Governance, rights and the role of politics in REDD+ equity

discourses

Grace Wong, Maria Brockhaus, Lasse Loft, Pham Thu Thuy, Anastasia Yang

Global Landscape Forum, 6 Dec 2015

Outline

1. CIFOR research assessing REDD+ policies and measures for benefit sharing

2. Framework for evaluating REDD+ policies and measures

3. A case study of PFES benefit sharing options in Vietnam: Multi-level governance, rights and politics

1. CIFOR’s REDD+ Benefit Sharing project

Objective: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners with policy options and guidance to improve the design, development and implementation of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms. The evidence-based policy options will be framed by experience in six focal study countries and draws on analysis, pilot schemes and lessons learned globally.

Timeframe: 1 Feb 2012 – 31 Jan 2016

Focal countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam

Funding by EC with co-financing from NORAD and AusAID

1. Research assessing REDD+ policies and measures for benefit

sharing Efficiency• Costs of national policy and measures for forests and REDD+• Costs of subnational REDD+ initiatives or REDD+ projects

Effectiveness (of enabling institutions)• Multi-level governance and decision making on forests• Rights and tenurial arrangements

Equity• Who should benefit from REDD+? Who decides? Who bears the costs and

risks?• Local perceptions and preferences

2. Framework for evaluating REDD+ policies and measures

Challenge to evaluate a benefit sharing mechanism because of interlinked institutional and policy factors, and local socio-cultural and economic contexts.

We develop a evaluation framework to provide a shared working understanding for comparative assessment of policy options based on our research that covers different disciplines, countries and levels/sectors.

Important to be flexible to different contexts with appropriate indicators to capture effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

Provides guidance to interpret findings and identify actions towards a more efficient, effective and equitable implementation of benefit sharing mechanism in the context of REDD+.

2. Framework for evaluating REDD+ policies and measures

2. Framework assessment criteria

Effectiveness• relates to the environmental, social and economic impacts or

performance of the instrument: How much does the instrument contribute to the defined policy objectives?

Efficiency• the level of administrative and social costs associated with the

instrument to achieve the policy objectives Equity • procedural refers to participation in decision making and inclusion and

negotiation of competing views• distributive refers to the allocation of outcomes and their impacts on

different stakeholders• contextual refers to existing social factors, capabilities

Luttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013; Angelsen xxx

3. Applying the evaluation framework to case study of Vietnam PFES:

Institutional context

The Forest Land Allocation (FLA) process of issuing forest rights to

local communities

3. Applying the evaluation framework to case study of Vietnam

PFES: Outcomes

Local perspectives of equity – as an underlying motivation for protecting

forests and delivering outcomes

3. Some results Effectiveness: FLA processes vary, leading to uneven application across

regions; poor monitoring and unreliable data leads to conflict Efficiency: Incomplete FLA causes delay in PFES benefits; re-doing the FLA

(in some cases) has high transaction costs; participatory processes are time-intensive but increases legitimacy

Equity at institutional level: Good practices are associated with inclusive participatory processes; inequity in cases where good quality forests are within state management and poor forests are allocated to local communities

Equity at local level: Limited participation in decision making around PFES payments; asymmetric information sharing; payment distribution process considered intransparent; inherent inequity related to allocation of forest land; inadequate payments relative to effort; buyers’ costs are built into utility bills; emphasis is on equality

3. Lessons from PFES for REDD+ The FLA process is characterized by a mis-match in governance and

decision-making at different levels resulting in delayed benefits, and unclear land use practices. FLA implicates rights, access and benefits. FLA processes that are

inclusive and consider historical land use practices are important steps for a more legitimate REDD+.

Socio-cultural and political norms color local perceptions on equity (equality) and can lead to inefficient use of funds and has high transaction costs. Local equity perspectives need to be considered in developing a fair

REDD+ benefit structure , and avoiding transference of costs. Politics matter: who decides on the objectives of a benefit sharing

mechanism, who has the responsibility for reducing deforestation, whose perspective counts

• Key publications from CIFOR’s benefit sharing research: Le, QT et al. 2015. The distribution of powers and responsibilities affecting forests, land use, and REDD+ across levels and sectors in

Vietnam: A legal study. CIFOR OP137. Assembe-Mvondo S. et al. 2015. Comparative Assessment of Forest and Wildlife Revenue Redistribution in Cameroon. CIFOR WP190. Luttrell C. et al. 2015. Lessons from voluntary partnership agreements for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR OP 134. Ardiansyah F. et al. 2015. Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: A legal and policy review. CIFOR OP 132. May P. et al. 2015. Environmental reserve quotas in Brazil’s new forest legislation: An ex ante appraisal . CIFOR Occasional Paper 131. Loft, L. et al. 2015. Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: Concept meets reality. Forests 6:1031-60. Börner, J. et al. 2015. Post-Crackdown Effectiveness of Field-Based Forest Law Enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon. PLOS One, 10(4) Börner, J. et al. 2015. Mixing Carrots and Sticks to Conserve Forests in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Probabilistic Modeling Approach.

PLOS One 10 (2). Torpey-Saboe N. et al. 2015. Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights. World Development, Vol 72 Luttrell, C. et al. 2014 Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 52. Pham ,T.T. et al. 2014. Local preferences and strategies for effective, efficient and equitable PES benefit distribution options in Vietnam:

Lessons for REDD+. Human Ecology DOI: 10.1007/s10745-014-9703-3 Pham T.T. et al. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries CIFOR WP108. Assembe-Mvondo, S. et al. 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

• Series of information briefs: Yang, AL. et al. 2015. What can REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms learn from the European Rural Development Policy? CIFOR Info Brief 126. Yang, AL. et al. 2015. Lessons from the perceptions of equity and risks in payments for forest environmental services (PFES) fund distribution:

A case study of Dien Bien and Son La provinces in Vietnam. CIFOR Brief no. 36. Arwida, S. et al. 2015. Lessons from anti-corruption measures in Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 120. Tjajadi , JS et al. 2015. Lessons from environmental and social sustainability standards. CIFOR InfoBrief 119. Myers, R. et al. 2015. Benefit sharing in context: A comparative analysis of 10 land use change case studies in Indonesia . CIFOR InfoBrief 118. Nawir, AA. et al. 2015. Lessons from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 112. Brockhaus M. et al. 2014. Operationalizing safeguards in national REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR REDD+ Safeguards Brief no. 2. Kowler, L. et al. 2014. The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures for benefit sharing REDD+ and other low emissions options in Peru.

CIFOR InfoBrief 101 Gebara et al. 2014. Lessons from local environmental funds for REDD+ benefit sharing with indigenous people in Brazil . CIFOR InfoBrief 98. Wong G. 2014. The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR InfoBrief 97. Loft L. et al. 2014. Lessons from payments for ecosystem services for REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms. CIFOR InfoBrief 68.

With co-financing from:

The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is funded by:

Merci!

http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing