Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

13
Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework Grace Wong (CIFOR) and Lasse Loft (SGN) ISEE 2014 Reykjavik, Iceland, August 13-15, 2014

Transcript of Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Page 1: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+:

A conceptual framework

Grace Wong (CIFOR) and Lasse Loft (SGN)

ISEE 2014Reykjavik, Iceland, August 13-15, 2014

Page 2: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

CIFOR’s REDD+ Benefit Sharing project

Objective: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners with policy options to improve the design and implementation of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms that are effective, efficient and equitable

Timeframe: 2012-2016

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

Framework provides a shared working understanding to guide a comparative assessment of policy options based on research that covers different disciplines, countries and levels/sectors

Page 3: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

REDD+ benefits and burdens

Benefits = Direct + indirect

• Direct monetary gains from international and national finance related to REDD+ and benefits associated with the increased availability of forest products and ecosystem services

• Indirect benefits include improved governance and infrastructure provision

Burdens = costs + risks

• Opportunity costs

• Implementation costs (transfers, operations, transactions)

• Risks that could adversely affect access to benefits and achievement of the REDD+ objectives

Benefit sharing mechanism = range of institutional means, governance structures and instruments that distribute the net benefits

Sills , Wunder, Borner and Wong, 2013

Page 4: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

4

Other Policies,e.g. Forest Policy

REDD PolicyObjectives Instruments

BSM

Admin. Measur.

Direct Regul.

Env.

Social

Econ.

Outcome

Env.

Social

Econ.

Land use

change

Regulatees: Subnat’l: e.g. Province AdminLocal: Land Stewards

MotivationChange in behaviour

Incentive

Distribution

1

Institutional Enabling Factors

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

Property RightsDefinition &

Enforcement

Capacity

Building &

Responsibilities

2

3

Human induced and environmental pressures

Institutional Context Factors

Property Rights

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

Page 5: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

General assessment criteria

5

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

Luttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013

Page 6: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

6

Other Policies,e.g. Forest Policy

REDD PolicyObjectives Instruments

BSM

Admin. Measur.

Direct Regul.

Env.

Social

Econ.

Outcome

Env.

Social

Econ.

Land use

change

Regulatees: Land Stewards

MotivationChange in behaviour

Incentive

Distribution

1

Institutional Enabling Factors

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

Property RightsDefinition &

Enforcement

Capacity

Building &

Responsibilities

Human induced and environmental pressures

Institutional Context Factors

Property Rights

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

Assessment Step Specified Definition Indicator

1. Incentive Distribution

- Participation in the process of defining targeting criteria, and on size, timing and type of benefits.

- Distribution adheres to an agreed normative justice principle

- Targeting according to objective

- Participation adheres to procedural justice criteria

- Benefits reach targeted stakeholders and fits their justice principle

Page 7: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Targeting beneficiaries

Who should benefit from REDD+?

• Those with legal rights

• Those who are achieving emissions reductions

• The low emitting forest stewards

• Those who are incurring costs

• Those who are active facilitators

• The poorest

Most countries leaning towards actors with legal rights – risk of marginalizing customary rights and perverse spillovers

Lessons from other sectors/practices:

• CCT: target groups are based on specific socio-economic characteristics. Choice of eligibility criteria (more stringent or generalized) can involve trade-offs between additionality and costs.

Luttrell et al. 2013; Pham et al. 2013; Wong and Luttrell 2014

Page 8: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

8

Other Policies,e.g. Forest Policy

REDD PolicyObjectives Instruments

BSM

Admin. Measur.

Direct Regul.

Env.

Social

Econ.

Outcome

Env.

Social

Econ.

Land use

change

Regulatees: Land Stewards

MotivationChange in behaviour

Incentive

Distribution

Institutional Enabling Factors

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

Property RightsDefinition &

Enforcement

Capacity

Building &

Responsibilities

Human induced and environmental pressures

Institutional Context Factors

Property Rights

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

2

Assessment Step Specified Definition Indicator

2. Institutional Change

- Stakeholders are enabled to, and actually participate in the process,

- Changes with distributional effects, such as definition of property rights, adhere to an agreed justice principle

- Level of participation across sectors and levels in decisions about institutions, infrastructure and organization

- Definition of property rights adheres to an agreed justice principle

Page 9: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Participation and decisions across multi-level governance and sectors

MLG (Indonesia): while political decentralization is downward, bureaucratic accountability is upward – shifting responsibilities and blame leads to a gap in representation

• State sees justice as compensation and benefit sharing

• Local people consider justice as recognizing control access over land

Carbon rights are not differentiated in most countries – land and forest rights act as proxy – implications for access to benefits from certified emissions reductions

Lessons from other sectors/practices:

• Anti-corruption measures: Complex chain of transactions of creates opportunities for corruption. The lack of institutional linkages between the carbon and financial MRV at jurisdictional levels also facilitates corruption

Myers 2014; Loft, Andersson and Mwangi 2014; Mardiah and Arwida 2014

Page 10: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

10

Other Policies,e.g. Forest Policy

REDD PolicyObjectives Instruments

BSM

Admin. Measur.

Direct Regul.

Env.

Social

Econ.

Outcome

Env.

Social

Econ.

Land use

change

Regulatees: Land Stewards

MotivationChange in behaviour

Incentive

Distribution

Institutional Enabling Factors

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

Property RightsDefinition &

Enforcement

Capacity

Building &

Responsibilities

Human induced and environmental pressures

Institutional Context Factors

Property Rights

InstitutionalCapacity & Structure

3

Assessment Step Specified Definition Indicator

3. Outcome - Incentives, costs and risks are being distributed according to an agreed justice principle

- Beneficiaries have the freedom of choice on how to use benefits

- Level of benefits and costs distributed among stakeholders

- Freedom of choice on how to use benefits

Page 11: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Distribution of benefits and burdens at local level

Local perceptions of fairness in Vietnam relate to egalitarian principle – but may not be equitable as it tends to overlook merit-based actions

Under-representation of certain groups of stakeholders in decision-making creates risks of elite capture and limits payment options

Lessons from decentralization suggest that it is easier to devolve costs rather than benefits.

Lessons from other sectors/practices:

• Community forestry: stringent guidelines (Nepal) for protecting interests of marginalized groups may be useful for REDD+, but comes with high transaction costs. Community forests in Indonesia are largely on state land with only usufruct rights with responsibility for managing and restoring forests. Potential conflict with carbon rights.

Pham et al. 2014, 2013; Nawir and Paudel 2014

Page 12: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Negotiating choices and options

Clarity of national REDD+ objectives is critical – will define who should benefit and what are the relevant mix of policy instruments

There is no ‘one size fits all’ – framework is a guide to assessing BSM policy options based on the country contexts

Lessons being derived from:

• Decentralized management systems: community forestry systems, PES, conditional cash transfers

• Public administration: anti corruption measures, multi level governance structures

• Financial structures: fiscal transfers, trust funds, concession fees and taxes

• Industry processes: FLEGT, forest standards

Page 13: Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework

Thank you!

For further information: [email protected]

With co-financing from:

The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is funded by: