| dc.description |
Springate-Baginski, O. and Wollenberg, E. (eds.) 2010 REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: the emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Workshop participants included researchers from the Center for International Forest
Research (CIFOR) and UEA, and REDD experts from six focus countries: Brazil,
Indonesia, Madagascar, Tanzania, Mexico and Nepal |
|
| dc.description |
Executive summary
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) initiatives are
more likely to be effective in reducing emissions if they build on, rather than conflict
with, the interests of local communities and indigenous groups (referred to henceforth
as ‘forest communities’). To show how REDD could most benefit forest communities,
lessons from incentive-based forest programmes and recent experiences in six countries
were reviewed at an international workshop held at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
in Norwich, United Kingdom, in the Spring of 2009.
Workshop participants included researchers from the Center for International Forest
Research (CIFOR) and UEA, and REDD experts from six focus countries: Brazil,
Indonesia, Madagascar, Tanzania, Mexico and Nepal.
REDD offers a critical opportunity to enhance the well being of forest communities,
a principle upheld by several international agreements and widely accepted voluntary
standards related to REDD. The workshop discussions focussed on how best to
achieve this.
The proceedings of the workshop are organised in two sections. In the first section,
experiences from incentive-based forest management are examined for their effects on
the livelihoods of local communities. In the second section, case studies from the six case
study countries provide a snapshot of REDD developments to date and identify design
features for REDD that would support benefits for forest communities. An introductory
chapter provides a synthesis and overview of the workshop findings.
Reviews of incentive-based experiences related to payments for environmental services,
volunteer carbon markets and the Clean Development Mechanism show that incentives
can be successful in supporting forest conservation. However, programmes tended to not
benefit the poor, and marginalised some groups even further. Programmes tended to be
biased towards particular geographic regions, and populations that were better off. The
poor often could not afford to participate because of high transaction costs and, where
carbon markets led to more formalised rights than existed previously, the poorest often
lost rights. Clear, formal rights supported implementation of programmes. Where rights
are unclear, conflict over carbon benefits can be expected.
The papers from case study countries described their preparedness for REDD in the
lead up to the December 2009 UN Copenhagen meetings. Brazil and Indonesia, as two
of the world’s highest emitters of forest-related carbon, have taken significant steps to
establish policy and project frameworks for REDD. Most countries have Readiness Plans
for the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Facility. Madagascar and Tanzania plan to build
on existing policies for participatory forestry or conservation. The main concerns in all
countries were how to design REDD to reduce emissions effectively: how to establish
relevant baseline levels, how to reduce leakage and how to assess additionality. Little
attention has been given to helping forest communities participate in REDD decisionExecutive summary
making processes that will affect their livelihoods. Only two of the countries so far,
Brazil and Indonesia, have developed ways to distribute REDD-related benefits to
different stakeholders and provide multi-tiered benefits to forest communities. Assuring
transparency and accountability, free, prior and informed consent, and participation in
REDD decisions will be necessary to ensure even ‘good enough’ governance in REDD.
The workshop findings show that to make REDD work for forest communities there will
need to be clear links between incentives, drivers and benefits at multiple scales. There
will need to be long-term development opportunities. Not least, forest communities
will need to be involved in making REDD decisions that affect them. National REDD
programmes will need to be complemented by pro-poor programmes adapted to
local conditions.
The introduction to these proceedings presents a framework for analysing the design of
REDD in terms of these multiple requirements and different groups. The framework
allows REDD strategies to be analysed according to the extent to which interest groups
at different levels and scales (e.g. households, communities, local government and the
timber industry 1) share the burden for forest management beyond forest communities,
2) provide pro-poor, locally adapted incentives that are linked to long-term development
opportunities and 3) create safety nets and livelihood options for forest communities
that link and cross multiple levels. The framework can also be used to assess equity
(e.g. across different kinds of forests, including areas most at threat of deforestation
and conserved forests), the mix of private and public benefits, or other equity attributes
of interest.
Workshop participants identified research priorities for understanding the links between
REDD and forest communities. These address four main questions:
1. How can REDD support the deeper structural changes needed to stabilise climate
and economies in the future?
2. Where should REDD initiatives in the landscape focus (in relation, for instance, to
carbon density, opportunity costs and potential for co-benefits)?
3. What are the substantive practical concerns in the design and implementation of
REDD, and what are the roles of different stakeholders (in setting baselines, capacity
for monitoring, incentive structures)? and
4. What are the links between REDD processes and the political, economic and social
structures that affect what sorts of REDD projects are established and how they
are defined? |
|