View
2.047
Download
3
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
CIFOR scientist Robert Nasi gave this presentation on 15 October 2012 during the 11th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP11).
Citation preview
OpportunitiesandchallengestodevelopingREDD+benefitsharingmechanismsindevelopingcountries
R.Nasi,C.Luttrell,G.Wong,D.A.Wardell“Mechanismsformeasuringanddeliveringbiodiversity
benefitsfromREDD+”
CBDCOP11,Hyderabad,15/10/2012
Forestsaremorethancarbon
REDD+andbiodiversity
Source:Venteretal.,2009
Financing
Markets/non‐marketsPrivatevs.public‘polluterspay’and‘historicalresponsibility’‘commonbutdifferentiated’GovernanceandinstitutionalarrangementsEquitableredistribution
• Elucidatingkeydriversofdeforestationanddegradationfornationalsettings
• Institutionalconfigurationsneededforcontext‐specificenablingenvironment
• Rights(access,use,property)andtenureissues
Monitoring, reporting andverification
ReferencelevelsorReferenceemissionlevels?Carbonaccounting
5pools?Whattomonitor?
(CorC+co‐benefits)? Leakage? Finances?
Grossornet?
• Methodsforintegrationofhistoricaldeforestationdatawithknowledgeofdriversofdeforestationtoconstructscenariosandprovidereasonableestimatesoffutureemissions
• Developingappropriatefactorsandequationsforproject‐andnational‐levelcarbonaccounting
• Methodstoaddressnationalandsubnationalmonitoringandaccounting
Stakeholder involvement
Noconsensusatthemoment…
Compromisetomakereferencetotheneedtoengagelocalpeople?
• Equityissues– Indigenouspeople(IP)andminority
groups
– Gender
• Definingconditionsfor– Free,PriorandInformedConsent– IPandcommunitiesinvolvementin
designandimplementation
• AssessmentofsocialimplicationsofaddressingfactorstoensuresuccessfulREDD
Co-benefits
KeepREDD+simpleanduse‘donoharm’standard?MakeREDD+pro‐poorandpro‐biodiversity?
Biodiversityorlocalinterestsmightconflictwith‘atmospheric’interests
• Developobjectivelyverifiableandeasilymeasuredindicators
• Knowledgeoncontextspecificsynergiesandtradeoffs
• Marketresearchoninvestors’attitudesandconcernsaboutco‐benefits
What do we measureand how?
Standards
Indicators
THINKING beyond the canopy
SustainableForestManagementStandards
REDD+Project/ProgramDesignStandards
GreenhouseGasAccountingStandards
ForestStewardshipCouncil(FSC)
ProgrammeforEndorsementofForestCertification(PEFC)
CCBAREDD+Social&Environmental(S&E)Standards
Climate,CommunityandBiodiversity(CCB)Standards
CarbonFixStandard(CFS)
GlobalConservationStandard(GCS)
PlanVivoStandards
SOCIALCARBONStandard
ISO14064:2006Parts2and3
VoluntaryCarbonStandard(VCS)
FromMerger,DutschkeandVerchot2010
Sustainableforestmanagement
FSC PEFC
FromMerger,DutschkeandVerchot2010
Social‐economical
CCBREDD+S&E CCB
SOCIALCARBON
FromMerger,DutschkeandVerchot2010
NetGHGbenefits
CarbonFix VCSandISO14064
FromMerger,DutschkeandVerchot2010
What do we mean by‘benefit sharing’?
• BenefitsharingisthedistributionofdirectandindirectnetgainsfromtheimplementationofREDD+
• Twotypesofdirectbenefits:• Monetarygainsfrominternational
andnationalfinancerelatedtoREDD+
• Benefitsassociatedwiththeincreasedavailabilityofforestproducts&ecosystemservices
• Indirectbenefitse.g.improvedgovernanceinfrastructureprovision
Source:Lindhjem,H.,Aronsen,I.,Bråten,K.G.andGleinsvik,A.2010Experienceswithbenefitsharing:issuesandoptionsforREDD‐plus.EconPöyry,Oslo,Norway.
Benefits come with costs:net benefits are what matter
Who should benefit?
TherearetradeoffsinvolvedinthesechoiceimpliedbythedifferentdiscourseswhichtheimplicationsfordesignofBSMs
Effectiveness/efficiencyvs.equitydiscourses
Effectiveness/efficiency=goalofemissionreductions
Equity=whohastherighttobenefit
Efficiency & EffectivenessREDD+asamechanismforpayingforestusers&ownerstoreduceemissions:
• Focusonemissionsreductions
• Paymentsasincentiveforthosewhochangeinbehaviour
• Benefitsshouldgotopeopleprovidingtheseservices
“REDD benefits should reward large-scaleindustries/companies for reducing forest emissions”
Data from CIFOR’s GCS’ policy network analysis by Maria Brockhaus (coordination), Levania Santosa &Moira Moeliano (Indonesia), Maria Fernanda Gebara & Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil)
Equity discourses
Equitydiscoursestakeadistributionalperspectiveandaskwhoaretheactorswhohavethe„right“tobenefitfromREDD+:
• Focusonpreventingunfairdistributionalresults
• StrengtheningmoralandpoliticallegitimacyofREDD+mechanism
Equity Discourses
Benefits should go to:
• thosewithlegalrights
• lowemittingforeststewards
• thoseincurringcosts
• effectivefacilitatorsofimplementation
REDD+ Benefits Sharing(a project funded by the European
Commission)
• ToprovideREDD+policymakersandpractitionerswithpolicyoptionsandguidancetoimprovethedesign,developmentandimplementationofREDD+benefitsharingmechanisms.
• Targetgroups:– Policymakersindevelopinganddevelopedcountries
– Governmentsofthesixcasestudycountries
– REDD+projectdevelopersandinvestors
ProjectStructure
Project/Household
Local/Sub‐national
National
WP5:Reviewofexistingperformance‐basedmechanisms
WP3:Costs‐benefits
ofnationalpolicies WP4:
Costs‐benefitsofsub‐nationalREDD+
WP6:Multi‐levelgovernance
WP7:RightstoREDD+benefits
WP1:Optionsassessmentsofmechanisms
WP2:Outreachanddissemination
Geographiccoverage
•Brazil Peru Tanzania Cameroon Indonesia Vietnam
WP3 X X X
WP4 X X X X X X
WP5 X X X X X X
WP6 X X X
WP7 X X X
Furtherreading:Luttrelletal.2012.Whoshouldbenefitandwhy?DiscoursesonREDD+benefitsharing.Chapter8inAngelsen,A.,Brockhaus,M.,Sunderlin,W.D.andVerchot,L.V.(eds)2012AnalysingREDD+:Challengesandchoices.CIFOR,Bogor,Indonesia.Lindhjemetal.2010.Experienceswithbenefitsharing:issuesandoptionsforREDD‐plus.EconPöyryOslo,Norway.
Recommended