien, Nguyen Huu Tho, Vu Thi Hien, Bui Thi Minh Nguyet, Nguyen Tuan Viet and Huynh Thu Ba (Vietnam), Dil
Badhur, Rahul Karki, Bryan Bushley, Naya Paudel (Nepal), Daniel McIntyre, Gae Gowae, Nidatha Martin, Nalau Bingeding,
Ronald Sofe, Abel Simon (PNG), Walter Arteaga, Bernado Peredo, Jesinka Pastor (Bolivia), Maria Fernanda Gebara, Brent
Millikan, Bruno Calixto, Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil), Hugo Piu, Javier Perla, Daniela Freundt, Eduardo Burga Barrantes, Talía
Postigo Takahashi (Peru), Guy Patrice Dkamela, Felicien Kengoum (Cameroon), Felicien Kabamba, Augustin Mpoyi, Angelique
Mbelu (DRC), Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken, Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, (Tanzania), Almeida Sitoe,
Alda Salomão (Mozambique), Mathurin Zida, Michael Balinga (Burkina Faso), Laila Borge (Norway).
Special thanks to Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Ria Widjaja-Adhi, Cecilia Luttrell, Frances Seymour, Lou
Verchot, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, Rachel Carmenta,
Juniarta Tjajadi, Cynthia Maharani

18. We acknowledge the support from:
NORAD, Australian Aid, UKAID, EC, USAID
& all research partners and individuals
that have contributed to the GCS research
Thanks