This document analyzes REDD+ governance in Kenya through interviews with key actors. It finds that national and county governments, as well as international institutions, benefit from interactions that establish rules and practices for REDD+ implementation. Private sectors benefit from opportunities in carbon trading and ecosystem services. NGOs benefit from linking local communities to REDD+ financing. The interplay of forest and climate change institutions can promote social justice, but risks neglecting minority groups unless co-benefits are shared equitably. Forest ecosystems provide valuable services like carbon sequestration, biodiversity and watershed protection. Strategic success factors for REDD+ include promoting participation, awareness raising and market-based incentives for ecosystem services.

1. Responsible Tourism and Economic Diversification
!"#$%&'()*+,(-&&
!.'()*+,(-/$0*#.-1.23&
4567764874&

2. 9#,)$%21:$#&;&<*=*>$0?*#,&
• !"#$%&'()(*#(+%,-*-#-(%.(/(-"#(%.(,%0"-(/,0(#*"-(&"1&"-",#*,2(-%3"(
&"4/#*%,-5*1-(6"#$"",(#5%-"(,%0"-(
• 758(!"#$%&'(*,(9%:&*-3;(
• 9%:&*-3(*-(/(,"#$%&'"0(*,0:-#&8($5"&"(</&*%:-(=&3-(*,#"2&/#"0(#%(
1&%<*0"(/(=,/4(1&%0:+#(#%(#5"(",0(:-"&->(
• ?"<"4%13",#(
• @/&'"#*,2(+5/,,"4(/,/48-*-)(*,0:-#&*/4(3/&'"#*,2(AB&/6*"(C(7*,0D(
EFFGH(
• I%31"#",+*"-(6/-"0(#5"%&*"-(%.(#5"(=&3(A9&"364/8D(EFFJ)(7"4+5("#(
/4>D(EFFJH(
• !"#$%&'(.:,+#*%,(/-(/(-8-#"3(A7*4'*,-%,(C(K%:,2D(LMMLH(
• N%+*/4(,"#$%&'(#5"%&8(AN5/$D(LMMOH)(!"#$%&##'%&()*+,'-%.'
/*%%&0($*%#'

3. @*+*-)1(&A-0+&
• P/+'(%.(0*3",-*%,/4(-#:08(A9*"-D(0",-*#8(/,0(
0*&"+#*%,HD(Q&':-(ALMMFH(
• !""0(%.(R:/4*#/#*<"(*,-*25#-(.%&(*,0*<*0:/4(
+%,#&*6:#*%,(%,(,"#$%&'(A(N5/$D(LMMOH(
• N@Q-(+/,,%#(-:&<*<"(*,(*-%4/#*%,(/,0(
+%31"#*#*<"(/0</,#/2"-(
• I%,#&*6:#*%,(%.(,"#$%&'(*,(4"/&,*,2(/,0(
*,,%</#*%,(
• 758(!"1/4;(

4. @*+*-)1(&B2*+:$#+&
• S%$(0%(#%:&*-3(,"#$%&'-(%.(-3/44(=&3-(4%%';((
• S%$(0%(#5"8(1"&+"*<"(,"#$%&'(/,0(#5"*&(
*31%&#/,+"(.%&(T"-1%,-*64"(9%:&*-3;(
• 758(0%(=&3(,"#$%&'(/,0(5%$(0%(4"/&,*,2(
+%,#&*6:#"(#%(#5"(%<"&/44(,"#$%&'(</4:";(
• S%$(0%(=&3-(*0",#*.8(#5"(+5/44",2"-(/,0(*--:"-(
$*#5*,(#5"(,"#$%&';(

5. @*+*-)1(&?*,($%$>$CD&-#%&?*,($%+&
• U*&-#(V5/-"(
• W,#"&<*"$-($*#5('"8(14/8"&-(%.(#5"(#%:&*-3(*,0:-#&8(
• @/11*,2(%.(,"#$%&'(/3%,2('"8(=&3-(*,(V%'5/&/(
• N"+%,0/&8(-%:&+"(
• 95"(I/-"(-#:08(N+",/&*%(
• 9$%(0*X"&",#(#81"-(%.(,"#$%&'-("Y*-#",+"(/,0(+%31"#*#*%,Z+%,[*+#(
• N"+%,0(V5/-"(
• N"3*-#&:+#:&"(R:"-#*%,,/*&"-(
• ]1",(^",0"0(*,#"&<*"$-(
• U%+:-(2&%:1(0*-+:--*%,($*#5(-:11%&#(%&2/,*_/#*%,-(AB--%+*/#*%,-D(#&/<"4(
/2",#-D(+5/36"&-`H(
• I%0*,2(/,0(/,/48-*-(A!<*<%H(
• !"#$%&'(V*+#:&"-(/,0(P*,'(2","&/#*%,(#"+5,*R:"-(

6. E*,F$)3&-+&-&G($>*&
'JH+&
'2+,-"#-K">",D&
,()$2C(&
0)*+*)=-:$#&$L&
H#1$2)-C*+&I2?-#&
MNO& *1$+D+,*?&-#%&
%"=*)+"LD"#C&
'*)="1*+&-#%&
#*,F$)3+& *1$#$?"1&-1:=":*+&
P,(*)&
+,-3*($>%*)+&

7. M$++"K>*&P2,1$?*+&
• N)-%":$#->&#*,F$)3&1$##*1:$#&-#%&J$%*)#&L-+,&0-1*&#*,F$)3+&
• O>-++"1&,$2)"+?&K2+"#*++&-#%&?$)*&-%=-#1*%&+0$),&-#%&-%=*#,2)*+&
K2+"#*++*+&#*,F$)3&Q,*1(#"1->>D&-#%&3#$F>*%C*&K-+*%R&
• E*,F$)3&-+&K2+"#*++&#**%&-#%&1$#+2?*)&#**%&Q,$$>R&
• S",->&L$)&)*+0$#+"K>*&,$2)"+?&Q*#=")$#?*#,T&0*$0>*&-#%&*1$#$?"1&
%"=*)+"U1-:$#R&
• E*,F$)3&-+&-&0)"?*&L-1,$)&L$)&"##$=-:$#&-#%&1$>>-K$)-:$#&L$)&
>*-)#"#C&-?$#C&+?->>&U)?+&Q&>$F&-?$2#,&$L&"#=*+,?*#,&-#%&:?*&
L$)&1(-#C*R&

8. V#D&B2*+:$#+W&

9. MULTILEVEL REDD+ GOVERNANCE
ANALYSIS IN KENYA
Who benefits from the interplay of
forests ecosystems and climate change institutions
By: Anne Fidelis Itubo – University of Nairobi Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy

10. Introduction-Outline
• Brief Country profile
• Defining REDD+, Good Forest Governance
• Data Collection
• REDD+ Governance in Kenya
• Who benefits from the interplay of forest and
climate change institution?
• Forest Ecosystem for Sustainable Development
• Conclusions

11. Country profile –Kenya (1)
• Kenya has 56.9 million ha of land of which 3.4 million
ha are forests.(FAO 2010).
• Through UNFCCC a national strategy for
implementing REDD+ has been developed.
• REDD+ is Supported by Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility (FCPF)

12. Country profile(2) ( FAO 2010)
Profile item Statistics Remarks
Area 582,650km2 Nil
Population 38 million Nil
Agricultural 70% of Nil
livelihood support population
Forest cover 3.6 million 5.9%, 36% is closed canopy
located in high population
density areas, 50,000 ha lost
per year through
deforestation degradation
Wood fuel > 70% national Unsustainable
energy demand sources

13. Defining REDD+, Governance
• REDD+: Reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation , a global initiative for enhancing
forest carbon stocks in developing countries(UNFCCC
2009)
• ‘Good’ Forest governance : Refers to a form of
political decision making that emphasizes legality
(rules to resolve conflicts), legitimacy (acceptance and
trust by the public that create accountability) and
participation (inclusiveness within decision making)
• REDD+ governance is in built on the principles of
Good Forest governance

14. Data collection
• Qualitative interviews
• Interest based data review with experts, key bureaucrats
in forest and climate change institutions
• Maps from high carbon natural forest and hotspot
biodiversity site.
• Total respondents N=53

15. REDD+ governance ( Source Field interviews 2012)
Governance Components
Key quantitative Actors-­‐institution Rules Practice
information on forest National-­‐County National REDD+
sector outcomes and Governments Strategy on Implementation
outputs must be shared International REDD+, Policy Administration
institutions and law Monitoring
(Transparency)
(UNFCCC, FCPF,UN-­‐
Content, policy Reporting
REDD, Civil Society
private sector making process ,Verification
NGOs,Community
repsentatives
Transparency ISSUES
Rights and tenure, Land use
Priviciples of good
Participation
planning, Benefit sharing incentives
Accountability Roles of indigenous people on
governance
Coordination REDD+, Stakeholders involvement
Equity
Efficiency

16. Who benefits from the interplay of
Forest ecosystems and Climate Change institutions?(1)
Drivers Actor’s interest -Who benefits
Actors interaction & political Private sector ( Carbon trade, ecosystem
(stand) service delivery standards), positive media
coverage, REDD+lobby groups on market
systems
Ecosystem economic NGOs linking to financing, Local
benefits(Carbon trade) communities and indigenous people
engaged in REDD+ due to perceived
benefits
State sovereignty Human rights of indigenous people,
National strategies, MRV Systems for Forest
governance

17. Who benefits from the interplay of Forest ecosystems
and Climate Change institutions?(2)
Drivers Actor’s interests-Who benefits
Social justice and fairness Pro-Market NGOs use of
social protection for
ecosystems co benefits in
REDD+
Ecosystem integrity Minority groups (Gender
equity) , concerns for co
benefits sharing
SFM. Conversion of natural
forests to settlements

18. Forest Ecosystem Sustainable for Development
• Forests “ecosystems services,” generally defined as “the
life-support and life-enhancing services of natural
ecosystems.”
• Promote market-oriented incentive culture to
compensate landowners for ecosystem services
associated with forest land.
• Sustainable forest management underlie evolving
ecosystem services development below ( Table 2 )

19. Forest ecosystem Sustainable for Development
(Source : Adapted from Millennium ecosystem Assessment,
2005)
Forest Ecosystem Services
Cultural Services Provision services Regulating Services
Scenic or Timber for Carbon
aesthetic element economic value Sequestration
Social relations Biodiversity Watershed
(Payment habitats & protection
Ecosystem conservation
Services)
Non timber Forest
Products

20. Forest Ecosystem Sustainable for Development
• Carbon sequestration to moderate global warming
through REDD+ initiatives
• Revisions on policies on Payment of ecosystem
services and benefit sharing
• Regulatory and market-oriented measures to protect
and allow beneficial utilization

21. Obstacles to REDD+ Forest Ecosystem Services
• Rights and Tenure: historic emphasis of our legal
system on private rather than public property rights.
• Legal Carbon ownership mechanisms provide little
support for ecosystem services (Heal 2000)
• Little or no awareness on value of forest ecosystem
protection in the marketplace .

22. Strategic Success Factors for success of REDD+
for FES
• Promote participation
of citizens, landowners,
and developers in a discourse on sustainable
ecosystem development.
• Increase community awareness about
precautionary measures to limit harmful impacts
to forests and trees for REDD+

23. Conclusion
• Actor coalitions on setting economic incentives reflects
market-based approaches that attach monetary values
to socially desired forest ecosystem Services( Carbon
trade)
• Correlation between Private sector actors and states’
that support of market based approach to have
equitability in benefit sharing.
• REDD+ governance, indicate Partipation and
transparency as key challenges to benefit sharing.

24. End !! Thanks you!!