Main substance in the presentation
Analysis of –the climate of justice for tackling climate change in REDD+ to benefit local people from community forestry
Main message Main factors to benefit from REDD+ are: Tenure security Institutional, ecological and economic performanceFulfilment of methodological and technical requirements
Main conclusionDespite good Institutional, ecological and economic performance, the prospect of benefit to communities from REDD+ is LOW!!!!!!
Understanding the concept of
REDD+ and Community Forestry
REDD+ REDD+R= ReducingE= Emission D= Deforestation D= Degradation+ = Conserve forests
R= Rights over forest resourcesE= EquityD= Devolution of power to communitiesD= Democracy at the grass root+ = Development of forestry sector
Community forestry has all these elements
What is aimed through REDD+
1. Increase forest land2. Increase forest density and biomass3. Reduce the rate of deforestation and degradation4. Conserve and manage forests
1.Increase
forest land
Communities have transferred barren land into dense forest
Farmers have grown wood and food together
Communities bear the cost
Same place in 2005
Forests in DadapakharNepal in 1978
2.Increase
forest density
and biomass
Community forest density has increased
Forest in Mude Nepal after 27 years1978
2005
3.Reduce the
rate of deforestation
and degradation
Communities have been able to reduce the rate of deforestation and degradation
Charikot , Nepal in 1986 and 2005
4. Conservation
of forests
Local communities and farmers
have conserved forests, biodiversity and watersheds in a much effective way than government
Gully in Bonch, Nepal after 27 years1978
2005
Sunkhani in 19 years1986
2005
Bhedpu, Dolakha, Nepal March 1978
Same place in 1996
How is the prospect of benefit?
ForestryRegime
Security oftenureRight
Institutionalperformance
Ecologicalperformance
Economiccontribution
Prospect ofbenefit fromREDD+
Government High Low Low Low High ?
Private High Medium Medium High Medium ?
Communities Low High High High Low ?
Source: Karky and Banskota, 2009; Mahat, 2010, Example from Nepal
Climate of injustice persists
REDD+REDD+
REDD+REDD+
REDD+REDD+
REDD+REDD+
REDD+REDD+
REDD+
International community:(Washington,London, Bejing etc.)
Gov
ernm
ent
C l i m a t e o f i n j u s t i c e i s c r e a t e d b y
M a n y c o m p l e x i t i e sM u l t i p l e v a l u e o f f o r e s t s u n d e r m i n e d M e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e sT e c h n i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e sI n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d l e g a l c o m p l e x i t i e sG e o g r a p h i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e s
1. Above-ground biomass
5. Below-ground biomass
2. Dead wood
3. Litter
4. Soil organic carbon
7. Hydrological function
8. Biodiversity function
9. Aesthetic function
10. Cultural, spiritual and
emotional functions
6. Wood products
Value of multiple roles and functions of forests is undermined by carbon debate and REDD+
Even the simplified list of complexities is found to be too complicated (below)
Institutional and legal
• Too many national level institutions to be coordinated • Many fragmented institutions at the local level are to be
brought together• Land rights does not necessarily guarantee carbon rights• Inconsistencies in national policies and legislation• Reaching to the most vulnerable households
Geographical • National strategies (e.g. NAPA) not adequate• Sub national strategies (e.g. Local level Adaptation Plan of
Action (LAPA) and Community level Adaptation Planning (CAP) is needed separately for mountains, hills and plai
•Technical • Area of forest patches are too small
• Measuring degradation is difficult
Methodological • Additionally, Leakage, Permanence, Baseline, High transaction cost, Information and knowledge
Methodological requirements are even too complicated
Additionally LeakagePermanenceBaseline High transaction costInformation and knowledge
SUMMARY Power of local communities to influence the Conference of Party
(COP) is still low Whose property is forests? Of the state, private or community? Land rights vs carbon rights Community forests and REDD- High performance but low
prospect of benefit REDD and poverty agenda – ‘no rights to livelihoods’, no REDD Whose agenda count? International, national and local Who dominate the decisions? Politicians of Annex 1 countries,
climate scientists, technocrats of the national government in developing countries or local and indigenous communities?
Local communities and indigenous people are less likely to benefit from REDD+ SO, they should unite and educate their respective governments and the international policy makers to create a climate of justice to communities to benefit from REDD+
Main message once again ……..