The equity of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms? A multilevel governance analysis in Vietnam

The equity of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms? A multilevel governance analysis in Vietnam.Annie Yang, Anne Larson, Grace Wong et al. ISEE 2014, Reykjavik

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Layout: Title Slide Variation: none

Project Aim: To provide Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation andDegradation (REDD+) policymakers and practitioners with policy options andguidance to improve the design, development and implementation of REDD+benefit sharing mechanisms.

Target groups:• Policy makers in developing and developed countries• Governments of the six focal countries• REDD+ project developers and investors

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

Outline

• Project • What is REDD+ and BSM• Multilevel governance• Background Vietnam BSM• Research goals• Methods• Site selection• Preliminary findings

Project: Understanding multi-level forest governance as the context for REDD+

Aim: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitionerswith policy options and guidance to improve the design,development and implementation.

Target groups:• Policy makers in developing and developed countries• Governments of the six focal countries (Peru, Tanzania,

Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico)• REDD+ project developers and investors

Funders: European Commission, AUZAID, and NORAD

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Layout: Content with Portrait Picture Variation: none

What is REDD and BSM?

REDD+ requires a system to designate 1) who gets rewarded; 2) why; 3) under what conditions; 4) in what proportions; and 4) for how long.

Such systems are known as Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms (BSM), a broad term that encompasses all institutional means, structures and instruments for distributing finance

Designing REDD+ REDD+ is in its infancy - so lessons on impacts and outcomes need to

come from other BSMs and the implementation of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes.

Objectives: 1. What are key elements of an efficient, effective and equitable

BSM?2. What policy/governance measures that need to be

implemented?

BSM Type

Context

Outcomes

Presenter

Presentation Notes

PES defined as the “transfer of resources between social actors, which aims to create incentives to align individual and/or collective land use decisions with the social interest in the management of natural resources” (Muradian 2010, 1205). There is a diverse range of approaches to and options for benefit sharing are being applied in all the study countries, Benefit sharing = distribution of direct and indirect net gains from the implementation of REDD+ or such like. Three main types of (net) benefits: 1) from implementation of a REDD+ project, programme or policy (e.g. direct financial payments); 2) changes in forest use (e.g. improved provision of ecosystem services or non‑timber forest products); 3) Indirect and non‑monetary from REDD+ implementation (e.g. improved governance, technology transfer, enhanced participation in decision‑making, and infrastructure provision).

Challenges for REDD+

Corruption

Legal provisions

Unclear governance

Elite capture of power

Limited capacity and finance

Weak enforcement

Insecure tenure / unclear rights

Accountability

Financial management

Transparency

Pham et al. (2013)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Very unclear

The three e’s: Equity

• Perception of fairness can undermine effectiveness and efficiency

• Who should benefit?

Equity dimensions Characteristics1) Procedural Participation in decision-making – levels vary

2) Distributive Allocation of outcomes and their impacts on different stakeholders (cost, risks, benefits) e.g. merit-based, need based, egalitarian, libertarian

3) Contextual Existing social conditions (capabilities and external factors)

Mcdermott et al. (2013)

Effectiveness

Equity

Efficiency

Presenter

Presentation Notes

We found some issues with equity that can be considered in a …. Fro effectiveness we think this means? ……and efficiency? A purely market-based PES scheme could pursue ecosys-tem service provision (e.g. carbon sequestration, water harvesting) regardless of equity impact (Angelsen et al., 2009). However, if the scheme aims to minimise or avoid causing harm, it may establish safeguards against worsening inequity. This is the case in certification schemes (McDermott, 2012) and most current negotiations on national REDD+ programmes (McDermott et al., 2012; Peskett et al., 2011a). Alternatively, if the goal is to improve social equity, the intervention would need to identify existing inequity, address its causes, and assess progress. Just as the community forestry literature has shown that poverty reduction needs to be an explicit aim if it is to be achieved (Schreckenberg and Luttrell, 2009), so too the explicit articulation of equity goals of projects or policies is a precondition for equity to be addressed. similarly relies upon the prior establishment or assumption of the fundamental parameters of equity – who will define the values at stake, for whom, and how?

Multilevel governance in Vietnam

Village Village Village

Commune

Village

Commune

District

Province

National

Global

Marks (1992) “authority and policy-making

influence…shared across multiple levels of

government - subnational, national, and

supranational”

Ad quote!!

Presenter

Presentation Notes

REDD+ is a multilevel process in which different scales and multiple actors and institutions come together around decision-making processes on land use and benefit sharing, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) REDD+ could provide an opportunity to build more legitimate governance processes and harmonize imperatives around development, poverty alleviation and conservation of landscapes and reduction of C emissions.

Vietnam background Forest cover declined to about 27% in 1990. but by 2010 forest cover reached 39.5% (13 million ha) as a result of government programmes.

Forest ownership types 1. State agencies e.g. State-owned companies

(SOCs), Management boards for protection forest (PFMNs), Management boards for special use forest (PAMBs)

2. Individual, private organization or joint venture companies

3. Village communities as collective ownership

Forest categories:• Production forest (6.3 million ha), • Protection forest (4.8 million ha) • Special-use forest (almost 2 million ha).

BSM Vietnam: Payment for Forest Ecosystem services (PFES) Nationwide PES schemes - Hydropower most

prevalent (total 190 HPP) Donor and nationally financed Total hydropower payments for 2013 US

$49,574,948 Piloted in Lam Dong & Son La in 2008 &

became nationwide in 2010 3.6 million ha out of a potential 4.1 million ha

has received benefits. The average level of payment of the amount

determined forest area for PFES in VN (2013) is around 10,6 USD/ha/year;

Buyers (i.e. hydropower company)

National fund

Provincial FPDF (Forest Protection and Development

Fund)

PFES suppliers (i.e. forest owners)

10% admin costs

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Vietnam is the first country in Asia to initiate a nationwide PFES schemeVietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), which is responsible for implementing PFES, has issued clear guidelines and procedures for the implementation of watershed protection. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam states that all forest resources belong to people. On behalf of the people, the state manages forest resources and regally grants the managements use rights to different groups depending on the forest classification (UN-REDD 2010). Hydropower production facilities must pay for services for soil protection, reduction of erosion and sedimentation of reservoirs, rivers and streams, and for services for regulation and maintenance of water sources for hydropower production. Buyers, which according to Decree 99 are water supply companies and hydropower plants, actually simply pass their PFES costs on to the end user. The average disbursement rate of PFES funds is relatively low at 46% (VNFF 2013) Civil society, organisations are involved in decision‑making but have little influence because of their political role. K1 – Forest volume status: Rich -poor & rehabilitated; K2 – Forest function: Special use/protection /production; K3 – Forest origination: natural forest or plantation); K4 – Difficulty of forest protection: very difficult to less difficult

REDD+, PFES and Vietnam

• The National REDD+ Action Program was approved in June 2012 jurisdictional approach.

• lessons learnt from PFES should be adopted to wider REDD+ scheme.

• Pilot REDD+ project sites established • the potential for government agencies and

state-owned companies to capture the benefits of REDD+ is high, given that 80% of high-quality forest is under the management of state agencies.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The advantage of building upon existing legal frameworks is that it can reduce the costs of establishing and operating new institutions for sharing benefits from REDD+ and could receive more political support from the state.

Research goals

1. To understand how land use decisions are made (across levels and sectors) and how change occurs (including BSMs).

2. To understand the extent to which existing multilevel governance arrangements support the effective and equitable adoption of REDD+ or other low-carbon options.

MethodsI. Key informant interview / site selection instrument (national & Regional

level)regional level key informants (government and non government).

II. Key informant interview (District & Provincial level)located in the area of the particular initiative selected. e.g. Knowledge of land use decisions and practices that have led to increasing/decreasing C emissions within the district;

III. In-depth interviews on land use and land use change District & commune)actors directly involved in any kind of land use change and could be used in conjunction with the benefit sharing surveye.g. Detailed history of land use change, Procedural and outcome legitimacy, Actor interactions regarding land use

IV. Interview/survey on Benefit sharing structures and processesactors directly involved in benefit sharing arrangements (REDD+, PES, SFM, etc), both in design and as beneficiaries at site level.

Key stakeholders

Government actors

(provincial and district level)

Communityrepresentatives

NGOsPrivate sector

Community based

organisations

Dien Bien

Nghe An

Provincial map of Vietnam

Site Selection(Provinces: Dien Bien

and Nghe An)Dien Bien

Nghe An

Site (both provincial and district level) selection criteria:

• Multilevel governance diversification;• Status of REDD+ and other

conservation initiatives; • Diversity in overall patterns of land

use;• Carbon emission status (increasing/

decreasing); • Accessibility, feasibility etc.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Layout: Section Header Variation: none

Site summary Dien Bien Nghe An

Total land area 950,000 ha 1,648,820 ha

Forested land 394,000 ha (40%) 972,910.52 ha (59% in 2013)

Forest cover status Decreasing (–46000 ha forest cover change 2008- 2011 )

Increasing (+76,800) ha forest cover change 2008 – 2011 )

Special use 760,449 ha 169,207 ha

Protection forest 413,832 ha 302,068 ha

Production forest 298,032 ha 501,635 ha

Population 519,000 habitants 2,952,000 inhabitants

Selected communes Muong Cha district:Hua Ngai communeMuong Muon commnue

Dien Bien dstrict:Muong Pon communeMuong Nha commune

Con Cuong: Chi KheLuc Da

Tuong Duong:Yen NaThach Giam

Source: Nghe An department of foreign affairs (2014) General statistics office of Vietnam (2014)

Results: Interviewees

Province: DienBien (5)

District: DienBien (6)

Commune:Muong Nha (9)

Muong Pon (8)

District: MuongCha (6/7)

Muong Muon(9)

Hua Ngai (9)

Province: Nghe An (9)

District: Con Cuong (4/5)

Commune:Chi khe (10)

Luc Da (6)

District: Tuong Duong

(5)

Thach Giam(9)

Yen Na (8)

NGHE AN(total 52)

Dien Bien (Total 53)

Preliminary findings Dien Bien Nghe An

National

subnational

Local

Hydro plants payments very low- HHs received a PFES payment of $0.31 per ha

- 700 ha deforested in construction

Hydropower construction driver of deforestation and people displacement – HPP

establishment had little legitimacy

Forested allocation – conflict over land rights

Forest allocation was perceived positively in areas where complete – participatory

Shifting forest type categorisation to special use

Shifting forest type categorization to production

Reforestation unpopular as low demand Replantation extremely popular throughout province due to accessible market and high

demand (Acacia and Melia) Forest protection fund and groups were positive about the

distribution and procedural aspects.

Decentralization has created a burden for lower governments and functional

local government unable to implement policies effectively due to low capacity

Protect local neighbouring area but go further to convert forest land

Shifting cultivation halted in the 1990’s, except for Thach Giam

Rubber plantation driver of deforestation but promoted for improving socio-

economic conditions

Rubber plantations in province but not significant in study communes

The three e’s

Strengths

• Clear land tenure and land management plans

• Participatory procedures• Successful government reforestation

government programme • Certain ethnic groups more open to SFM

practices

Effectiveness

Equity

Efficiency

Weaknesses

• Lack of coordination and consistency between government sectors

• Low capacity and manpower at local government levels

• HPP development top-down procedures

• Low or unpaid PFES payments

• Policy driven approaches present an avenue for participation but what this means remains unclear

• Same policies across the country and in some cases it will work and others not -due to diversity of socio-economic conditions

Presenter

Presentation Notes

hydro plant in Ma River, with a watershed in Muong Nha commune, sold a small volume of electricity in 2013, therefore HHs received a PFES payment of $0.31 per ha / per in 2013 compared to HHs in watershed area of Hoa Binh Hydro Plant, around VND 8.7 per ha / per yr Those that have good practices of forest management have not obtained PFES, because the provincial government wants to convert those forests into special-use forest are in jeopardy as in the near future and become legal owners of forests and the PFES that they are going to be obtained is depended on the special-use management boards. Some local people said that they are going to destroy their forests in order to maintain their rights to use forest resources and equal payment as other people We argue that a fully specified definition of equity is indispensible to just and effective policy, planning, and assessment of the social impacts of change in the value of ecosystem services. In contrast, much of the current policy discourse on climate change seems to relegate equity to distribution alone. We contend that the three interdependent dimensions of equity – distribution, procedure, and the contextual disposition of capabilities, access and power – all contribute to the degree of (in)equity in the social condition.

Still to find out…National: What are the key interests of the different government sectors and which have more influence and why on land use? e.g. benefits and burdens between HHP development and PFES

Sub national and district: what are the key priorities for sub-national government do these compliment national and/or local government interests? e.g. change of forest status

Local: How are top down government programs perceived and implemented by the local households/communities? What are the oppurtunites and barriers? e.g. Do the high opportunity cost of Acacia and other profitable species implicate primary forest cover?

Thank you for listeningProject website: http://www.cifor.orgEmail: [email protected] further information:

Pham, T.T. et al. (2013) Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: From policy to practice, Occasional paper, CIFOR.Pham T.T. et al. (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries, Working Paper 108, CIFOR.Luttrell C. et al (2013) Who Should Benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Realities, Ecology and Society, 18(4): 52.Lasse, L. et al (2014) Lessons from Payments for Ecosystem Services for REDD+ Benefit-Sharing Mechanisms, CIFOR InfoBrief.

Many thanks to Project director: Grace Wong, Principal Scientist: Anne Larson, Cross-country WP6 coordinator Ashwin ravikumar Scientist: Pham Pu Thuy VAFS consultant: Cecilia Luttrell and Vu tan Phuong Researchers: Tien Nguyen and Le Quang Trung, Field assistants: Dung le Ngoc, Tran Vu Phuong, Nguyen Van Truong,

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Layout: Closing Slide Variation: none

http://www.cifor.org/

mailto:[email protected]

Science

The equity of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms? A multilevel governance analysis in Vietnam