INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

REDD+ BENEFIT SHARING: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THREE NATIONAL POLICY

APPROACHES

John Costenbader

IUCN Environmental Law Centre

Presentation for ‘REDD+ Partnership Workshop on Enhancing Coordinated Delivery of REDD+: Emerging Lessons, Best Practices and Challenges’ 26 November 2010

Flow of presentation

• Forest policy approaches:- PES- PFM- Forest Concessions

• Architectural comparison• Drivers• Challenges & lessons

Payments for Environmental Services (PES) approach

• Key feature of PES is conditionality of payments on provision of environmental services– PES can provide link between national & sub-national

REDD+ activities• PES projects so far usually deal with private land,

and literature mostly considers payments to individuals

• But issues relevant in upscaling PES to REDD+– PES encompasses wider array of payment

arrangements, including national-subnational (IGFT)– Around 80% tropical forests de jure state forest, and

some countries have large areas community forest

PES as REDD+ benefit delivery instrument

• Challenges in delivering benefits to/across local level…– Equity, exclusivity, efficiency & conditionality

• …. but good news, too:– Bundling smallholders (Oddar Meanchey,

Cambodia)– Simplified monitoring (Plan Vivo projects, global)– Local carbon inventorying (Kyoto: Think Global Act

Local project, global)– Prioritized equitable criteria for accepting

payment applicants (PSAH program, Mexico)

Participatory Forest Management (PFM) approach

• PFM represents decentralized strategy to local forest management

• Two main types of PFM:– Joint (Collaborative) Forest Management (JFM) • State-retained ownership, responsibility• Fewer rights and benefits to local communities

– Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM)• Devolution of rights, ownership, responsibility, benefits• But with responsibility also comes risk….

PFM: good potential to complement REDD'+'

• PFM promising as REDD+ platform:– Devolution of forest land ownership and benefits to local

communities often results in improved management and conservation

– SFM benefits can complement REDD+ benefits, where either alone might fail to provide adequately to local communities

• Major improvements needed to ensure equity & incentives:– Elite capture of benefits (horizontal & vertical)

– Administrative controls can overly complicate PFM projects & restrict access to forest benefits

– Fuller devolution needed of ownership, benefits

• But good news as well: – Recent examples of state devolution of forest management,

ownership and benefits to local control

Forest concession approach

• A default REDD+ benefit-sharing option based on agreements for splitting concession revenues– Generally state decides a split of revenues between

state, loggers and villagers nearby forest• Revenue-sharing percentages determined at

national level could miss differing opportunity costs• Vertical & horizontal benefit allocation challenging• Concessions could exclude poor smallholders• But also potential efficiencies as may upscale quickly

PES PFM Forest Concession

Equity (+) Potentially high if poor/marginal groups targeted

(-) JFM: likely low(+) CBFM: potentially high if poor/marginal groups targeted & liability sharing

(-) potential small -holder exclusion (both from customary lands & benefits)

Efficiency (+) Good if opp. costs continually estimated(-) Transaction costs in upscaling

(+) Wide potential group of beneficiaries if mixed w/ SFM(-) Transaction costs in upscaling

(+) Low transaction costs, easily upscaled(-) Likely over/under-payments (if national mgmt.)

Effectiveness (+) potential for long-term sustainability(+) potential for multiple PES instruments

(+) CBFM: incentives if locally-owned /benefits(-) JFM: likely low if state-owned/controlled

(+) Provincial mgmt. allowing for local opp. cost estimates(-) National mgmt. using uniform RS split

Land Ownership / Tenure Regime

Likely private ownership & control(but need to clarify tenure)

Mixed:• CBFM: more private ownership/control• JFM: state ownership/ control

Likely state ownership; private control for leasehold(but potential land tenure concerns)

Regional deforestation drivers & potential benefit-sharing implications

Regional deforestation drivers & potential benefit-sharing implications

Regional deforestation drivers & potential benefit-sharing implications

Common challenges, lessons & questions

• Need to balance payments between actors and programs outside and inside forests

• Benefits should target poor/marginal actors or they risk receiving insignificant benefits or even may be negatively affected

• Exploring the ‘plus’ in REDD+ can help make viable a transition to sustainable economies and livelihoods

• ‘Carbon rights’ determine actors eligible for benefits, but REDD+ benefits may indirectly target actors without rights also

• Mechanisms to promote equity, efficiency & effectiveness essential to REDD+ success

• Given difficulties of resolving land tenure, alternative indirect benefit-sharing means should be considered