Lessons for equitable REDD+ benefit sharing from community forestry practices in Indonesia and Nepal

Lessons for equitable REDD+
Benefit Sharing from
Community Forestry practices
in Indonesia and Nepal
Ani A. Nawir, Naya S. Paudel, Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell
ASFN 6th Annual Conference,
Inle Lake, June 2015

 REDD+ incentive can be categorized as performance-based or
input-based payments
 A REDD+ incentive is only one of many drivers influencing
behavioral patterns in land use and governance
 Potentially effective if REDD+ monetary incentive > opportunity
costs, or provides compensation ≥ input costs of implementing a
REDD project or governance of policy
 Other REDD+ non-monetary or indirect benefits can be significant
 Benefit sharing = distribution of direct and indirect net gains from
the implementation of REDD+
REDD+ as incentive for reducing
emissions and deforestation

What lessons can Community Forestry
(CF) bring to REDD+?
 CF institutions have developed well
established BSM that are legitimate,
recognised by national law and incentivise
forest conservation
 Nepal’s CF scheme is regarded as a
successful approach in forest conservation
and therefore its lessons on BSM provide
good basis
 Indonesia has multiple variations of CF
schemes with differing tenurial and rights
arrangements
 CF generates and distributes co-benefits
beyond carbon therefore provides relevant
lessons for REDD+

Management
role
Patterns of ownership
Private Communal State
Private Privately managed
forests around
households
(e.g. farm forestry)
Privately-managed on
community lands
(e.g. Customary land in
Borneo: tembawang)
Public land allocation
scheme for individually
managed
(e.g. Community-Based
Plantation)
Communal Private land organised
by community
institutions
Communal mgm
on community lands
(e.g. Village Forest in
Indonesia)
State land allocated for
community management:
(e.g. HKm and partnership
schemes in Indonesia; CF
and REDD+ pilots in Nepal)
State Co-
management
Co-management on
privately-owned lands
(e.g. outgrower
schemes)
Co-management on
communal lands
(e.g. JFM in India)
State lands allocated to
community group
(e.g. CFM in Philippines)
Sources: Adapted from FAO (1985); Mayers (2000); Arnold (2001); Calderon and Nawir (2004); and Nawir (2012)

 There are three general approaches to benefit sharing: input-based,
performance-based, & land allocation-based
 The three approaches are differentiated in responding to:
 Overarching policy framework underlying the exclusiveness of
management right granted to community
 Forest function classification and its associated tenurial arrangements,
 An externally introduced initiative under a specific pilot project, such as
REDD+ Project.
1. Benefit sharing is determined by the
CF property right regimes

 In Nepal, shared-benefits are a compensation for local
communities' active involvement in managing the National
Forest entails that halting deforestation and degradation
 In Indonesia, main activities being rewarded vary depending on
types of right are granted and who is initiating the scheme for
community involvement.
 HKm scheme: enforcing permanent status of the forest as a
state property
 Partnership scheme: securing company access
2. Activities being “rewarded”:
reducing deforestation and enforcing
the status of forest as state property

There are at least four factors as the underlying reasons:
 Community lands are usually scattered: high transportation costs
for collecting and marketing
 Limited economies of scale for commercialization, such as for
NTFPs, that causes high harvesting costs per unit area.
 The nature of tenurial arrangement, enforcing property rights
involves significant transaction costs
 Current policy and timber regulations at national and local levels
are not in favour of smallholders that cause high transaction costs.
3. Operational and transaction costs are
potentially high: Cost sharing is
equally important as benefit sharing

 Nepal: low productive subsistence economy; people have
volunteered their time to manage forests. REDD+ Pilot Project has
not considered opportunity cost of CF management as there are no
options to put these lands into alternative use
 Indonesia: high opportunity costs; compensating such costs is
important in maintaining long-term community’s commitment
 There are different types of opportunity costs (i.e. the opportunity
costs of revenues from behavior change of individual household
versus the rent of alternative land uses in the area included in a
REDD+ scheme) and these differences should be considered in the
design.
4. Managing opportunity costs in
situations with high land-use
competition

Innovations in Nepal for equitable
REDD+ BSM
Procedural equity
 Inclusive representation in
decision making bodies
 Social criteria for REDD+
payment
 Conditions for CF
fund/REDD fund use (e.g.
35% for pro-poor activities)
Substantive equity
 Wellbeing ranking within
benefit sharing framework
 Forest based employment to
poor
 Support during difficulty
 Land allocation to poor
households
 Differential price of forest
products

Key messages
 Benefit sharing is closely linked with
tenure arrangements
 Procedural equity at all levels of
environmental governance is critical
 Managing forests for multiple benefits
serves equity purpose better than
focusing on single benefit
 Allocation of rights as an indirect
benefit can be a more sustainable
incentive than performance or input
based incentives the direct incentives
do not reflect true transaction and
opportunity costs

• Key publications:
 Loft, L. et al. (2015) Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: Concept meets reality. Forests 6:1031-1060.
 Börner et al. (2015) Mixing Carrots and Sticks to Conserve Forests in the Brazilian Amazon: A Spatial Probabilistic Modeling
Approach. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0116846. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116846
 Luttrell et al. 2014 Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society 18(4): 52.
 Pham 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 et al. 2013. “Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries” CIFOR working
paper.
 Assembe, 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:
 Arwida S. et al. 2015. Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing from anti-corruption measures in Indonesia. CIFOR InfoBrief 120.
 Tjajadi, J.S. et al. 2015. Lessons from environmental and social sustainability standards for equitable REDD+ benefit sharing.
CIFOR Infobrief 119.
 Myers, R. et al. 2015. Benefit sharing in context: Comparative analysis of 10 land use change case studies in Indonesia.
CIFOR Infobrief 118.
 Nawir A. et al. 2015. Lessons from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia, CIFOR InfoBrief 112.
 Gebara MF. et al. 2014. Lessons from local environmental funds for REDD+ benefit sharing with indigenous people in Brazil.
CIFOR InfoBrief 98.
 Kowler LF. et al. 2014. The legitimacy of multilevel governance structures for benefit sharing: REDD+ and other low emissions
options in Peru. CIFOR InfoBrief 101.
 Loft L. et al. 2014. Lessons from payments for ecosystem services for REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms. CIFOR InfoBrief
68. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
 Myers, R. et al. (2014) Who holds power in land use decisions? Implications for REDD+ in Indonesia. CIFOR InfoBrief 100.
 Wong G. (2014). The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR InfoBrief 97.

Thank you!
www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/
www.cifor.org/asfcc/

Lessons for equitable REDD+ benefit sharing from community forestry practices in Indonesia and Nepal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Lessons for equitable REDD+ benefit sharing from community forestry practices in Indonesia and Nepal

Similar to Lessons for equitable REDD+ benefit sharing from community forestry practices in Indonesia and Nepal (20)

More from CIFOR-ICRAF

More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Lessons for equitable REDD+ benefit sharing from community forestry practices in Indonesia and Nepal