Evolution of equity/fairness discourses in

REDD+

Maria Brockhaus and partners

London. March 2015

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

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

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

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

storylineCollaboration 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

“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.

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-sectoralstrategy. MRV: large diversity between countries

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)

Case Studies:Risks, equity implications , and

how to safeguard and measure the politics within ….

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 tenure3. 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)

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)

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

Risks related to unclear tenure, financialprocédures, 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)

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 ..

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

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

AcknowledgementsThis 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

We acknowledge the support from:

NORAD, Australian Aid, UKAID, EC, USAID

& all research partners and individuals

that have contributed to the GCS research

Thanks