This document summarizes key lessons learned from international case studies on REDD+ benefit sharing mechanisms. It defines benefit sharing as the distribution of direct and indirect net gains from REDD+ implementation. Several approaches to benefit sharing are discussed, including market-based systems, community forestry, and fund-based systems. Key lessons highlighted include the importance of clarifying REDD+ objectives, using a mix of benefit types and instruments, ensuring participation and legitimacy in decision-making, and addressing cross-cutting issues like accountability.

1. GL
Pham Thu Thuy, Grace Wong, Maria Brockhaus, Moira Moeliono, Lasse Loft
GL
International lessons learnt on
REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism

2. Outline
1. Background
2. Benefit sharing features (e.g. definition, legal instruments,
beneficiaries, approach, time and frequency of payment, criteria for
payment, safeguards, assessment framework)
3. Key messages

3. Global comparative study on REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism since 2009
Series of info briefs downloadable from: cifor.org/redd-benefit-sharing/publications/

4. What do we mean by ‘benefit sharing’
• Benefit sharing is the distribution of direct and indirect NET GAINS from the
implementation of REDD+ as Benefits come with costs
BENEFITS COSTS
• 3 types of direct benefits:
•Monetary gains from international and national
finance related to REDD+
•Benefits associated with the increased availability of
forest products & ecosystem services
•Carbon rights ?
•Indirect benefits e.g. improved governance infrastructure
provision
• Direct financial outlays (implementation and
transaction costs)
• Foregone revenues from alternative forest
land and resource use (opportunity costs)
▪ Benefit sharing mechanism = range of institutional means, governance
structures and instruments that distribute the net benefits

5. Assessment framework of national carbon rights legislation (Loft et al. 2015)

6. Who should be eligible to receive REDD+ payment ?
Discourse 1:
Those with legal rights
Discourse 3:
To effective facilitators
of implementation
Discourse 4:
To those who incurring
the costs
Discourse 2:
To low emitting forest
steward
Luttrell et al. 2012
▪ Trade-offs need to be
properly weighed and
negotiated amongst
relevant stakeholders
▪ Central question: What
is the primary objective
of REDD+ ?

7. 1. Market-based systems are efficient …weak monitoring and evaluation systems mean
effectiveness is unknown
2. Community forestry is both equitable and effective due to highly participatory nature
…high transaction costs
3. Fund-based systems can be effective and efficient, if well-functioning institutions and
sectoral coordination are in place
4. 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
Common approaches to benefit sharing and Key lessons
Pham, T.T. et al. (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary
comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries

8. • Upfront and post
payment combined
• Payment made when
people need the most
• Conditionality is the key
• Equal benefits and
responsibilities
distributed
• Clear payment criteria
Time and frequency of
payment
Principle for payment
criteria
• Depending on REDD+ objective
• Incentivizing reform
• Country-specific and
participatory decision-making
process
• Managing the politics of
numbers
• Conditionality, additionality,
and permanence
• Geographically different
Safeguards
Identify high-risk
area in Benefit
sharing mechanism
with particular
linkages to specific
safeguards through
risk assessment
exercise

9. Framework used for assessing benefit-sharing mechanisms: design features,
contextual factors and outcome criteria (Source: Wong et al. 2019).

10. https://www.cifor-
icraf.org/gcs/knowledge-tree/

11. • There is no ‘one size fits all’
• Clarifying objectives of national REDD+ before design of a benefit sharing mechanism
is critical
• Mix of benefits and instruments – in many cases, indirect and non-cash benefits are
important
• Dialogue with actors at all levels are critical – legitimacy of a decision requires due
process and participation in decision-making
• Cross-cutting issues: Accountability/ legitimacy/ MRV
Key messages

12. cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry and
landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR–ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
cifor.org/gcs
THANK
YOU