This presentation was delivered by Maria Brockhaus at Lake Inle, Myanmar, in June 2015.
It details: the opportunities and risks for equity and REDD+; the need for transformational change from the 4 I perspective (institutional stickiness, ideas, interests and information); and case study examples.
Call Girls In Dhaula Kuan꧁❤ 🔝 9953056974🔝❤꧂ Escort ServiCe
Equity and REDD+: Perspectives from CIFOR’s global comparative study
1. Equity and REDD+
Maria Brockhaus, Grace Wong, Cecilia Luttrell and Arild Angelsen
Myanmar, Lake Inle, 1-3 June 2015
2. Outline
• Equity and REDD+: opportunities and risks
• The need for transformational change: a 4 I
framework
• Case study examples: risks in governance for
equitable (effective, efficient) REDD+
• Conclusion
3. REDD+ as a (good) idea, beside
being quick, cheap, easy ?
Equity —e.g. in terms of both distribution of costs and benefits
and equal participation in decision making—is essential for
ensuring both the legitimacy and effectiveness of REDD+ (Chhatre
et al. 2012, McDermott et al. 2012)
• globally : turning tables, countries are no longer receivers of
aid but providers of a globally needed service; safeguards
• nationally: incentives for policy mix supporting conservation
PAMs, tenure reforms, other lager policy reforms
• locally: benefits for forest stewards (PES), cash and co-
benefits
4. Towards equity through
transformational change?
REDD+ especially with inclusion of safeguards,
seemed to be very promising in terms of
achieving transformational change through
shifts in incentives,
discursive practices,
power relations in the REDD+ policy arena
5. Concerns and risks related to REDD+
• incentive to push out holders of informal rights , IPs
rights
• carbonization and monetarization of nature
Some concerns expressed in discourses:
“cheap excuse” for the off- setters, who want to pay
for their sins without changing : “payment for
indulgence”
‘the real’ profits for private investors, carbon
cowboys
‘recentralization’ of forests and benefits not for
communities but for the state and its administration
6. Equity and REDD+ in the Media
How is equity framed in media representations of
national REDD+ policy debates in Indonesia,
Brazil, Vietnam and Peru?
• 3 major newspapers from 2005 to 2010: articles with
substantive focus on REDD+
• 3 levels of coding: article, media frame; policy actors
associated with frame
7. Risks related to discourses
• National state actors engage mainly with global equity
issues (except Vietnam); civil society with domestic
equity issues;
• In all 4 countries the most discussed equity issue is benefit-
sharing (state); followed by non-state actors concerns
about livelihood impacts, tenure/indigenous rights and
participation. Almost no discussion on gender equity.
Need for state actors to address
domestic equity issues (connect to
rights-based demands of civil society)
8. Discourses on ‘who should benefit’?
(Luttrell et al. 2013)
Different discourses which different implications for design of BSMs
But there are trade-offs: Effectiveness/efficiency vs. equity discourses
Effectiveness/efficiency = goal of emission reductions; Equity = who has the
right to benefit
– rationale I: benefits should go to actors with legal rights related to carbon
emission reductions ("legal rights" rationale)
– rationale II: benefits should go to those who reduce emissions ("emission
reductions" rationale)
– rationale III: benefits should go to forest stewards ("stewardship" rationale)
– rationale IV: actors incurring costs should be compensated ("cost-compensation"
rationale)
– rationale V: benefits should go to effective facilitators of implementation
("facilitation" rationale)
– rationale VI: benefits should go to the poor ("pro-poor" rationale)
9. Risks when unclear who should benefit ..
(Contextual, procedural and distributional equity)
Lack of clarity on objectives hampers to define who
‘should‘ benefit
Legitimacy of the decision needs the decision to be
made by those with:
• Legal mandate to make them
• Adherence to due process & to procedural rights
10. Risks related to unclear tenure, financial procedures,
elite capture
(Contextual, procedural and distributional equity)
Example Cameroon (Assembe et al 2013 and 2014):
Cameroon has two main mechanisms of benefit- sharing, 1) a
decentralized forestry taxation system; and 2) land fees.
In both risks are clearly related to
• institutional path dependencies (e.g. colonial rules) in the
process of establishing land tenure,
• the top-down approach to establishing a governance system
for the distribution of forest fees,
• and a lack of transparency in the fee-distribution process
(Assembe-Mvondo et al. 2013, 2014)
11. Risks related to representation -
Procedural equity in implementing
• decision-making and discussions on REDD+ in
general and benefit sharing in particular are
dominated by selected powerful actors (Brockhaus
et al 2014)
Example Vietnam (Pham et al 2014):
- dominant role of government agencies in REDD+
policy-making, limited political space for non-state
actors (e.g., NGOs, CSOs) to exert an influence on
the final policy outputs
12. What hinders translating lessons and
realizing transformational change for
equity into policy/practice?
Seeing REDD+ through 4 Is: institutional stickiness, ideas,
interests, information:
- Discursive shifts?
New agency, but rhetorics of powerful are still BAU
- Shifts in incentives?
Yes, incentives, but legitimacy of those that make decisions about it leads to/
reinforces existing patterns of rent seeking ?
- Shifts in power relations ?
Turning tables – not yet, aidification of REDD+, and in international and
national REDD+ policy arenas BAU remains dominant across levels
15. We acknowledge the support from:
NORAD, Australian Aid, UKAID, EC, USAID
and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
& all research partners and individuals
that have contributed to the GCS research
Thanks
For more information
http://cifor.org/asfcc/
Notes de l'éditeur
Analysis directly aligned with UNFCCC safeguards: 6 equity issues (benefit sharing, tenure and indigenous rights, livelihoods and poverty, participation, sovereignty, and gender equity