REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods. The emerging agenda

Abstract

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?