Poverty and sustainable development impacts
of REDD architecture
A joint research programme
by
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
University of Life Sciences (Noragric, IØR,INA, Ås, Norway)
In partnership with:
Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (non-profit) (Brazil)
Civic Response (Ghana)
SNV (prev. Neth. Dev gov. Org. now international NGO) (Vietnam)
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Fac. of Forestry and Nature Cons. (Tanzania)
Makerere University, Fac. of Forestry and Nature Conservation (Uganda)
Supported bu Norwegian government
Overview
1. Overall rationale
2. Project narrative; goal, purpose expected
outputs
3. Project management and design
4. Communication strategies
5. Relations to other projects; CIFOR,
CCIAM, etc....
6. Last words
1. Overall rationale
• Global climate change /human influence is real
• Poor people suffer most- also generate poverty
(Stern, IPCC)
• Both adaptation and mitigation is important
• 17-18% of total emssions generated by land
clearing, logging and degradation activities
1. Overall rationale ctd.
• COP13 in Bali opened for that PES and other
instruments for ”avoided or reduced deforestion and
degradation” (REDD) could be agreed upon in
Cop(15)-Copenhagen 2009
• Contested also what is allowed as REDD, +?
(woodlots, forest plantation, degraded NPs, FRs etc.)
• If so agreed, substantial flow of funds from developed
countries to pay for ”sins”
• Also generally morally contested but opens
possibilities - and substantial challenges
1. Overall rationale ctd.
-
-
Possibilities
Maintain and enhance woodlands and
forests, reduce global carbon emissions,
increase sequestration
Secure biodiversity resources
Secure incomes to nations and to local
communities (Stern, Eliasch..)
Win-win-win situations globally, nationally
and locally?!
Challenges
Carbon sequestered/reduced emissions:
•
•
Be sure of delivery; Additionality, leakage, permanence
Lack of efficient delivery of reduced due to pitfalls related to baselines,
monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV)
Reduced biodiversity quality
• Maximizing carbon and biodiversity not the same
More challenges
Economic and social development
Difficult trades between environment, development and climate- multifunctional policies
•Governance issues (power relations, transparency, accountability,
rights,legitimacy
•Distortions by large funds in; land prices, markets (Peskett), dutch
disease; (up to some 10% of GDP/cap,or 50% of present ass. -Tanzania)
•High transaction costs
•Alternative values; in forests (trees more than sticks of carbon); in
agriculture - long term tying up of productive, renewable assets
•Lost land and resource access, rights/tenure (Griffith)
•Rent seeking, elite capture, land grabbing, funds not reaching local levels
•Distribution issues within local communities; economic, gender, age
•Forests more than economic asset; basis for social institutions - social life•How will people really respond?
Challenges
• REDD similar to the Stalin-debate and
maoists in Norway;
• 80% bra, 20% dårlig; ===bra
Sum up on rationale
• We thus want to investigate- and quantify - the
possibilities and challenges; the potential for a
multifunctional policy; can we secure real
mitigation, while at the same time address
important goals for economic growth, poverty
alleviation and even biodiversity conservation• And what does this take at different governance
levels; from international, national and to subnational levels?
• Not so modest...
(80% good- 20% bad....)
2. Project narrative
International architecture;
International
level
Transfer mechanisms
Design features
Impacts of international architecture
National REDD policy regime
Sector coordination
Asssessment of national architecture
Efficiency/legitimacy
Transaction costs
Distribution/exclusion
Opportunity costs
National level
Local level
REDD challenges vary between varies- but are also closely linked
2.3 Output 1
Different options for international REDD architecture and transfer mechanism
and ensuring equity and sustainable development benefits
Some key questions
•
How will the type of international REDD transfer mechanism affect the
distribution of carbon revenues between countries and between different
types of land use and forest landholder?
- Market; Integrate into carbon trading system or separate
- Fund ; Totally separate system-not counting for developed countries emission red.
- Hybrid; Dual markets or nested(from local level project to national
market(pedroni07)
•
How will design features of the international REDD transfer mechanism
affect distribution of carbon incomes?
– setting of baselines (if low deforest. now..),
– the definition of carbon pools (soil?- miombo less) and
– the buffer reserve requirements (set aside money; national/international
level- risky countries) affect the distribution of carbon revenues?
•
Which design options would be most favourable for achieving verifiable
greenhouse gas reductions and inclusion of the poorest countries?
•
Estimating global redd supply curves..
Vary supply curves by countries, forest types, land uses, scales of
operation, architectures
Also look at impact of; different baseline settings, carbon pool
defs.,eligible activities and leakage and permanence risks
Relate to demand scenarios and identfy optimal sets of design options.
And assess impacts on poverty and environment..
2.3 Output 2
What are options for international and national REDD
architecture and payment mechanisms analyzed in
five selected countries*, and proposals for ensuring
equity and sustainable development benefits?
*
• Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda in Africa
• Brazil; one can benefit from existing policy insights, skills and
experiences
• Vietnam; the same; has a 5 mill. haa PES programme
2.3 Output 2 cont.
•
•
Some key questions
Nested; How may the different design options for an international REDD
transfer mechanism negotiated- post Copenhagen - impact the national
level – in terms of access to REDD finance, and in-country distribution
(PPPs)?
What are choices that governments can make for a national REDD
regime? What are implications for achievement of cost-effective emission
reductions and development benefits (PPP?)
(From choice of operators and payment chain system, strengthening advisory versus
enforcement bodies, tenure issues, local communities, to how smallholders in
forest margins, forest-dwelling peoples and large private landholders may access
to carbon revenues- or loose resource access…). Concerns regarding transaction
costs, permanence, additionality and leakage; and on efficiency and legitimacy of
selected policies.
•
How will policy choices in other sectors affect achievement of REDD
objectives – can policy in these other sectors be made compatible with
REDD without adverse affects on achievement of development objectives
and poverty reduction? Especially land clearing and agriculture
productivity increases..
2.3 Output 2 cont.
• Ambition to develop models that relates
landholder behaviour and associated
changes in land use and forest
management to REDD policy choices in
forest and related sectors such as
agriculture
2.3 Output 3
Analyze the various REDD payment
mechanisms and packages proposed and
resulting actual and potential incomes/ costs
accrued at household and community level
based on improved knowledge of social and
individual behaviour. How do or will
households and farmers actually respond to
policy instruments?
2.3 Output 3 cont.
Key questions
•
What payment mechanisms can be developed and what intermediary actors
should be favoured to obtain the combined goal of reduced carbon
emissions and local sustainable development? (individual, social, flat or
differentiated rates, intermediary-who? etc.)
•
How is it possible to avoid potentially increased exclusion of rural poor from
access to land and natural resources, and payments through local
governance systems and participatory approaches? (example Uganda)
•
How would it be possible to keep transaction costs at the local level low and
still acquire the combined goal of REDD and local sustainable development?
(what actors)
•
How can opportunity cost indicators be improved with special attention to
the income of the rural poor? (what price to set for carbon credits- relate to
alternative land use)
•
Forest as basis for social instititions..how does local institutions impact PES
and vice versa?
2.3 Output 3 continued
PES should theoretically at least mean a net direct and or indirect
surplus of funds injected into local communities,
Distribution is a different issue;PES impacts;
– Increase competition over agricultural land
– People with little - and often marginal land loose access
– Tenure issues and rights of access especially to forests often
contested
– Large and fewer land/resource owners reduces TC
– Elite capture of payments – governance issues
• Methods; PRAs(land market dynamics), choice experiments, other
similar examples (CBNRMs), instiutional analyses, land use
assessments, NRM practices and dependencies,
3. Project management and design
• 4 years; funding potentially NOK12 mill.
• IIED in charge/ Noragric-UMB leading output 3
• 5 partner country institutions;
–
–
–
–
Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (non-profit) (Brazil)
Civic Response (Ghana)
SNV (prev. Neth. Dev gov. Org. now international NGO) (Vietnam)
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Fac. of Forestry and Nature
Cons. (Tanzania)
– Makerere University, Fac. of Forestry and Nature Conservation
(Uganda)
Methodologies
•
•
•
•
Secondary data, policy documents,
Household surveys, interviews etc.
Baseline and follow-up studies
Unqualified guessing and loose opinions
4. Communication strategies
The project will develop a multi-dimensional communications and influencing
plan for the duration of the project using communication specialists at
IIED, NORAGRIC and the country-based partners with focus on:
1. Engagement with international climate change negotiators
2. Engagement with national policy-makers and stakeholders
3. Engagement with local stakeholders
4. Outputs tailored to different audiences;
- Policy briefs with specific recommendations for policymakers
- Workshops target towards Cop (15)enhagen
- International series to UNFCCC processes and related forums; CBD
- National series of policy briefs on recommendations for national REDD
strategies in each of the five selected countries.
- Longer papers provide evidence to support the recommendations,
- Press releases/briefings to promote findings to wide audiences
internationally and in partner countries
5. Relations to other projects; CIFOR,
CCIAM etc....
Ambitions for collaboration and or
coordination in Tanzania and or in general
-
Joint collection/use of data?
Share/or divide pilot areas?
Joint seminars/workshops
Joint and or comparative publications
Others?
6. Last words
• We are not afraid of ”Redd” (Redd=Norwegian for afraid). We enter
the project with an open, but quite critical mind
• A best policy case scenario is where substantial mitigation in terms
of reduced emissions from reduced deforestation and degradation
is achieved in legitimate and cost efficient ways and where poverty
is alleviated and biodiversity management concerns are met
• A worst policy case is the contrary; not much mitigation is achieved
and the policies are expensive and lack legitimacy and where
poverty has increased and biodiversity qualities are detoriated
Muda ukifika totajua!!
Muda ukifika totajua!!