1. Engagement of private sector in
REDD+:
issues, opportunities and challenges
Marisa Camargo
University of Helsinki; Indufor
Isilda Nhantumbo - IIED
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
1

2. Introduction
• REDD+: No binding agreement, but
demonstration projects being tested on the
ground
• Is the PS engaged in demonstration projects?
• How did it acquire the right to develop and
transact credits?
• How is it sharing benefits with local
communities?
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India

3. Who is the Private Sector?
• No agreed definition: OECD, UN, EU
• In this study:
– For-profit: e.g.
corporations, foundations, consulting
companies, brokers
– Voluntary: NGOs
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
3

4. Importance of the PS
• Benefits of engaging PS include:
– help close the financial gap (limited public funds)
– has technical capacity to help implement REDD+ more
efficiently
– provide price incentives to stimulate investment in SFM;
– large size of investments = high potential for change
• Warsaw Framework for REDD+: 7 decisions
– Finance: ‘results based’, resources from public and
private, bilateral and multilateral entities including alternative
sources
• But also risks… e.g. take land away from community
• Private sector engagement is central to successful REDD+…
if equity considerations are incorporated
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
4

5. Database
• 115 demonstration projects (accounting for GhG):
– Participants and target groups; objectives; activities; land
area; tenure arrangements; benefit sharing mechanisms
Continent
Number of
projects
Total area
(ha)
Average
land size
Countries in
each region
Africa
Asia
Latin
America
Total
24
30
61
8,602,069
10,486,268
9,592,981
358,420
349,542
157,261
11
8
13
115
28,681,318
33
• LA - most projects in private land
• Asia - host larger projects (ha)
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
Countries with higher
number of projects per
region
Cameroon (5)
Indonesia (19)
Brazil (15), Peru (13) and
Mexico (10)

6. Database
• Objectives: Reduce emissions
• Activities:
– agriculture productivity issues of smallholder sector, biomass energy efficiency
in production and consumption, and sustainable management of forests
including control of forest fires; participatory natural resources management
and payment for ecosystems services; research on biophysical and
socioeconomic aspects of REDD+ implementation; conservation of private
lands and public private areas; instil political stability and security…..
• Agroforestry:
– not the objective (~5/115), but feature in benefit
sharing and activities together with conservation
agriculture - increase productivity from land and
reduce need for expanding into natural forests
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
6

7. Database: actors
• Several stakeholders: local and national
governments, donors, local and international
NGOs, research institutions, consultancy
companies, legal firms, carbon brokers, private
foundations, business, local communities
• Not all present at once
• Private Sector:
– Demand credits: corporations (e.g. offsetting)
– Supply credits: consultancy co, brokers
– Demand and supply: options to consumers
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
7

8. Private sector engagement in REDD
Project developers
10%
11%
For-profit sector
35%
Voluntary sector
Governments
8%
Partnerships (e.g. PPP)
36%
Unclear/no data
Not only as developers, but as investors, donors, facilitators, TA…
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
8

9. Rights: Who owns the carbon?
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
9

10. Rights: who owns the carbon?
• Carbon credit is a new commodity
• Countries are still building legal frameworks
– Who owns cc? Conditions to transfer rights
• Policy vacuum - developers are innovating:
– C interpreted as product of the forest, similar to
wood, non-wood, wildlife, so communities (as holders of
these rights) also hold rights to carbon
– Law defines - State owns all land and water including
subsoil resources, so they interpreted that, by default, the
State would also be the owner of carbon rights
– Governments - conservation concession borrowed from
forest concession which exists in the legal framework
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India

11. Rights: who owns the carbon?
• Rights to carbon is not always discussed in
project documents
• Too risky?
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
11

12. Rights: who owns the carbon?
• REDD+ as an opportunity to fill the policy vacuum
with more equitable rules
• Inclusive legislation
– Encourage more private sector investment
– Ensure real community involvement and fair benefit
distribution
• After all…
– Project developers acknowledge that community
engagement is key to ensure sustainability to the
project – risk mitigation strategy – decreases
likelihood of leakage
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
12

13. Benefit Sharing:
how are communities engaged and
benefits distributed?
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
13

14. Community engagement
• Communities are involved in several ways:
– Decision making, employees, receivers of capacity
• Some projects: NO local community involvement
– driven by a private land owner
– NO people living in the area (and neighbor
communities will not be negatively impacted)
– Communities not integrated…
• Long-term pressure on land? Population growth?
Projects are in average (only) 30 years
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
14

15. Benefit Sharing
• Communities not always see a share of carbon
revenues - only 23%
• But project developers list several benefits:
– E.g. capacity building, employment
opportunities, introducing sustainable land
management practices
• investment and costs incurred to secure
generation of carbon credits?
• Communities also contribute with labour to
ensure that carbon credits are generated
• What should we take into account when
partitioning the benefits?
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
15

16. Benefit Sharing
• Not so transparent…
– 16% give information on the share of the benefits
allocated to different stakeholders
– Out of the 115 projects, only 4 contracts available
– Peru project: list of preferential beneficiaries, but
the amounts allocated to each are confidential
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
16

17. Conclusions
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
17

18. Conclusions
• PS is an important player to help implement
REDD and design more inclusive legal
instruments
• However…. more
transparency, accountability, integration, FPIC
should be promoted to ensure the design of a
more equitable and sustainable system
• WIN-WIN solutions
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
18

19. Thank you!
Marisa Camargo
marisa.camargo@helsinki.fi
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
19

20. REDD+ in the landscape
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
20

21. 21

22. REDD+ at landscape level
• No evidence that projects actively involve
businesses across sectors that are part of the
landscape driving the local economies
• Exclusion of stakeholders poses several risks:
– Increases competition and affects benefit sharing
– reduces the potentially higher cumulative impacts
– creates potential for leakage
– sustainability is tested
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
22

23. Inclusive REDD+
• Some elements of inclusive business models
– Mapping of all land users and uses within the
landscape;
– Conduct FPIC, including local communities but
also all other users (forest concessionaires, small
timber operators, mining companies, large scale
agriculture investments);
– design an intervention that brings the different
interests in a shareholding approach;
12/02/2014
World Agroforestry Congress
New Delhi, India
23