8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
1/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
2/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
3/54
Estado de Mato Grosso datos
Area: 903,000 km Amazon 51%, Cerrado 43%, Pantanal 6%
2.9 millones de personas
Urbanization 76%
El estado brasilieo con la mas alta
produccin de cereales
Soja: 17 MT en 2008 (8% de produccion
global), Algodon 2 MT
Ganado: 26 M animales en 2008
2nd productor de madera en Amazonia
4.0 Mm de troncos/maderos procesados in
2009
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
4/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
5/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
6/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
7/54
ganado en Brasil/Amazonia (numero de
animales) y precio de res
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
8/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
9/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
10/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
11/54
Enfoque a noroeste deMato Grosso, a un
municipio (Cotriguau)
y a distinto actores y
instituciones/
instrumentos para laconservacin de
bosques y REDD+
Mato Grosso est
siendo estudiado por el
proyecto PolicyMix
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
12/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
13/54
Areas deforestadas en Mato Grosso
Areas deforestadas: 37% delterrritorio del estado
55% fue deforestado despues de 1990
Augmento en la demanda para
tierra de uso agricola
Costo de oportunidad medio
estimado $ 1,500 / ha
Costo de oportunidad es previsto
a augmentarRemaining forestsRemaining savannas
Main roads
Deforested areas
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
14/54
Estructura de la tenencia de tierra en Mato
Grosso
Category
Number ofareas
Area
# km 000 %
Indigenous Lands 68134 15
Conservation Units 7333 4
Smallholders settlements 386 43 5
Private properties ~ 100,000694 77
Registered in SLAPR 10,700206 23
Not yet registered ~ 90,000488 54
Total 903 100
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
15/54
Instituciones principales existentes en Mato
Grosso para la conservacion
ZSEE - Ecological Economic Zoning (regla de % de bosque en tierrasprivadas)
SIMLAM (Sistema Integrado de Monitoramento e Licenciamento
Ambiental) Land use planning
Monitoring and control
Incentive to sustainable activities (sustainable criteria)
Legal Mato Grosso program
Ecological Value Added Tax
I i i NUEVAS M G l
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
16/54
REDD Mato Grosso incluye:
Legal, Regulatory technical and institutional framework
REDD law and regulations
Principles criteria and procedures for the registration and/or certification of REDD
projects
State-wide sector specific programs: (private forests, family farming, indigenous peoples)
Defining the state baselines
Designing the institution for the issuance of REDD credits
Designing the functions to manage the REDD system
Instituciones NUEVAS en Mato Grosso para laconservacion:
REDD y crditos de carbon
Governors Climate and Task Force - ya est legalizado enCalifornia (cap and trade system)
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
17/54
Proyecto GEF/UNDP/Mato Grosso:
Promoted alternative land use systems and territorial environmental management
11 local partner organizations:
5 municipal governments
2 indigenous associations
3 associations of colonists / agrarian reform settlements
1.78 million for mosaic of protected areas
Non timber forest production investements (Brazil nuts, latex)
Attracted 1.5 million in public investment through the Mato Grosso Legal program
Pioneer FSC management certificate for 29,000 ha of certified forest management
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
18/54
REDD General approach and targets
Reference scenario basedon historical emissions
Estimate future deforestation?
crediting baseline?
Baseline and target for cerradoand for degradation?
Estimate of emissions?
Additionality:deforestation reduction
Generate REDD Certificates(Credits)
Deforestation reduction target in Mato Grossos forest area,2006-2020
reduction
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
19/54
Mucho analisis y planes para REDD+ enfatizan lacuantificacion del servicio de carbon como una moneda
(ton CO2-eq), y el sistema del monitoreo, y el mecanismo
de pagos correlacionados con los costos de oportunidad
(p.e. Banco Mundial FCPF).
Tendencia de organizacines globales mencionar los
aspectos institucionales, los derechos, y la legitimidad,
pero no los enfatizan ni enfatizan motivaciones sociales o
culturales en la conservacin. Enfasis en el mercado.
Problemas conceputales con el modelo de
REDD+/PES
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
20/54
Requiere un mercado perfecto para funcionar bien - lo cualtiene poca relevancia socio-ecologica (Muradian et al. 2010)
No se puede compensar para todos los costos de oporunidad
($1,500/ha) !
La commodificacin tiende a limitar nuestra percepciones almundo natural y al las relacines socio-ecologicas: aislapropiedades de los ecosistemas, no toma en cuenta valores
sociales o culturales, ni las relaciones de poder entre diferentesgrupos sociales. (Kosoy y Corbera 2010).
Problemas conceputales con el modelo de
REDD+/PES
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
21/54
Mas all de un mercado, hay las estructuras de
gobernanza, las instituciones o las reglas de juego, y lasdinmicas sociales, culturales e economica-politicas
1. los derechos y obligaciones de distintos actores y como estanafectados
2. los costos de transaccion (que incluye el tiempo y el costo deinformacion)
3. perspectivas, intereses, valores de los distintos grupos
Problemas conceputales con el modelo de
REDD+/RED
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
22/54
REDD+ tiene un enfoque limitado
- todo lo siguiente esta implicada
en el crisis global de la tierra:
Seguridad (o Soberania) Alimentaria
Pobreza rural
Agua Perdida de biodiversidad
Emisiones de gases de efecto
invernadero (GEI)
REDD/REDD+ se dirige a las
emissiones de GEI solamente!
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
23/54
Objectivo prinicpal: Identificar las condiciones contextuales
(institucional) que serian necesarios para que la conservacin debosques puede funcionar frente a distintos grupos agrarios.
Pregunta central: cuales instituciones/instrumentos son vistos
como legitimos (o no legitimos) desde su punta de vista social ycultural?
Hipotesis central: estrategias multiples son necesarios para la
legitimidad social de una politica de conservacin
Propuesta de tesis
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
24/54
Una propuesta para un mezclamix de
instituciones que lograria legitimidad social (y de alli,politica eficaz).
Una metodologia para probar para la legitimidad ycoherencia de las instituciones/instrumentos ya
validada en el campo.
Aporte investigativo a PolicyMix
Aportes del tesis
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
25/54
Legitimidad (Legitimacy):
everyone involved accepts the processes and
outcomes (Corbera et al. 2007) todos estan deacuerdo con el procedimiento y lasconsecuencias/resultados
Conceptos / definiciones claves
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
26/54
Costos de transaccin:
Costos no-monetarios y monetarios para participar, o estarde acuerdo con, una institucion
El tesis enfoque a los costos percebidos (tiempo, esfuerzo)de los actores
Conceptos / definiciones claves
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
27/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
28/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
29/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
30/54
Enfoque a un proyecto pilotoREDD+ en Cotriguau:
1 -- Mejoramienteo de la gobernanza de
bosques
2 -- Incentivos para la conservacion de bosquesen tierras con tenencia privada
89% de la deforestacin esta ocurriendo enpropiedades privadas
Propiedades privadas tienen 56% delbosque remanente
Incluye incentivos para
La conservacion de bosque remanente
Manejo sostenible de bosquesnaturales
La intensificacion de la ganaderia
3 -- Una garantia para compensacion paragrupos indigenos y tradicionales y paraagricultores colonistas
Los pagos sern realizados por via de los
mercados de carbon (voluntarios? California?)
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
31/54
Como probar que hay/no hay legitimidad., y en que
consisten estas percepciones?
Metodos cualitativos e etnogrficos
Mas que la informacion y beneficios/no beneficios;involucra interfaces entre grupos y instituciones
Metodologia
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
32/54
POLICYMIX WP 5 Guidelines for
Assessing Social Impacts and Legitimacy
in Conservation
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
33/54
POLICYMIX WP 6.1 Guidelines for the
analysis of institutions shaping biodiversity
policy instrument applicability
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
34/54
Metodos cualitativos organizados por subobjectivo
Qualitativemethods and
sample sizes
Key informantInterviews
unstructured (n=10)
Focus groups(total n=13)
Surveys
Land-basedstakeholders
Semi-structuredindividual
interviews (n=40)
Land-basedstakeholders
Subobje ct ive 1
Identification
of st akeholder actors
Subobje ct ive 2
Identification/
characteristics/
interdependencies o f
institutions
(n=10) (n=5)
Subobje ct ive 3
Stakeholder
perceptions on
Transaction costs
Procedures
Distributional
outcomes
Subobje ct ive 4
Stakeholder
perceptions on
Institutional
legitimacy;
Institutional
influence on
conservation
attitudes/culture/
subjectivity
(n=8) (n=60) (n=40)
Subobjectivo 1 mapeo de los actores sociales
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
35/54
Subobjectivo 1 - mapeo de los actores sociales
(stakeholders)
SUBOBJECTIVE 1 QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES
Determine stakeholder actor
groups involved in /affected by
the pilot REDD+ project inCotriguau, and, for each group,their perspective natural resources
rights/responsibilities or on policydesign priorties.
Ex post.
All scales (local to global).
Qualitative. Based on key
informant interviews and focus
groups.
How do local land-based actors perceive
their land and natural resource rights andresponsibilities?
What are the past and current policy design
and implementation priorities for policy
implementing stakeholder s in the REDD+
context? ( e.g. PES, protected areas, MRV,
agriculture)
Number and type of actors involved in design of various
institutions/instruments in the REDD+ context
e.g.
Cattle ranchers Land settler colonists and small farmers Agrindustrial f armers (soy, cotton) Indigenous/traditional communities (Rikbaksta ,
quilombos)
Loggers NGOs (ICV, TNC) Municipal and Mato Grosso state functionaries
Brazilian federal functionaries Carbon market intermediaries Activist/agrarian reform organizations?
Determinar cuales son los grupos de actores que estn implicados (como
agente o sujeto) el proyecto piloto de REDD+ en Cotriguau, y, para cadagrupo, sus perspectivas sobre el uso de recursos naturales o su sprioridades
sobre el diseo de programas y politicas
Subobjectivo 1 - mapeo de los actores sociales
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
36/54
Scale Stakeholders/Organizations
Possible perspectives,interests, motivations,
values
Community or
individual level
Cattle ranchers
Land settler colonists
Indigenous communities
T imber ext ractor s
Livelihood
Business income
Culture
Municipal /
State
Municipal government
State government
State environmental ministry
ICV
Agricultural lobbies
Electoral
Revenues
Monitoring
Enforcement
EducationProject Management
National Amazon Fund
Brazil federal ministries
IBAMA INCRA FUNAI
Agricultural national lobbies
Sovereignty
Electoral
Development
Global PolicyMixUNFCCC
Government of Norway
Carbon project intermediaries (e.g.
finance/consulting companies e.g. Terra)
Carbon verifiers (VCS)
World Bank
UN-REDD
TNC
Global NGOs with alternative positions (FOE)
Oil/gas/coal lobbies
Cost effectiveCost efficientEnvironmentally effective
Subobjectivo 1 - mapeo de los actores sociales
(stakeholders)
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
37/54
Actores en el paisaje
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
38/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
39/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
40/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
41/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
42/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
43/54
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
44/54
Subobjetivo 2 - mapeo de instituciones
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
45/54
Subobjetivo 2 - mapeo de instituciones
SUBOBJECTIVE 2Institutional design (rules)
QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES
Determine the
institutions/instruments (formal andinformal) relevant to the pilot
REDD+ project, the c riteria/values
applied in their design, andinterdependencies/interplay betweenthem.
Ex post.
Local to national scale (not
global).
Based on review of secondaryliterature on formal le gal/policy
environment, and key informant
interviews.
Which institutions/instruments does REDD+ (in
Cotriguau) incorp orate: economic/incentives (e.g. PES/EFT) legal/regulatory/enforc ement (e.g. EEZ) information mechani sms (e.g. Simlam) customary/infor mal (e..g Rikbakta selfgovernance)
What values/criteri a (e.g. additionality, common goods)
are used in the design, implementation and adaptation of
these institutions/instruments?
What rights and responsibilities are involved with these
institutions / instruments ? e.g:1. land tenure rights2. representation/ac cess to institut ions3. entitlements4. access to grievan ce mec hanisms
Which institutional sy nergies and conflicts exist as a
result of REDD+ institutional interactions?
How are REDD + institutional criteria interdependent
with other biodiversity conservation and ruraldevelopment institutional criteria?
Formal legal and policy framework (historical and
present)
Number and type of institut ions comprising or relate d to
REDD+
Types of rules that each institution/instrument
establishes? (e. g. rules of exclusion, entitlemen t rules,
monitoring rules, d ecision -making rules)
Purpose of the institution/instrument in natural resource
governanc e (i.e. collective choice, conflict resolution,
enforcement, provisioning and recovery of its costs)
Functional levels for each institution/instrument (i.e.
constitutional, operational, collective choice) and thespatial di stribution of these functions
(e.g. state, municipal , rural, courts, online)
Scale s (structural tiers ) at which each
institution/instrument operates
(e.g. local, state, national, global)
Reasons for rule changes (e.g. changes in procedure and
changes in th e distribution of benefits/costs)
INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS / RULES ?
Determinar las instituciones/instrumentos (formales y informales) que
estn implicadas en el proyecto piloto REDD+, los criterios/valores en su
diseo/implmentacin, y interdependencias entre ellas
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
46/54
Subobjetivo 2 - mapeo de instituciones
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
47/54
Institution (rights-responsibili ties
Type Scale Possible institutional rule criteria /values
(cf. Pascual et al. 2010)Payments to land
users/manag ers
(PES) based on
carbon markets
Economic Local/
State
Additionality vs. C arbon stock
Compensation
Common goods
Egalitarian
Actual provision
Ecological fiscaltransfer to
municipalities
(EFT)
Economic State
Guareented market
price for NTFP
Economic National/
Global?
Land tenure rights
and territorial
manag ement
Legal
(+informal)
National
Zoning (f orest
reserve) (EEZ )
Legal National/
State
SIG land use
system
(SIMLAM)
Information State Egalitarian ? (but favoring larger
landowner s with facility to access
intermediarie s, technology (transaction
costs))
Timber/wood
Certification
Information Global Common goods?
Agriculture/Agriforestry
Information National/State
Common goods
Subobjetivo 2 mapeo de institucionesDeterminar las instituciones/instrumentos (formales y informales) que
estn implicadas en el proyecto piloto REDD+, los criterios/valores en su
diseo/implmentacin, y interdependencias entre ellas
Subobjetivo 3 - percepciones sobre las consecuencias
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
48/54
de procedimiento y de distribucion
SUBOBJECTIVE 3
Stakeholder perceptions on institutional designand performance
QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES
Determine the perceptions of stakeholder in themunicipality/region (not actors at all sc ales!),on procedures,distributional outcomes
(incurred benefits and costs), and transactioncosts, involving REDD+ in Cotrigua u
(i.e. the various institutions that comprise or
are implicated in the pilot REDD+ project)
Ex post.
Local scale.
Informal / qualitative / e thnographic
analysis.
What institut ional/economic instrument proceduresare known?
Why do beneficiaries decide to participate in x
institutions/instruments related t o REDD+ ?
What are actors investments in time, learning to
participate or be in compliance (perceived
transaction costs)?
Are institutional procedures deemed to be fair?
based on recognition of stakeholderidentity
How are distributional outcomes (incurred benefits
and costs) deemed to be fair?
Are existing or new rights secure and enforced?
Number of participants and hectares in REDD+
Number of participants who fail to comply with
one or more institut ional rules
Actorsinterests, socio-cultural values and landuse practices taken into account or exclude d in the
design, impl ementation and adaptation of REDD+
institutional context?
Perceived time required to assess institut ions /
gather info rmation
Perceived time required for participation and
fulfillment of n ew responsibili ties
Perceptions of procedural justice
(being recogni zed, having a say, having
influence/pow er)
Perceptions of distributional justice
(money, training)
Determinar las percepciones de los actores en la regin sobre distintosprocedimientos, beneficios/costos (consecuencias), y costos de
transaccin, que tiene que ver con REDD+ o la conservacin (p.e.
programas ya implementadas por el GEF)
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
49/54
Subobjetivo 4 - percepcion de la legitimidad y
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
50/54
Subobjetivo 4 - percepcion de la legitimidad y
la influyencia de las instituciones REDD+
SUBOBJECTIVE 4
Recognition oflegitimacy/authority and
subjectivity
QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES
Determine if/how the legitimacyor authority of different
institutions/instruments (REDD+related) are recognized, and
if/howattitudes/c ulture/subjectivity
involving conservation/theenvironment are supported,
generated, or transformed.
Ex post and ex ante.
Local scale.
Informal / qualitative /
ethnographic analysis .
The local stakeholder s perceive institutions/inst ruments
as fair, just and legitimate?
How do local stakeholders define problems and
information gathering processes , and make decisions in relation to/with t hese institutions?
How do local stakeholders perceive that the
institutions/instruments have affected AND will affect
their land use and conservation practices?
Which actors shape the forest conservation and REDD+
institutional landscape, and how are their perspectives,interests and motivations represented in the final rules?
Discourse of different stakeholders surrounding the
legitmacy an d authority of different institutions
Qualitative extent of interaction between local stakeholders
and managing institions
Qualitative extent t o which local stakeholders define
problems and information gathering -processes
Characteristics of stakeholder group influence on
institutional design, implementation and adaptiveness
Determinar si la legitimidad o la autoridad de distinta
instituciones/instrumentos (conservacin o REDD+) son reconocidas, y si
valores/intereses/motivaciones para la conservacin y el uso sostenible de
bosques y la tierra, son apoyados o generados
M d fi
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
51/54
Metodos etnogrficos
ANNEX I: questionaire survey
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
52/54
Sample questionaire surveys for local land user stakeholders. The survey is organized by
reference to different insitutions (see table 2 for institutions involved in REDD+).
Insti tution: Payments for forest carbon credits (PES)
1. are you aw are of programs for payments for environmental servicesfor forestcarbon?
2. how do you accessthe program ? in other words, do you show identification, provideyour name? do you need specific doc uments? official title to land?
3. what is your understanding of how this program functions? what is forest carbon?4. what is the objective of the program, in your own words?5. In general, how do you view this program? (scale of 1-10: 1- very negatively 10- very
positively)
6. can you w eight the following in terms of how it influences your positive or negativeperception of this program (on a sc ale of 1 not at all to 10 tremendously):
effort / time needed to participate financial benefits or costs acc ess to training or information access to services acc ess to tools, in kind goods, or technology philosophy or values informing the design and implementation the program how it affects rights and responsibilities involving forests and land social/community value or importance for natural resource practices the programs ability / non-abili ty to adapt to local needs
7. how much time / effort / money does it take to participate? (scale of 1-10: 1-minimally difficult 10- impossibly difficult)
8. have you stopped participating or have you decided not to follow therecommendations? why?
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
53/54
9. do you feel that your voice is heard in decisionmaking around this program? Do youhave a say in how the program is designed, operates or changes? (scale of 1-10: 1-
negatively 10- tremendoustly)
10.how do you feel that PES has contributed to your material well being (scale of 1-10: 1-negatively 10- tremendoustly) (economic)11.how do you feel that PES has provided good information, or has helped you to access
or participate in other programs? (information) how much on a scale of 1-10?
12.do you feel that PES has contributed to your being able to have a say or an influencein how decisions are made? (sociopolitical) how much on a scale of 1-10?
13.how do you feel PES contributes to your rights, participation in collectivemanagement of natural resources (scale of 1-10 : 1 not at all 10-tremendously)
14.Has this institution affected your perspective on other programs/institutions? to engagewith or stop engaging with other programs/institutions? If so, how?
15.how do you feel this instituion has contributed to your sense of responsibili ty aboutthe environment?
16.can you characterize in your own words this sense of responsibilty?
8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15
54/54
Top Related