国際航業株式会社 - REDDUNFCCC + + + + + + + BOCM + NAMA + REDD+ REDD+ FS + + + METI,MOE FS + + + REDD
Benefit and burden sharing in forest conservation and REDD+: A conceptual framework
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Environment
-
view
316 -
download
3
Transcript of 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thank you!
For further information: [email protected]
With co-financing from:
The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is funded by: