multilevel governance and benefit sharing

Multilevel Governance and Benefit SharingLegitimacy of arrangements around the world

Anne Larson & Ashwin Ravikumar

II. Study design

Site selection criteria

COUNTRY

REGION

SITE 4

SITE 5

SITE 1: NO REDD+

SITE 3: REDD+

SITE 2:REDD+

Increasing emissions sites

Decreasing emissions sites

REGION 1

REGION 2

REGION 3

* Based on key informants interviews

Theoretical and methodological framework

Policies, institutions & incentives

Land use

decisions

Benefit-sharing

mechanisms

Trends in

livelihoods

(Equity)

Emissions

trends

(Effectiveness)

SECONDARY DATA

• Legal/policy studies (multileveland multisector)

PRIMARY DATA (FIELD WORK)

• >200 Key informant Interviews

IV. MLG and BenefitSharing Results:

Peru and Indonesia

Results overview

Variation at the national level and sub-national levels

Ad-hoc strategies on the ground with multiple benefits

Non-monetary benefits are key so far

Legitimacy depends on multiple factors; not just the type of initiative

Benefit sharing policies & processes

Nationalpolicy

Sub-nationalpolicy

Initiative/Project

• FREDDI• MOF reg. 39 • Inti-plasma

Provincial strategies(poorly defined)

???????

???????

Ad-hoc strategies and processes

INDONESIA PERU

• National Forest ConservationProgram

• PES laws

Multistakeholder spaces and discussions; draft roadmaps

(no explicit benefit sharing guidance)

Ad-hoc strategies and processes

???????

???????

Benefit sharing on the ground:Multiple benefits

$$$

Benefit sharing on the ground:Multiple burdens?

Reduced access and tenure security:

6 cases in Peru (2 REDD+ projects)

4 in Indonesia (1 REDD+ project)

WHY DO WE SEE BURDENS INSTEAD OF BENEFITS?

What makes arrangementslegitimate?

Not entirely dependent on initiative type (cross-cutting)

Broad consultation, NOT just representative-based

(cross-cutting)

Community control access is key (Indonesia)

Information flows: what should REDD+ communities be told? (Peru)

Example 1: Expanding natural park

Example 2: REDD+ and Brazil-nutconcessionaires

Example 3: Oil palm in Ucayali

Example 4: Fair and equitable oil palm?

• Consultation

• Conservation

• High inti-plasma payment

• Community buy-in

REDD+ in Peru: Creating Dialogue Spaces?

Regional Environmental

Authority

National Ministry of Environment

Environmental NGOs and Project Proponents

Producer groups

Indigenous Communities

Localgovernments

National Ministry of Agriculture

Regional Directorate of

Agriculture

Smallholder communities

Private Extractive Firms

Takeaways and Conclusions

Slow policies mean ad hoc arrangements

Ad hoc arrangements deliver multiple benefits, but they’renot always legitimate

More legitimate arrangements can be achieved throughbetter participation and tapping customary/existinginstitutions

Integration across scales will be a challenge. Dialogue spaces are opportunities, but they’re imperfect and imperfectly understood

Acknowledgements: Research Peru researchers: Laura Kowler, Jazmín Gonzales Tovar, Dawn

Rodriguez Ward, Carol Burga, Harold Gordillo, Anne Larson,

Support from: Medardo Miranda, Anggela Michi

Indonesia researchers: Rodd Myers, Anna Sanders, support from Rut Din

Tanzania researchers: Martin Kijazi & Joshua Ivan

Acknowledgments: Donors

EC

NORAD

CRP FTA

Further reading

The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures forbenefit sharing: REDD+ and other low emissions options in Peru

http://www.cifor.org/library/5201/the-legitimacy-of-multilevel-governance-structures-for-benefit-sharing-redd-and-other-low-emissions-options-in-peru/

Benefit sharing in context: A comparative analysis of 10 sub-national initiatives in Indonesia (forthcoming)