Presentation by Grace Wong, Maria Brockhaus, Lasse Loft, Pham Thu Thuy, and Anastasia Yang at the Global Landscapes Forum 2015, in Paris, France alongside COP21. For more information go to: www.landscapes.org.
young Whatsapp Call Girls in Delhi Cantt🔝 9953056974 🔝 escort service
Governance, rights and the role of politics in redd+ equity discourses
1. Governance, rights and the role of
politics in REDD+ equity
discourses
Grace Wong, Maria Brockhaus, Lasse Loft, Pham
Thu Thuy, Anastasia Yang
Global Landscape Forum, 6 Dec 2015
2. Outline
1. CIFOR research assessing REDD+
policies and measures for benefit
sharing
2. Framework for evaluating REDD+
policies and measures
3. A case study of PFES benefit sharing
options in Vietnam: Multi-level
governance, rights and politics
3. 1. CIFOR’s REDD+ Benefit Sharing
project
Objective: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners with policy
options and guidance to improve the design, development and
implementation of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms. The evidence-
based policy options will be framed by experience in six focal study
countries and draws on analysis, pilot schemes and lessons learned
globally.
Timeframe: 1 Feb 2012 – 31 Jan 2016
Focal countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam
Funding by EC with co-financing from NORAD and AusAID
4. 1. Research assessing REDD+
policies and measures for benefit
sharing
Efficiency
• Costs of national policy and measures for forests and REDD+
• Costs of subnational REDD+ initiatives or REDD+ projects
Effectiveness (of enabling institutions)
• Multi-level governance and decision making on forests
• Rights and tenurial arrangements
Equity
• Who should benefit from REDD+? Who decides? Who bears the costs and risks?
• Local perceptions and preferences
5. 2. Framework for evaluating
REDD+ policies and measures
Challenge to evaluate a benefit sharing mechanism because of interlinked
institutional and policy factors, and local socio-cultural and economic
contexts.
We develop a evaluation framework to provide a shared working
understanding for comparative assessment of policy options based on our
research that covers different disciplines, countries and levels/sectors.
Important to be flexible to different contexts with appropriate indicators
to capture effectiveness, efficiency and equity.
Provides guidance to interpret findings and identify actions towards a
more efficient, effective and equitable implementation of benefit sharing
mechanism in the context of REDD+.
7. 2. Framework assessment criteria
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
• contextual refers to existing social factors, capabilitiesLuttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013; Angelsen xxx
8. 3. Applying the evaluation framework
to case study of Vietnam PFES:
Institutional context
The Forest Land
Allocation (FLA) process
of issuing forest rights to
local communities
9. 3. Applying the evaluation
framework to case study of Vietnam
PFES: Outcomes
Local perspectives of
equity – as an underlying
motivation for protecting
forests and delivering
outcomes
10. 3. Some results
Effectiveness: FLA processes vary, leading to uneven application across regions;
poor monitoring and unreliable data leads to conflict
Efficiency: Incomplete FLA causes delay in PFES benefits; re-doing the FLA (in
some cases) has high transaction costs; participatory processes are time-
intensive but increases legitimacy
Equity at institutional level: Good practices are associated with inclusive
participatory processes; inequity in cases where good quality forests are within
state management and poor forests are allocated to local communities
Equity at local level: Limited participation in decision making around PFES
payments; asymmetric information sharing; payment distribution process
considered intransparent; inherent inequity related to allocation of forest land;
inadequate payments relative to effort; buyers’ costs are built into utility bills;
emphasis is on equality
11. 3. Lessons from PFES for REDD+
The FLA process is characterized by a mis-match in governance and decision-
making at different levels resulting in delayed benefits, and unclear land use
practices.
FLA implicates rights, access and benefits. FLA processes that are inclusive
and consider historical land use practices are important steps for a more
legitimate REDD+.
Socio-cultural and political norms color local perceptions on equity (equality)
and can lead to inefficient use of funds and has high transaction costs.
Local equity perspectives need to be considered in developing a fair REDD+
benefit structure , and avoiding transference of costs.
Politics matter: who decides on the objectives of a benefit sharing
mechanism, who has the responsibility for reducing deforestation, whose
perspective counts
12. • Key publications from CIFOR’s benefit sharing research:
Le, QT et al. 2015. The distribution of powers and responsibilities affecting forests, land use, and REDD+ across levels and sectors in
Vietnam: A legal study. CIFOR OP137.
Assembe-Mvondo S. et al. 2015. Comparative Assessment of Forest and Wildlife Revenue Redistribution in Cameroon. CIFOR WP190.
Luttrell C. et al. 2015. Lessons from voluntary partnership agreements for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR OP 134.
Ardiansyah F. et al. 2015. Forest and land-use governance in a decentralized Indonesia: A legal and policy review. CIFOR OP 132.
May P. et al. 2015. Environmental reserve quotas in Brazil’s new forest legislation: An ex ante appraisal . CIFOR Occasional Paper 131.
Loft, L. et al. 2015. Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: Concept meets reality. Forests 6:1031-60.
Börner, J. et al. 2015. Post-Crackdown Effectiveness of Field-Based Forest Law Enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon. PLOS One, 10(4)
Börner, J. et al. 2015. Mixing Carrots and Sticks to Conserve Forests in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Probabilistic Modeling Approach.
PLOS One 10 (2).
Torpey-Saboe N. et al. 2015. Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights. World Development, Vol 72
Luttrell, C. et al. 2014 Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 52.
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 DOI: 10.1007/s10745-014-9703-3
Pham T.T. et al. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries CIFOR WP108.
Assembe-Mvondo, S. et al. 2013. 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
• Series of information briefs:
Yang, AL. et al. 2015. What can REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms learn from the European Rural Development Policy? CIFOR Info Brief
126.
Yang, AL. et al. 2015. Lessons from the perceptions of equity and risks in payments for forest environmental services (PFES) fund distribution:
A case study of Dien Bien and Son La provinces in Vietnam. CIFOR Brief no. 36.
Arwida, S. et al. 2015. Lessons from anti-corruption measures in Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 120.
Tjajadi , JS et al. 2015. Lessons from environmental and social sustainability standards. CIFOR InfoBrief 119.
Myers, R. et al. 2015. Benefit sharing in context: A comparative analysis of 10 land use change case studies in Indonesia. CIFOR InfoBrief
118.
Nawir, AA. et al. 2015. Lessons from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 112.
Brockhaus M. et al. 2014. Operationalizing safeguards in national REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR REDD+ Safeguards Brief no. 2.
Kowler, L. et al. 2014. The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures for benefit sharing REDD+ and other low emissions options in
Peru. CIFOR InfoBrief 101
Gebara et al. 2014. Lessons from local environmental funds for REDD+ benefit sharing with indigenous people in Brazil. CIFOR InfoBrief 98.
Wong G. 2014. The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR InfoBrief 97.
13. With co-financing from:
The CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project is funded by:
Merci!
http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing
Notas del editor
<number>
<number>
<number>
<number>
<number>
For these assessment steps we apply the following criteria:
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Equity
<number>
Key institutional contexts underlying PFES are the forest land allocation and multi-level decision making processes
FLA is a precondition for eligibility to PFES
<number>