Download to read offline
Uploaded byWorld Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Session 6.1 Marissa camargo redd private sector
The document discusses issues around private sector engagement in REDD+ projects, including opportunities and challenges. It summarizes a database of 115 REDD+ demonstration projects around the world. Key points include: - Private sector involvement can help finance REDD+ but also risks negatively impacting local communities if equity is not considered. - There is no agreed definition of the private sector, which includes for-profit corporations and voluntary organizations. - Projects have a range of objectives, activities, scales, and approaches to community engagement and benefit sharing, but transparency around benefits is often lacking. - Unclear legal frameworks around carbon rights pose challenges, and more inclusive legislation is needed. - Addressing REDD+ at the landscape
More Related Content
Similar to Session 6.1 Marissa camargo redd private sector
More from World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Session 6.1 Marissa camargo redd private sector
- 1. Engagement of privatesector in REDD+: issues, opportunities and challenges Marisa Camargo University of Helsinki; Indufor Isilda Nhantumbo - IIED 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 1
- 2. Introduction • REDD+: Nobinding agreement, but demonstration projects being tested on the ground • Is the PS engaged in demonstration projects? • How did it acquire the right to develop and transact credits? • How is it sharing benefits with local communities? 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India
- 3. Who is thePrivate Sector? • No agreed definition: OECD, UN, EU • In this study: – For-profit: e.g. corporations, foundations, consulting companies, brokers – Voluntary: NGOs 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 3
- 4. Importance of thePS • Benefits of engaging PS include: – help close the financial gap (limited public funds) – has technical capacity to help implement REDD+ more efficiently – provide price incentives to stimulate investment in SFM; – large size of investments = high potential for change • Warsaw Framework for REDD+: 7 decisions – Finance: ‘results based’, resources from public and private, bilateral and multilateral entities including alternative sources • But also risks… e.g. take land away from community • Private sector engagement is central to successful REDD+… if equity considerations are incorporated 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 4
- 5. Database • 115 demonstrationprojects (accounting for GhG): – Participants and target groups; objectives; activities; land area; tenure arrangements; benefit sharing mechanisms Continent Number of projects Total area (ha) Average land size Countries in each region Africa Asia Latin America Total 24 30 61 8,602,069 10,486,268 9,592,981 358,420 349,542 157,261 11 8 13 115 28,681,318 33 • LA - most projects in private land • Asia - host larger projects (ha) 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India Countries with higher number of projects per region Cameroon (5) Indonesia (19) Brazil (15), Peru (13) and Mexico (10)
- 6. Database • Objectives: Reduceemissions • Activities: – agriculture productivity issues of smallholder sector, biomass energy efficiency in production and consumption, and sustainable management of forests including control of forest fires; participatory natural resources management and payment for ecosystems services; research on biophysical and socioeconomic aspects of REDD+ implementation; conservation of private lands and public private areas; instil political stability and security….. • Agroforestry: – not the objective (~5/115), but feature in benefit sharing and activities together with conservation agriculture - increase productivity from land and reduce need for expanding into natural forests 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 6
- 7. Database: actors • Severalstakeholders: local and national governments, donors, local and international NGOs, research institutions, consultancy companies, legal firms, carbon brokers, private foundations, business, local communities • Not all present at once • Private Sector: – Demand credits: corporations (e.g. offsetting) – Supply credits: consultancy co, brokers – Demand and supply: options to consumers 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 7
- 8. Private sector engagementin REDD Project developers 10% 11% For-profit sector 35% Voluntary sector Governments 8% Partnerships (e.g. PPP) 36% Unclear/no data Not only as developers, but as investors, donors, facilitators, TA… 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 8
- 9. Rights: Who ownsthe carbon? 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 9
- 10. Rights: who ownsthe carbon? • Carbon credit is a new commodity • Countries are still building legal frameworks – Who owns cc? Conditions to transfer rights • Policy vacuum - developers are innovating: – C interpreted as product of the forest, similar to wood, non-wood, wildlife, so communities (as holders of these rights) also hold rights to carbon – Law defines - State owns all land and water including subsoil resources, so they interpreted that, by default, the State would also be the owner of carbon rights – Governments - conservation concession borrowed from forest concession which exists in the legal framework 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India
- 11. Rights: who ownsthe carbon? • Rights to carbon is not always discussed in project documents • Too risky? 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 11
- 12. Rights: who ownsthe carbon? • REDD+ as an opportunity to fill the policy vacuum with more equitable rules • Inclusive legislation – Encourage more private sector investment – Ensure real community involvement and fair benefit distribution • After all… – Project developers acknowledge that community engagement is key to ensure sustainability to the project – risk mitigation strategy – decreases likelihood of leakage 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 12
- 13. Benefit Sharing: how arecommunities engaged and benefits distributed? 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 13
- 14. Community engagement • Communitiesare involved in several ways: – Decision making, employees, receivers of capacity • Some projects: NO local community involvement – driven by a private land owner – NO people living in the area (and neighbor communities will not be negatively impacted) – Communities not integrated… • Long-term pressure on land? Population growth? Projects are in average (only) 30 years 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 14
- 15. Benefit Sharing • Communitiesnot always see a share of carbon revenues - only 23% • But project developers list several benefits: – E.g. capacity building, employment opportunities, introducing sustainable land management practices • investment and costs incurred to secure generation of carbon credits? • Communities also contribute with labour to ensure that carbon credits are generated • What should we take into account when partitioning the benefits? 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 15
- 16. Benefit Sharing • Notso transparent… – 16% give information on the share of the benefits allocated to different stakeholders – Out of the 115 projects, only 4 contracts available – Peru project: list of preferential beneficiaries, but the amounts allocated to each are confidential 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 16
- 17. Conclusions 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress NewDelhi, India 17
- 18. Conclusions • PS isan important player to help implement REDD and design more inclusive legal instruments • However…. more transparency, accountability, integration, FPIC should be promoted to ensure the design of a more equitable and sustainable system • WIN-WIN solutions 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 18
- 19. Thank you! Marisa Camargo marisa.camargo@helsinki.fi 12/02/2014 WorldAgroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 19
- 20. REDD+ in thelandscape 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 20
- 21.
- 22. REDD+ at landscapelevel • No evidence that projects actively involve businesses across sectors that are part of the landscape driving the local economies • Exclusion of stakeholders poses several risks: – Increases competition and affects benefit sharing – reduces the potentially higher cumulative impacts – creates potential for leakage – sustainability is tested 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 22
- 23. Inclusive REDD+ • Someelements of inclusive business models – Mapping of all land users and uses within the landscape; – Conduct FPIC, including local communities but also all other users (forest concessionaires, small timber operators, mining companies, large scale agriculture investments); – design an intervention that brings the different interests in a shareholding approach; 12/02/2014 World Agroforestry Congress New Delhi, India 23
Editor's Notes
- #3 Discuss PS engagement in REDD+
- #4 The early engagement of the private sector in climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts is fundamental in demonstrating how the sector can draw upon its market-based knowledge in financing risks and venture into reducing emissions endeavours as providers/suppliers, buyers, or investors
- #5 Warsaw further consolidate the assumption that private sector engagement is central to successful REDD+. think we should highlight the risks as well. the issue of taking land away from local people - expanding the notion of conservation beyond biodiversity to include carbon credits. This is what is being done in countries like DRC where 'conservation concessions' for carbon stocks are introduced in the contractsthe issue of benefit sharing- who implement the emissions reducing activities and who decides what to pay
- #6 In order to understand the extent of involvement of private sector engagement in implementation of REDD+ we constructed a database of projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America and analysed who are the payers, their objectives, key issues addressed by the projects, target groups or participants, tenure arrangements and benefit sharing mechanisms. In order to get a better understanding of the legal and institutional context of engagement of private sector in REDD+ implementation, a case study of DRC is discussed in some detail, particularly in regards the legal provisions for tenure and benefit distribution in the for-profit private sector REDD+ projects.
- #7 would say that agroforestry features together with conservation agriculture as the technological change that will increase productivity from land and reduce need for expanding into natural forests
- #11 and governments - for example the use of the notion of conservation concession is borrowed from forest concession which exists in the current legal framework
- #16 hese are considered benefits by project developers, but in effect they are investment and costs incurred to secure generation of carbon credits; communities also contribute by foregoing land uses and labour to ensure that carbon credits are generated; however, the latter does not seem to enter the accounts. the result is overinflating the benefits to communities.
- #22 The implementation of REDD+ by the private sector is done in large areas (up to 4.4 million ha as shows previously in Table 1), hence covering large landscapes and jurisdictions (Figure 1). Inevitably this encompasses several sectoral (forest) and extra-sectoral activities (agriculture, energy, industry, infrastructure, mining), undertaken by large and small scale entrepreneurs. The boundaries of private sector REDD+ are within this complex environment. Irrespective of the wide range of stated project aims, the overarching objective is to generate carbon credits for performance based payments through implementation of sustainability practices