benefit sharing from a multilevel governance perspective
TRANSCRIPT
Benefit sharing from a multilevel governance perspective
Anne M Larson and CIFOR MLG team
25 January 2016
Brussels, Belgium
The complexity of land governance
Village Village Village
Sub-district
Village
Sub-district
District
Province/State/Region
Na9onal
Interna9onale.g.donors
Horizontal
Ver,cal
http://www.cifor.org/gcs/landscapes-governance-peru/
Inordertochangethetrajectoryofland-basedcarbonemissions,itiscri,caltounderstand:
Hownewframeworksofmul9-leveldecisionmakingaroundini9a9veslikeREDD+interactwithon-the-groundpoli9csoflanduseandlandusechangeWhatrolefor“benefit-sharing”
Research Countries: Peru, Indonesia, Vietnam, Tanzania, and Mexico (n=5) Mul$levelgovernanceandcarbonmanagementatthelandscapescale
hIp://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/
Field research site selection: a nested, comparative case study approach
COUNTRY
REGION
SITE4
SITE5
SITE1:REDD+
SITE3:NotREDD+
SITE2:REDD+
“Increasingemissions”sites
“Decreasingemissions”sites
REGION1
REGION2
REGION3
*Basedonkeyinformantsinterviews
5countries11regions54sites742interviews
Alternative strategies
Centralgovernment Policyop9ons
Structuralchanges
Posi9veincen9ves
Nega9veincen9ves/control
• Propertyrights
• Inter-ins9tu9onalcoordina9on
• Rulesandnorms• Fines• Taxes• Sanc9ons
• PES• Subsidies• Credit• Technical
support• Training
Subna9onalgov?Projects
Where you sit in the multilevel structure shapes the meaning of “Benefit sharing”
Every level and sector wants funding to promote their policies: central government, subnational governments, NGOs/projects, communities/villagers. From the funding end: How funds are distributed to get the job done. How should these funds be used? From the receiving end: Am I getting my fair share, is it enough to compensate losses or burdens? Every actor between the international fund source and the hh/ individual level faces both questions. But the second one is what is evoked by the term “benefit sharing”
Multiple levels on “benefit sharing”: misc examples
Ministry of Environment (Peru): Ø If we talk about benefit sharing, it generates
expectations and everyone wants a piece of the pie
Regional/provincial governments (Peru, Indonesia): Ø There isn’t enough money in REDD+ to make any real
difference
Project coordinators (Peru): Ø How keep community members interested while
waiting for uncertain funding to come through?
Local NGOs (Central Kalimantan, Indonesia): Ø Why are outsiders always trying to tell us what to do?
Indonesia West Kalimantan Central Kalimantan
REDD+ 1 (FFI) Community forest (YPSBK)
National park (TNBBBR)
Oil palm 1 (Landau Leban)
Oil palm 2 (PT PAS)
REDD + 1 (KFCP) REDD+ 2 (RMU) Conservation (BOS
MAWAS) Oil palm 1 Oil palm 2
Peru San Martin Madre de Dios Ucayali
REDD+ 1 (CIMA) REDD+ 2 (CI) Reforestation
1 PES Oil palm 1 (GR)
Agriculture (Awajun)
REDD+ 1 (BAM)
REDD+ 2 (AIDER)
REDD+ 3 (ACCA)
Mining (La Pampa)
Agriculture 2 (Arca
Pahaurca) REDD+ 1 (AIDER)
Reforestation 2
Oil palm 2 (Ucayali)
Tanzania Coastal zone Interior zone
REDD+ 1 (CARE
Zanzibar)
REDD+ 2 (TFCG Lindi)
REDD+3 (Mpingo Kilwa)
REDD+ 4 (TFCG Kilosa)
Charcoal (Kisarawe)
Logging and charcoal (Rufiji)
REDD+ 1 (Kigoma)
REDD+ 2 (JGI Mpanda)
REDD+ 3 (TatEDO
Shinyanga)
Mining (Kahama)
Agriculture (Uvinza)
Agriculture (Urambo)
Vietnam Dien Bien Nghe An
PES (PFES Hua Ngai)
Reforestation (Muong Nha)
Rubber plantations (Muong Pon)
REDD+ (Muong Muon) Acacia (Luc Da) Hydropower (Yen Na) Hydropower 2 (Chi
Khe) Illegal logging (Thac
Giam)
Mexico Chiapas Yucatan
REDD+ 1 (Alianza REDD)
REDD+ 2 (CONAFOR Early
Action) PES (Ambio) Oil palm and
ranching
Oil palm and rubber,
ranching PES REDD+ 1
(CONAFOR) State reserve Cattle-ranchers
Mechanized agriculture
Field Research Case Studies
Community-level findings
§ Benefits are often non-monetary; conditionality is rare § In general, non monetary benefits were not seen as a
problem or of less importance – and in some cases were more important: e.g. livelihood alternatives
§ More “legitimate” arrangements and less conflict were associated with meaningful participation in the process and decisions
§ Informed consent problems… moving too fast, cost, REDD+ “too complicated”
§ The type of entity (private, NGO or state) does not appear to be associated with legitimacy of arrangements
§ Leadership / ideology regarding community rights and participation appear to play a role in process, at least as much as laws or rules
Country highlights
§ Indonesia: • rights or benefits? When does accepting a benefit interfere
with rights claims? § Vietnam: • inequitable pre-existing conditions (land tenure) related to
benefits perpetuate and deepen problems § Tanzania: • “pro-poor” REDD+ left out non-sedentary poor (e.g.
pastoralists) • targeted limits on the poor (smallholders) rather than on
those driving the problem (charcoal demand/ traders)
Conclusions
§ Communities living in forests are not necessarily supportive of REDD+/ conservation initiatives due to the fear of loss of control over forests and of effects on livelihoods or rights • Perceptions are shaped by past experiences
§ Processes for engaging with communities are fundamental for winning support and legitimacy • Legitimate processes are based on effective
communication, broad-based participation and effective representation, and a clear definition of roles and expectations
§ At all levels, from national to subnational and local, ‘ownership’ of initiatives for change is key to legitimacy, and to finding embedded and sustainable solutions.
Publica,onsLegalreportsseries§ Vietnam:Trung,L.Qetal.(2015)Thedistribu9onofpowersandresponsibili9esaffec9ngforest,landuse,andREDD+acrosslevelsand
sectorsinVietnam,occasionalPaper,CIFORhIp://www.cifor.org/publica9ons/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-137.pdf§ Peru:hIp://www.cifor.org/publica9ons/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-129.pdf§ Indonesia:hIp://www.cifor.org/publica9ons/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-132.pdf§ Tanzania:hIp://www.cifor.org/publica9ons/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-147.pdf§ MexicoinpressMul,levelgovernanceseries§ Yangetal.(forthcoming)Analyzingmul9levelgovernanceinVietnam:lessonsforREDD+throughlandusechangeandbenefitsharingin
theprovincesofNgheAnandDienBien,WorkinPaper,CIFOR§ Myersetal.(inpress)Indonesia§ Kowleretal.(inpress)Peru§ Kijazietal.(forthcoming)Tanzania§ Trenchetal.(forthcoming)MexicoInfobriefs§ Myersetal(2015)BenefitsharingincontextAcompara9veanalysisof10land-usechangecasestudiesinIndonesia.CIFORInfoBrief118.§ Yangetal.(2015)Lessonfromthepercep9onsofequityandrisksinpaymentsforforestenvironmentalservices(PFES)funddistribu9on.
CIFORBrief36.§ Koweretal.(2014)Thelegi9macyofmul9levelgovernancestructuresforbenefitsharinginPeru.Infobrief100.Journalar,cles§ Ravikumaretal(2015)Mul9levelgovernancechallengesinana9onalapproachforREDD+:evidencefrom23subna9onalREDD+
ini9a9ves.Interna$onalJournaloftheCommons9(2)hIp://www.cifor.org/library/5703/mul9level-governance-challenges-in-transi9oning-towards-a-na9onal-approach-for-redd-evidence-from-23-subna9onal-redd-ini9a9ves/
§ Lojetal.(2015)TakingStockofCarbonRightsinREDD+CandidateCountries:ConceptMeetsReality.Forests6(4):1031-1060ProjectMethods§ Ravikumaretal(2015)ProjectGuideandMethodsTrainingManual.CIFOR
hIps://www.google.com/search?q=ravikumar+project+guide&oq=ravikumar+project+guide&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59.3352j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
Weacknowledgethesupportfrom:TheEuropeanUnion(EU),NorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCoopera9on(Norad),AustralianDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTrade(DFAT),UKGovernment,USAID,Interna9onalClimateIni9a9ve(IKI)oftheGermanFederalMinistryfortheEnvironment,NatureConserva9on,BuildingandNuclearSafety(BMUB)andtheCGIARResearchProgramonForests,TreesandAgroforestry(CRP-FTA)withfinancialsupportfromtheCGIARFund.
Thankyou
hIp://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/