Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture

1
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
2
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

3
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

4
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

5
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?!

6
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

7
More challenges

• Economic and social development
• Difficult trades between environment, development
  and climate- multi-functional 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?

8
Challenges

• REDD similar to the Stalin-debate and maoists in
  Norway
• 80 bra, 20 dårlig ?bra

9
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
  sub-national levels?
• Not so modest... (80 good- 20 bad....)

10
2. Project narrative
11
International level National level Local
level
International architecture Transfer mechanisms
Design features
Impacts of international architecture National
REDD policy regime Sector coordination
Asssessment of national architecture Efficiency/l
egitimacy Transaction costs Distribution/exclusion
Opportunity costs
REDD challenges vary between varies- but are also
closely linked
12
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..

13
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..
14
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

15
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..

16
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

17
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?

18
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?

19
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 issuePES 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,

20
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)

21
Methodologies

• Secondary data, policy documents,
• Household surveys, interviews etc.
• Baseline and follow-up studies
• Unqualified guessing and loose opinions

22
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
• Engagement with international climate change
  negotiators
• Engagement with national policy-makers and
  stakeholders
• 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

23
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?

24
6. Last words

• We are not afraid of Redd (ReddNorwegian 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!!

25
Muda ukifika totajua!!
26
(No Transcript)