Presented by Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell, Lasse Loft, Anastasia Yang, Maria Brockhaus, Shintia Arwida, Januarti Tjajadi, Pham Thu Thuy and Samuel Assembe-Mvondo at a workshop on 'Sharing insights across REDD+ countries: Opportunities and obstacles for effective, efficient, and equitable carbon and non-carbon results' from 21-23 February 2017 in Naypyidaw, Myanmar.

1. Assessing REDD+ Benefit Sharing for
Efficiency, Effectiveness and Equity
Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell, Lasse Loft, Anastasia Yang, Maria Brockhaus,
Shintia Arwida, Januarti Tjajadi, Pham Thu Thuy, Samuel Assembe-Mvondo
Sharing Insights Across REDD+ Countries
Naypyidaw, Myanmar, 23 February, 2016

2. Presentation Outline
1. What do we mean by benefit sharing
or benefit distribution in REDD+?
2. Common benefit sharing approaches
and key lessons
3. Who should benefit from REDD+?
 Implications and trade-offs
between Effectiveness, Efficiency
and Equity

3. CIFOR REDD+ Benefit Sharing project
 Objective: To provide REDD+ policymakers and practitioners with
policy options and guidance to improve the design, development
and implementation of REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms. The
evidence-based policy options will be framed by experience in six
focal study countries and draws on analysis, pilot schemes and
lessons learned globally.
 Timeframe: 1 Feb 2012 – 31 July 2016
 Focal countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia,
Vietnam
 Funding by EC with co-financing from NORAD and AusAID

4. 1. What do we mean by
‘benefit sharing’ in REDD+?
 Paris Agreement sets the stage for REDD+ results-based
finance
 Benefit sharing = distribution of direct and indirect net gains
from the implementation of REDD+
 Direct multiple benefits:
 Monetary gains from finance related to REDD+
 Benefits associated with the increased availability of
forest products and ecosystem services
 Indirect benefits include improved governance, capacity
building and infrastructure provision

5.  Benefits come with costs and risks:
 Direct financial outlays (implementation and transaction
costs)
 Foregone revenues from alternative forest land and
resource use (opportunity costs)
 Risks related to changing forest/ land use, tenure,
representation, governance, and management of finance
 Benefit sharing mechanism = range of institutional means,
governance structures and instruments that distribute the net
benefits
1. What do we mean by
‘benefit sharing’ in REDD+?

6. 1. The 3E criteria for evaluation
 Effectiveness: environmental, social, economic outcomes or performance
 Efficiency: the level of administrative and social costs associated
 Equity: procedural refers to participation in decision making and negotiation
of competing interests; distributive refers to the allocation of benefits and costs
between different stakeholders; contextual refers to existing social factors,
capabilities
Luttrell et al. 2013; McDermott et al. 2013

7.  Market-based instruments: PES (national-level mechanisms in
Brazil and Vietnam; projects implemented in almost all
countries, most notably in Latin America)
 Community forestry systems: Mixed success in most
countries, Nepal and Tanzania are best known
 Fund-based approaches: Amazon Fund (Brazil), Reforestation
Fund (Indonesia), PFES (Vietnam), PROFONANPE (Peru)
 Forest financing instruments: forest and wildlife revenue
redistribution (Cameroon), forest concessions (common)
2. Common approaches to benefit
sharing
Pham, T.T. et al. (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: A
preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries

8.  Market-based systems are more efficient …weak monitoring
and evaluation systems mean effectiveness is unknown
 Community forestry is both equitable and effective due to
highly participatory nature …high transaction costs
 Fund-based systems can be effective and efficient, if
functioning institutions and sectoral coordination are in
place
 Forest financing instruments are potentially effective and easy
to scale-up …marginalizes local people, top-down bureaucracy
 Elite capture is a big problem in all cases and in all countries
 Co-benefits are uncertain
2. Some key lessons

9. 3. Who should benefit from REDD+?
 A REDD+ incentive is only one of many factors influencing
behavior in land use and forest governance – to induce change
towards reducing deforestation and forest degradation
 Effectiveness/ efficiency = payments to those who can provide
services in most cost-efficient manner

10. “REDD benefits should reward industries/companies for
potential to reduce large-scale forest emissions”
Data from CIFOR’s GCS policy network analysis, 2011–2013

11. 3. Who should benefit from REDD+?
 A REDD+ incentive is only one of many factors influencing
behavior in land use and forest governance – to induce change
towards reducing deforestation and forest degradation
 Effectiveness/ efficiency = payments to those who can provide
services in most cost-efficient manner
 Equity = who has the right
to benefit?
 Trade-offs need to be
properly weighed and
negotiated amongst
relevant stakeholders

12. Equity discourses and
implications (1)
 All countries lean towards allocating
benefits to those with legal rights
 Unclear and insecure land tenure creates
inequity:
 Conflicts between customary and formal
rights over land are evident in almost all
countries studied
 Carbon rights are in infancy with no legal
framework

13. The legal status of landuse and rights:
implications for benefit sharing
Project
location
Driver of deforestation Status
Kalimantan
(Indonesia)
Timber, oil palm, mining, concessions,
swidden
Legal
Small scale logging & hunting, fishing,
NTFPs
Legally ambiguous
Transamazon
(Brazil)
Subsistence hunting, small scale
forest management, NTFPs
Legal
Swidden, small scale agriculture,
small and large scale ranching and
logging
Legal/illegal depends
on type & location
Commercial hunting Illegal

14. Equity discourses and
implications (2)
 Allocation of REDD+ benefits to low
emitting stewards is not a priority
 Seen as a reward to forest communities
 Additionality concerns vs. reducing risk
of perverse incentives

15. Equity discourses and
implications (3)
 Allocation of REDD+ benefits to
compensate the actors who incur costs in
REDD+ actions

16. What costs? Costs to whom?
Data from CIFOR’s GCS study of sub-national REDD+ initiatives, 2011–2013
Project
location
….incur the
greatest
financial losses
…affect the
greatest
number of
people
…create the
most
significant
change in land
use over the
largest area
…contribute
the most to
carbon
emissions
Kalimantan
(Indonesia)
Large scale:
logging, oil palm
& mining
Swidden,
fishing, NTFP
Large scale:
logging, oil
palm & mining
Large scale:
logging & oil
palm
Transamazon
(Brazil)
Small-scale
cattle
Swidden Small-scale
cattle
Small-scale
cattle
Acre (Brazil) Large scale
ranching
Swidden Large scale
ranching
Large scale
ranching

17. Equity implications and
discourses (4)
 Benefits should go to effective facilitators
of implementation
 Important as incentive to motivate
effective implementation by Government
at different levels and project developers,
but proportion of benefits to be shared
are contentious

18.  There is no ‘one size fits all’
 Clarifying objectives of national REDD+ before design of a
BSM is critical - clear objectives will help to identify who has
the right to benefit from REDD+
 Understanding the risks and winners/losers for each of the
potential policy options is critical for design of equitable BSM
 Mix of multiple benefits and beneficiaries– in many cases,
indirect and non-cash benefits are important for motivating
buy-in at different levels
 Dialogue with actors at all levels are critical – due process and
inclusive participation in decision-making increases legitimacy
and credibility
4. Negotiating policy options

19. Identifying lessons from different
sectors and experiences
 Decentralized management systems: community forestry
systems in Nepal and Indonesia, PES, conditional cash transfers
 Public administration/governance: anti corruption measures,
multi level governance structures
 Financial structures: trust funds, ecological fiscal transfers, forest
and agriculture fees and taxes, extractive industries (oil, gas and
mining) and royalties
 Specific industry processes: FLEGT, forest standards and
certification
Series of info briefs downloadable from:
cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/publications/

20. • 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
 Luttrell et al. 2017. Lessons for multi-level REDD+ benefit sharing from revenue distribution in extractive sectors (oil and gas, mining).
CIFOR OP.
 Pham et al. 2016. Distribution of PFES: research evidence to inform payment guidelines. CIFOR OP 163.
 Loft, L. et al. 2016. Risks to REDD+: Potential pitfalls for policy design and implementation. Environmental Conservation.
 Le et al. 2016. Being equitable is not always fair: An assessment of PFES implementation in Dien Bien, Vietnam. CIFOR WP
 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.
 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.

21. Thank you!
http://www.cifor.org/knowledge-tree
http://www.cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing
http://www.cifor.org/gcs