Grace Wong, M. Brockhaus, Pham T.T., C. Luttrell, L. Loft, A. Yang, S. Arwida, J. Tjajadi,

S. Assembe-Mvondo, A. NawirIndonesia Pavilion, COP Marrakech, 9 November2016

Social Forestry & the Paris agreement: Lessons for benefit sharing

The Paris Agreement

“By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should

have been, it’s a disaster” (George Monbiot)

Mismatch between what is committed in INDCs and what would be needed to achieve the 2° goal, let alone 1.5°

First time forests are explicitly mentioned (Art 5.1) Encourages action for results based payments (e.g. REDD+)

(Art 5.2)

A REDD+ incentive is only one of many drivers influencing behavioral patterns in forest use and governance

How can REDD+ compete? Potentially effective if REDD+ monetary incentive >

opportunity costs, or ≥ costs of implementing a REDD project or governance of policy

Potentially as a driver to change policies and economic incentives from business-as-usual forest exploitation to incorporate other values

Other REDD+ non-monetary or indirect benefits are also highly significant

REDD+ as an incentive for reducing deforestation and forest degradation

Assessing 3Es in BSM: incentives, institutions,

outcomes

The design for a REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism needs to address … the distribution of incentives creation of enabling institutional

conditions change in LU practices to realize

carbon and non-carbon outcomes… in an effective, efficient and equitable manner

Luttrell et al., 2013; Wong et al., forthcoming

What lessons can we learn from other sectors and experiences for REDD+

benefit sharing?

1. How to operationalize equity, identifying target groups, setting up eligibility criteria? Who has the right to benefit?

2. Are incentives provided for inputs or outcomes? And which is more effective in changing behavior?

3. What is the process of participation and decision-making at multiple levels?

4. How is accountability and outcomes measured and monitored?

Types and features of BSMs reviewed

What kind of BSM is it?

What type of governance practice is it?

Payment for Ecosystem

Services (PES)

Community Forestry

systems (CF)

Conditional Cash Transfers

(CCT)

Indigenous People’s trust funds in Brazil

(IPTF)

European Rural Development Policy (RDP)

Forest revenue redistribution

schemes

Ecological Fiscal Transfers

Anti-corruption measures in

Indonesia (ACM)

Standards and certification

(S&C)

Voluntary Partnership

Agreement (VPA) under FLEGT

Lessons from the ongoing review of BSMs and governance practices

Lessons for: 1) Effectiveness

1. Use of input or intermediate indicators do not capture impacts or long-term outcomes – PFES Vietnam: the costs of monitoring longer-term outcomes often result in simplified proxy input indicators that do not adequately capture impacts or performance

2. Use of existing governance systems to reduce transaction costs – Forest revenue redistribution in Cameroon highlights importance to not reinforce flaws of existing systems

3. Involve local government4. Coordination – discussed everywhere but often lack the

resources and institutional authority/ mandate

Lessons for: 2) Efficiency

1. Role of intermediaries – critical to bridge between the global/national/corporate and multiple local beneficiaries . Examples: National Fund for Forest Financing (FONAFIFO) which manages the Costa Rica PES and the FAS which manages Bolsa Floresta in Brazil

2. Addressing scale3. Using geographical targeting to increase effectiveness and

efficiency – avoiding areas of high opportunity costs (CF in Indonesia) or identifying areas of high priority to ensure sustainable outcomes (RDP)

4. Clarifying tenure based on the nature of the ecosystem service

Lessons for: 3) Equity

1. Setting eligibility criteria for identifying target beneficiaries often entail trade-offs between efficiency and equity

2. Techniques for assessing and recognizing the level of costs and to whom they are accruing – periodic review of producer costs (Fairtrade)

3. Setting fair payments and payment structure – phased and upfront payments are useful for enabling broad participation - Plan Vivo TGB

4. Paying attention to the type of benefit• There is a focus on development activities and co-

benefits• Pros and cons of cash depend on context• Securing rights may be an important co-benefit

Cross-cutting issues: Accountability/ legitimacy/ MRV

1. Inclusion and participation in process – under-representation of certain groups in decision-making creates risks of elite capture and undermines legitimacy of the system (Vietnam)

2. Transparency – anti-corruption measures in Indonesia: transparency is not sufficient by itself: enforcement and penalties are also important

3. Dispute resolution 4. MRV – FLEGT uses independent auditing and multi-

stakeholder oversight to ensure credibility (Indonesia/ Myanmar)

Key points for REDD+ benefit sharing in social forestry

1. REDD+ and social forestry programs have both benefits and costs

• Regular assessments of the different costs in implementing REDD+ and to whom they accrue are important to ensure that stakeholders can be adequately compensated

• Mix of benefits and instruments – eg. rights are an important co-benefit when opportunity costs are high

2. Effectiveness depends on governance and requires rigorous MRV system to monitor benefit flows and to measure impacts and outcomes depending on the REDD+ objectives

Key points for REDD+ benefit sharing in social forestry

3. REDD+ and social forestry requires an inclusive process • Purposeful multi-stakeholder participation throughout the

decision-making process can increase the credibility and legitimacy of a program and enhance its chances of successful outcomes.

4. Safeguards can play a role in managing equity and effectiveness concerns

• Safeguard indicators need to be grounded in local contexts to be relevant

• Key publications from CIFOR’s benefit sharing research: Wong et al. Forthcoming. An assessment framework for REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms within a forest policy mix, Environment Policy &

Governance Loft, L. et al. 2016. Risks to REDD+: Potential pitfalls for policy design and implementation. Environmental Conservation. Le, QT et al. 2015. The distribution of powers and responsibilities affecting forests, land use, and REDD+ across levels and sectors in

Vietnam: A legal study. CIFOR OP137. Assembe-Mvondo S. et al. 2015. Comparative Assessment of Forest and Wildlife Revenue Redistribution in Cameroon. CIFOR WP190. Luttrell C. et al. 2015. Lessons from voluntary partnership agreements for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR OP 134. May P. et al. 2015. Environmental reserve quotas in Brazil’s new forest legislation: An ex ante appraisal . CIFOR Occasional Paper 131. Loft, L. et al. 2015. Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: Concept meets reality. Forests 6:1031-60. Börner, J. et al. 2015. Mixing Carrots and Sticks to Conserve Forests in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Probabilistic Modeling Approach.

PLOS One 10 (2). Torpey-Saboe N. et al. 2015. Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights. World Development, Vol 72 Luttrell, C. et al. 2014 Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 52. Pham ,T.T. et al. 2014. Local preferences and strategies for effective, efficient and equitable PES benefit distribution options in Vietnam:

Lessons for REDD+. Human Ecology DOI: 10.1007/s10745-014-9703-3 Pham T.T. et al. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries CIFOR WP108. Assembe-Mvondo, S. et al. 2013. Assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of benefit sharing schemes under large-scale

agriculture: Lessons from land fees in Cameroon, European Journal of Development Research

• Series of information briefs: Wong G et al. 2016. Results based payments for REDD+: Lessons on finance, performance and non-carbon benefits. CIFOR Info Brief 138. Yang, AL. et al. 2015. What can REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms learn from the European Rural Development Policy? CIFOR Info Brief 126. Yang, AL. et al. 2015. Lessons from the perceptions of equity and risks in payments for forest environmental services (PFES) fund distribution:

A case study of Dien Bien and Son La provinces in Vietnam. CIFOR Brief no. 36. Arwida, S. et al. 2015. Lessons from anti-corruption measures in Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 120. Tjajadi , JS et al. 2015. Lessons from environmental and social sustainability standards. CIFOR InfoBrief 119. Myers, R. et al. 2015. Benefit sharing in context: A comparative analysis of 10 land use change case studies in Indonesia . CIFOR InfoBrief 118. Nawir, AA. et al. 2015. Lessons from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 112. Brockhaus M. et al. 2014. Operationalizing safeguards in national REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR REDD+ Safeguards Brief no. 2. Kowler, L. et al. 2014. The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures for benefit sharing REDD+ and other low emissions options in Peru.

CIFOR InfoBrief 101 Wong G. 2014. The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR InfoBrief 97. Loft L. et al. 2014. Lessons from payments for ecosystem services for REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms. CIFOR InfoBrief 68.

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.

& all research partners and individuals that have contributed to this research

www.cifor.org/knowledge-treewww.cifor.org/asfcc

Thank you