REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal (and Indonesia)
-
Upload
center-for-international-forestry-research-cifor -
Category
Education
-
view
645 -
download
0
description
Transcript of REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF) in Nepal (and Indonesia)
REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism (BSM): Lessons from Community Forestry (CF)
in Nepal [ and Indonesia]
Naya Sharma Paudel & Ani Adiwinata Nawir
Forest Asia SummitJakarta
5-6 May 2014
Benefit sharing: why lessons from CF to REDD+?
• CF institutions have developed well established BSM that are legitimate, recognised by national law and incentivise forest conservation
• Nepal’s CF scheme is regarded as a successful approach in forest conservation and therefore its lessons on BSM provide good basis
• CF generates and distributes co-benefits beyond carbon therefore provides relevant lessons for REDD+
Management role
Patterns of ownership
Private Communal State
Private Privately managed forests around households
(e.g. farm forestry)
Privately-managed on community lands
(e.g. Customary land in Borneo: tembawang)
Public land allocation scheme for individually
managed (e.g. Community-Based
Plantation)
Communal Private land organised by community
institutions
Communal mgm on community lands(e.g. Village Forest in
Indonesia)
State land allocated for community management: (e.g. reforestation projects in Indonesia; CF in Nepal)
State Co-management
Co-management on privately-owned lands
(e.g. outgrower schemes)
Co-management on communal lands (e.g. JFM in India)
State lands allocated to community group
(e.g. CFM in Nepal & the Philippines)
Sources: Adapted from FAO (1985); Mayers (2000); Arnold (2001); Calderon and Nawir (2004); and Nawir (2012)
Community forestry: a major forest regime in Nepal
• Government’s major programme• Over 18000 community groups
(35% of pop)• A quarter of forest area under CF• Substantial livelihoods benefits,
community infrastructure, social services
CF: a unique tenure arrangement
• Government owns forestlands • Bundle of rights are transferred to CF group (access, use, management and exclusion)
• There is no time limit, but the Operation Plan requires periodic renewal (in every 10 yrs)
• CF groups are required to get permission from DFO for harvesting, sale, enterprise operation
The DFO may handover any part of a National Forest to a users' group in the form of a Community Forest as prescribed entitling to develop, conserve, use and manage the forest and sell and distribute the forest products independently by fixing their prices according to OP.
Existing BSM in CF
With state
• CF groups enjoy 100% benefit from forests
• Includes – timber, non-timber, other ecosystem services
• Pay 15% royalty only for two species, it timber is sold outside the group
• State provides basic services including administrative, capacity building, forest inventory, management plan etc.
Within group
• Forest products: based on availability, traditional use and current need
• CF funds – community infrastructure, social services, pro-poor activities, forest management
• No cash benefits to individual members • CF funds should be invested – 25% forest
development, 35% pro-poor activities and rest on community priority
Piloting REDD benefit sharing
Payment Criteria
carbon stock and increment (40%)
Social criteria (60%)+
REDD Payment =
Innovations on equitable BSM
Procedural equity
• Inclusive representation in decision making bodies
• Social criteria for REDD+ payment
• Conditions for CF fund/REDD fund use (e.g. 35% for pro-poor activities)
Substantive equity
• Wellbeing ranking and integrating it in benefit sharing framework
• Forest based employment to poor • Support during difficulty• Land allocation to poor households• Differential price of forest products
Contestations on CF benefit sharing
CF expansion in valuable Terai forests
Guidelines on benefit sharing
Proposed 50% revenue to the government
Government owns land and therefore the
soil carbon
Regulatory control on trade and enterprise
Suggested provisions in benefit sharing
Benefit sharing is closely linked with tenure arrangement – clear, comprehensive and secure tenure is a pre-condition
Procedural equity at all levels of environmental governance is important to ensure substantive equity at local level
Forest management for multiple benefits serves equity purpose better than focusing on single benefit
Key messages