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!