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/