REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF)

in Nepal [ and Indonesia]

Naya Sharma Paudel & Ani Adiwinata Nawir

Forest Asia SummitJakarta

5-6 May 2014

Benefit sharing: why lessons from CF to REDD+?

• CF institutions have developed well established BSM that are legitimate, recognised by national law and incentivise forest conservation

• Nepal’s CF scheme is regarded as a successful approach in forest conservation and therefore its lessons on BSM provide good basis

• CF generates and distributes co-benefits beyond carbon therefore provides relevant lessons for REDD+

Management role

Patterns of ownership

Private Communal State

Private Privately managed forests around households

(e.g. farm forestry)

Privately-managed on community lands

(e.g. Customary land in Borneo: tembawang)

Public land allocation scheme for individually

managed (e.g. Community-Based

Plantation)

Communal Private land organised by community

institutions

Communal mgm on community lands(e.g. Village Forest in

Indonesia)

State land allocated for community management: (e.g. reforestation projects in Indonesia; CF in Nepal)

State Co-management

Co-management on privately-owned lands

(e.g. outgrower schemes)

Co-management on communal lands (e.g. JFM in India)

State lands allocated to community group

(e.g. CFM in Nepal & the Philippines)

Sources: Adapted from FAO (1985); Mayers (2000); Arnold (2001); Calderon and Nawir (2004); and Nawir (2012)

Community forestry: a major forest regime in Nepal

• Government’s major programme• Over 18000 community groups

(35% of pop)• A quarter of forest area under CF• Substantial livelihoods benefits,

community infrastructure, social services

CF: a unique tenure arrangement

• Government owns forestlands • Bundle of rights are transferred to CF group (access, use, management and exclusion)

• There is no time limit, but the Operation Plan requires periodic renewal (in every 10 yrs)

• CF groups are required to get permission from DFO for harvesting, sale, enterprise operation

The DFO may handover any part of a National Forest to a users' group in the form of a Community Forest as prescribed entitling to develop, conserve, use and manage the forest and sell and distribute the forest products independently by fixing their prices according to OP.

Existing BSM in CF

With state

• CF groups enjoy 100% benefit from forests

• Includes – timber, non-timber, other ecosystem services

• Pay 15% royalty only for two species, it timber is sold outside the group

• State provides basic services including administrative, capacity building, forest inventory, management plan etc.

Within group

• Forest products: based on availability, traditional use and current need

• CF funds – community infrastructure, social services, pro-poor activities, forest management

• No cash benefits to individual members • CF funds should be invested – 25% forest

development, 35% pro-poor activities and rest on community priority

Piloting REDD benefit sharing

Payment Criteria

carbon stock and increment (40%)

Social criteria (60%)+

REDD Payment =

Innovations on equitable BSM

Procedural equity

• Inclusive representation in decision making bodies

• Social criteria for REDD+ payment

• Conditions for CF fund/REDD fund use (e.g. 35% for pro-poor activities)

Substantive equity

• Wellbeing ranking and integrating it in benefit sharing framework

• Forest based employment to poor • Support during difficulty• Land allocation to poor households• Differential price of forest products

Contestations on CF benefit sharing

CF expansion in valuable Terai forests

Guidelines on benefit sharing

Proposed 50% revenue to the government

Government owns land and therefore the

soil carbon

Regulatory control on trade and enterprise

Suggested provisions in benefit sharing

Benefit sharing is closely linked with tenure arrangement – clear, comprehensive and secure tenure is a pre-condition

Procedural equity at all levels of environmental governance is important to ensure substantive equity at local level

Forest management for multiple benefits serves equity purpose better than focusing on single benefit

Key messages