managing risks and avoiding pitfalls to redd+ policy design and benefit sharing
TRANSCRIPT
BLF LBG LSA LSE LWH SO
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)
LAND USE AND IMPACTS LAND USE CONFLICTS AND GOVERNANCELANDSCAPE FUNCTIONING
SO
Managing risks and avoiding pitfalls to REDD+ policy design and benefit sharing
L. Loft, T.T. Pham, G.Y. Wong, M. Brockhaus, D.N. Le, S.N. Tjajadi, C. Luttrell
Marrakech, November 9, 2016
LAND USE CONFLICTS AND GOVERNANCE
www.zalf.de
Introduction
Source: Adapted from Wertz-Kanounnikoff & Angelsen 2009
Occur at different governance levels
Affect different stakeholders within national REDD+ architectures
During different stages of the implementation process
Aim is to is to identify, assess and categorize major governance risks of national REDD+ implementation
Phase 1: Readiness
Phase 2: Policies
& Measures
Phase 3: Results based
Policy formu-lation
Policy Design
Policy Imple-
mentation
M & E
AgendaSetting
Complex design and implementation processes create risks for sustainable emissions reductions and social and environmental side-objectives
www.zalf.de
Method
Qualitative assessment of implementation risks, applying a hybrid approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis
Data: findings of CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ country profiles Description of drivers of deforestation; analysis of political, economic and
institutional contexts; the policy options for REDD+ in the country. Based on extensive literature reviews, expert interviews and consultation
workshops
Additional scientific literature, donor reports and policy documents
Verification of results through consultation with in-country experts
www.zalf.de
Countries in the Global Comparative Study on REDD+
Source: http://www.cifor.org/gcs/modules/redd-policies/
( )
( )
www.zalf.de
Risks analysed
Policy Formu-lation
Policy Design
Policy Imple-
mentation
M & E
AgendaSetting
1.Overlapping policies, contradicting measures, inequitable distribution of benefits and burdens2.MRV: risks of artificial baseline setting and asymmetric information
3.Accessing REDD+ finance: risks in meeting and measuring ‘performance’
4.REDD+ BSMs: risks to equity from inadequate design5.Risks of illegitimate decision-making processes and policy implementation
6.Carbon and tenure rights: risks of powerful elites securing rights to benefits
7.Challenges of multilevel governance
Implementation stage Risks
www.zalf.de
Policy formulation: Definition of objectives
Risks:1.Overlapping policies
and contradicting measures
2.Inequitable distribution of benefits and burdens
Definition of national REDD+ objectives determines scope of activities and targeted stakeholders
Examples: In Tanzania REDD+ goals are overshadowed by
well-funded donor initiatives that aim to develop small- and large-scale commercial agriculture
85% of Vietnam’s forest area is managed by state-owned companies; large scale land owners in Brazil account for about 80% of deforestation
Source: Loft et al. 2016; Luttrell et al. 2013
www.zalf.de
Policy design: Reference emissions levels and monitoring
Risks: Inaccurate setting of reference
levels and monitoring Creation of artificial emissions
reductions Market distortion due to
asymmetric information
Determines emissions reductions, impacts potentially targeted stakeholdersExamples: Improvements in remote sensing and
data availability, but… Administrative capacity for MRV still
considered low in PNG, Nepal, Laos and
Mozambique moderate in Burkina Faso and
Cameroon high in Bolivia, Peru and Vietnam very high in Indonesia, Brazil and
DRC Different sources of relevant data,
Vietnam and Indonesia with separate forest and land use data
DRC with little centralisation of data
Source: Ochieng et al. 2016; Loft et al. 2016
www.zalf.de
Policy design: Benefit sharing
Determines eligible benefitting stakeholders, sets incentives for land use changeBenefit Sharing Mechanism
Countries Challenges
Fund-based approaches**incl. PES elements
Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, DRC, Tanzania, Indonesia and Vietnam
Potentially large amount of payments channelled to the funds provokes organizational competitions and conflicts over power and interests
Nested approaches**incl. PES elements
Brazil, Peru Require a clear devolution of rights anda multilevel governance system in order to be effective
Building on existing systems**incl. PES elements
Cameroon, Nepal, Vietnam
Risk of reinforcing any systemic regulatory, procedural or governance flaws inherent in the system
Not yet defined
Bolivia, Laos PDR, Mozambique, PNG
Risk of disincentivizing performance in reducing deforestation and degradation
www.zalf.de
Policy implementation: Stakeholder participation
Risks: Domination by powerful
groups, elite capture of benefits, corruption
REDD+ policies and measures perceived as inequitable and illegitimate, may lead to opposition to implementation
Determines procedural equity and legitimacy of implementation
Examples: DRC, Cameroon: participation in agenda setting
is very much limited to a few state and international actors,
Laos PDR, Peru: in early stages with FPIC not well implemented
In Vietnam those forest stewards that are not eligible to PFES are among main actors of deforestation
www.zalf.de
Managing risks and avoiding pitfalls
…how REDD+ PAMs are designed, such as… Perceived inequity and illegitimacy of
cost and burden sharing Capacity constraints at subnational
governance levels
Some of the risks are related to…… a country’s political and economic context, e.g.
Differences in data collection and discrepancies in forest data;
Lack of legal clarity on carbon rights and occurrence of common tenure rights problems;
Could be managed through reflexive policy learning and adaptive implementation
Need to be carefully considered; room for mitigation but often beyond the scope of control
www.zalf.de
Conclusions
Clear objectives of national REDD+ implementation need to be set early in the policy process
Understanding country specific risks and how they might influence the design of a REDD+ policy is a necessary step early in the design and implementation process
A possible approach to identifying and evaluating existing and potential risks and solutions is through inclusive multi-stakeholder forums
Ongoing development of REDD+ safeguards would benefit from a careful review of these risks, and the development of specific criteria and indicators
www.zalf.de
Open access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation
We acknowledge the support from:the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the European Union (EU), the UK Government, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) with financial support from the CGIAR Fund.
Thank you!