Kenya REDD+ Tenure
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
0 j'aime•1,442 vues
The document summarizes Susan Wambuku's presentation on securing land, forest, tree, and carbon tenure rights for REDD+ implementation in Kenya. It discusses the importance of tenure security for REDD+ success. While land tenure reforms provide a basis, forest, tree, and carbon tenures must also be clarified to accommodate REDD+. The presentation aims to determine if Kenyan reforms align with REDD+ tenure requirements and identify any gaps.
![Introduction ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Kenya REDD+ Tenure
Similaire à Kenya REDD+ Tenure (20)
Plus de World Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Plus de World Agroforestry (ICRAF) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Kenya REDD+ Tenure
- 1. ASB SEMINAR PRESENTATION SUSAN WAMBUGU 08/16/2011 Securing Land, Forest, Tree and Carbon Tenure for REDD+(+) in Kenya
Notes de l'éditeur
- FAO classifies Kenya as a low-forest country as its forests cover about 6% of its total land area. Many of the indigenous forests, which account for less than 2% of total land area are protected and managed by the State through its agencies, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). This is a far cry from the estimated 10% cover at independence in 1963. Much of this change has occurred in the past two decades as changes in land use have occurred due to demand for agricultural land and development, as well as illegal logging and unsustainable use of the forests. Deforestation and forest degradation are estimated to cost the country about 12,000 hectares of forest each year therefore emitting approximately 1.6 million tons of carbon with an additional 406 tons of carbon lost from “other woodlands”. These include indigenous closed canopy, indigenous mangrove, open woodlands, public plantation forests, and private plantation forests.
- Insecure tenure is a driver of deforestation as communities may have little incentive to protect a resource they do not own. It can also make them vulnerable to disposession
- generally categorized as: private where an individual/individuals hold exclusive rights to land; communal where each member of a community has the right to use land to the exclusion of members outside that community; open access where no one is assigned specific rights and no one is excluded from use of the land; and state where rights are assigned to a public authority or government Formal tenure – codified into laws and regulations and have legal backing Informal tenure – not written down but agreed upon by members of a community/user groups. Enforcement through informal means
- Most African forests are still controlled by central government, with ownership and management rights usually transferred to other stakeholders only when it is obvious that the State itself cannot protect forests from further degradation. More efficient and equitable management does not yet seem to be an aim in itself. The forest areas owned by individuals or communities tend to be small. Central governments have exclusive control over 16 percent of Africa’s public forest. For another 61 percent, they grant very limited user rights (such as to collect non-wood forest products for personal consumption), and retain the overall management responsibility. These areas are often left unmanaged and uncontrolled, because governments lack resources and capacity. In an assessment of forests in 17 African countries, FAO determined that 95% were owned and controlled by the State
- Among the most important tasks of governments seeking ways to conserve, restore and manage forest resources sustainably are the examination and overhaul of forest tenure systems, to give people and institutions control over their resources and the rights to manage and profit from them. A tenure system cannot benefit poor and vulnerable people unless they are involved in all stages of its planning and implementation
- Carbon rights have emerged as a novel form of land interest under REDD+. They give the holder a right to the incorporeal benefit of carbon sequestration on a piece of forested land. Where property rights of local communities are yet to be settled, introducing carbon rights over land used and occupied by these people may have the potential to further compromise their tenure and use of land. Where they are well developed, they are usually registered on the land title and ideally should be perpetually enforceable or established over long time frames to ensure permanence for the buyer. clear that there is a need to develop a consistent approach to the concept of “carbon rights” in national REDD+ regimes. In relation to the commercialisation of REDD+ at scale, a consistent approach to carbon rights reduces both uncertainty and complexity; thus, it also reduces the costs and risks of participation Caution
- The three countries have carried out extensive reforms to their land and forest policies Cameroon – contradiction because land is a pre-requisite for tree planting yet productive use i.e. tree planting is a pre-condition for land ownership Customary land rights not recognized and locals can only harvest forest products for personal use only Devolved rights limited to management and area limited to 5000 haIn Cameroon, land is either state or privately owned. However, only 3% of the land is privately owned In Cameroon, land is either state or privately owned. However, only 3% of the land is privately owned Access to forests is gained through local “customary” systems of tenure Natural forests belong to government but planted trees belong to the one who plants them State exercises rights over trees in private fields so little incentive to plant trees In Indonesia, land is either state or titled but, similar to Cameroon, most land is not registered State forest resources are property of the State Customary rights often disregarded and community is powerless against land acquisitions Although reforms devolved forest management, there is gradual recentralization In contrast to the two, there are varied tenure systems in Tanzania and tenure is devolved to the local level Tanzania allows private ownership of forests Access to forests is gained through local “customary” systems of tenure Natural forests belong to government but planted trees belong to the one who plants them State exercises rights over trees in private fields so little incentive to plant trees In Indonesia, land is either state or titled but, similar to Cameroon, most land is not registered State forest resources are property of the State Customary rights often disregarded and community is powerless against land acquisitions Although reforms devolved forest management, there is gradual recentralization In contrast to the two, there are varied tenure systems in Tanzania and tenure is devolved to the local level Tanzania allows private ownership of forests
- Constitution of Kenya (2010) Land Policy (2007) Forest Act (2005) Vision 2030 National Climate Change Response Strategy (2010) Legal Notice 166
- National REDD+ program headed by KFS mainly implemented in gazetted forests although support will be provided to projects outside these forests government owns the land carbon rights to be negotiated on a project-by-project basis Important to emphasize other ecosystem benefits of conservation Rukinga Ranch (coordinated by Wildlife Works) Located in Kasigau, in the costal region between Tsavo E. and Tsavo W. national parks Land owned by Rukinga Ranching Co Ltd (group ranch) Rukinga owns the carbon Communities present are Taita and Duruma who all have varying customary tenure systems Community involved in managing and monitoring the dryland forest and benefit from community projects implemented by RRC IGAs are an organic clothing factory, an organic greenhouse, and a dryland farming scheme, ecotourism, school construction and bursary schemes Carbon rights to be via carbon easements for phase II Imbirikani Ranch (coordinated by Africa Wildlife Foundation) Located in Southern Kenya bordered by the Chyulu Hills national park and the Tanzanian Border Currently developing a PDD Land owned and run communally (group ranch) Carbon owned by the community (divided up by number of members – 4,500) and individual members will get payments for carbon AWF held meeting with community to explain REDD and gained approval Community involved in management of forests Alternative livelihoods projects initiated e.g. alternative energy sources and agriculture Mt. Kenya and Abadere range (coordinated by the Green Belt Movement) 5 projects located in central Kenya Arose from the need to rehabilitate 2000 ha of degraded forest lands – eventually did 1543 ha CDM project via the WB Land owned by State under the KFS Carbon owned by community – they reimburse GBM for project costs GBM raises seedlings for planting in the sites and provide technical expertise e.g. in measuring biomass – has to interpret the technical aspects for the community to understand CFAs (Community Forest Associations) – carry out rehabilitation and management of the forests KFS – custodian of forests GBM and CFAs have a benefit sharing agreement – GBM takes cost of implementing the project, rest goes to the CFA. Usually 20 – 80 but varies depending on actual project costs 60 year agreement between KFS and CFAs that allow them to manage the forest. These agreements are governed by the Forest Act 2005 GBM and KFS have an MoU Rights are usually negotiated. Starts out by the three parties drawing up a list of responsibilities and then apportioning these. Rights are allocated based on amount of responsibility. In these projects, KFS and GBM have zero carbon rights but community will compensate GBM for project costs It is difficult to talk of covering the opportunity cost for the communities because costs are high and benefits uncertain. Benefits therefore encompass ecosystem services yielded. Carbon stored is an “extra benefit”. Cost of carbon is too low at between 5 and 10 dollars per ton Conservation is therefore more core
- It doesn’t matter what kind of tenure exists – clarity is key
- For community lands such as group ranches, rights can be registered in the district land register/cadaster Yet to do: Conceptual framework Interview with Kasigau ongoing