Design of 3E REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanisms: Learning from Other Experiences

Transcription

1 Design of 3E REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanisms: Learning from Other Experiences Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell, Lasse Loft, Anastasia Yang, Maria Brockhaus, Shintia Arwida, Januarti Tjajadi, Ani Nawir SBSTA 42, Bonn, June 2015

2 Outline Assessing 3Es in REDD+ benefit sharing Types and feature of BSMs reviewed 3E+ outcomes 1. Effectiveness 2. Efficiency 3. Equity 4. Cross-cutting issues Key lessons

3 Assessing 3Es in BSM: incentives, institutions, outcomes The design for a REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism needs to address: the distribution of incentives creation of enabling institutional conditions change in LU practices to realize carbon and non-carbon outcomes Effectiveness: relates to the environmental, social and economic impacts or performance of the instrument Efficiency: the level of administrative and social costs associated with the instrument to achieve the policy objectives Equity: 1) procedural refers to participation in decision making and inclusion and negotiation of competing views; 2) distributive refers to the allocation of outcomes and their impacts on different stakeholders Luttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al

4 What lessons can we learn from other sectors and experiences for REDD+ benefit sharing? 1. How to operationalize equity, identifying target groups, setting up eligibility criteria? 2. Are incentives provided for inputs or outcomes more effective in changing behavior? 3. What is the process of participation and decisionmaking at multiple levels? 4. How is accountability and outcomes measured and monitored?

5 Types & features of current BSMs and governance practices reviewed What kind of BSM is it/what are the benefits? Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Community Forestry systems (CF) Anti-corruption measures in Indonesia (ACM) Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) Standards and certification (S&C) Indigenous People s trust funds in Brazil (IPTF) Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) under FLEGT Mostly monetary (financial incentives) Non- monetary benefits include: environmental services, capacity building, improved livelihoods Governance issues: participation, legitimacy, transparency European Rural Development Policy (RDP)

6 Features Types & Features of reviewed BSMs (1/2) PES Community forestry Finances Variable Variable Level of governance Objective MLG Ecosystem provision and livelihood support MLG Rules are nationally applicable & developed locally Sustainable forest management and support livelihoods CCT National government and development donor funding MLG Developed nationally implemented across scales Promote socially desired actions IP trust funds in Brazil (IPTF) Variable: Donor funding, Carbon buyers MLG Regional local Reduce GHG s/ finance indigenous associations Envgovernance initiatives EU Rural Devleopment policy EU and national government MLG Support rural areas to meet economic, environmenta l and social challenges

7 Features Types & Features of reviewed BSMs (2/2) PES Community forestry CCT IP trust funds in Brazil (IPTF) EU Rural Devleopmen t policy Activities ES provision/ enhancement / Protection REDD+/ Sustainable forest management Socially desired actions such as for health outcomes, schooling, or vaccination. REDD+ /environmen tal management activities Financial incentives to enhance EU rural areas Timing variable A rights allocation based, input based and performance based approaches Up front or phased released Absence of timely financial flows Mostly phased released Beneficia ries ES provider - variable Forest based communities and possible partners Targeted beneficiaries Households IP communities Land managers Rights Those without can be Allocated NA Aim to strengthen Clear tenure systems

8 Lessons for: 1) Effectiveness 1. Use of input or intermediate indicators do not capture impacts or long-term outcomes the costs of monitoring longer-term outcomes often result in simplified proxy input indicators that do not adequately capture impacts or performance 2. Use of existing governance systems to better capture contextual factors 3. Involve local government 4. Coordination discussed everywhere but often lack the resources and institutional authority/ mandate

9 Lessons for: 2) Efficiency 1. Role of intermediaries critical to bridge between the global/national/corporate and multiple local beneficiaries. Examples: National Fund for Forest Financing (FONAFIFO) which manages the Costa Rica PES and the independent FAS which manages Bolsa Floresta in Brazil. 2. Addressing scale bundling smallholders into groups for PFES payments in Vietnam or leveraging on existing contracts 3. Using geographical targeting to increase effectiveness and efficiency 4. Clarifying tenure based on the nature of the ecosystem service

10 Lessons for: 3) Equity 1. Setting eligibility criteria for identifying target beneficiaries often entail trade-offs between efficiency and equity 2. Techniques for assessing and recognizing the level of costs and to whom they are accruing - S&C periodic review of producer costs (Fairtrade) 3. Setting fair payments and payment structure phased and upfront payments are useful for enabling broad participation but financial incentives must be maintained till end - Plan Vivo TGB 4. Paying attention to the type of benefit i. A focus on development activities and in kind benefits ii. The pros and cons of cash iii. Securing rights

11 Cross-cutting issues: Accountability/ legitimacy/ MRV 1. Inclusion and participation in process underrepresentation of certain groups in decision-making creates risks of elite capture and undermines legitimacy of the system 2. Transparency not sufficient by itself: enforcement and penalties are also important 3. Dispute resolution 4. MRV FLEGT uses independent auditing and multistakeholder oversight to ensure credibility

12 Key points for designing national REDD+ benefit sharing Important to learn from existing benefit sharing experiences to improve on design for REDD+ Effectiveness depends strongly on the governance systems and requires rigorous M&E system to capture impacts and outcomes Managing issues of scale, bundling and targeting can increase efficiency Assessing who benefits and structuring payments to address equity can involve trade-offs with efficiency Safeguards and an inclusive process are critical for legitimacy and credibility

13 This presentation draws from the following CIFOR research: Assembe, S. et al Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of benefit sharing schemes under large-scale agriculture: Lessons from land fees in Cameroon, European Journal of Development Research. Arwida S. et al Lessons from anti-corruption measures in Indonesia. InfoBrief 120. Gebara MF. et al Lessons from local environmental funds for REDD+ benefit sharing with indigenous people in Brazil. InfoBrief 98. Kowler LF. et al The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures for benefit sharing: REDD+ and other low emissions options in Peru. InfoBrief 101. Loft L. et al Lessons from payments for ecosystem services for REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms. InfoBrief 68. Loft, L. et al. (2015) Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: Concept meets reality. Forests 6: Luttrell et al Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 52. Myers, R. et al A comparative study of 10 land use change case studies in Indonesia. InfoBrief 18 Myers, R. et al Who holds power in land use decisions? Implications for REDD+ in Indonesia. InfoBrief 100. Nawir A. et al. (2015) Lessons from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia, InfoBrief 112. Pham T.T. et al. (2013). Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper Pham T.T. et al. (2014). Local preferences and strategies for effective, efficient and equitable PES benefit distribution options in Vietnam: Lessons for REDD+. Human Ecology. Tjajadi, J. et al Lessons from environmental and social sustainability certification standards. InfoBrief 119. Wong G. (2014). The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. InfoBrief 97. Yang, A. (Forthcoming) Lessons from Scotland s Rural Development Policy.

14 Thank you! The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is supported by: With co-financing from:

15