© 2007 theIDLgroup Ltd Will the Rural Poor Benefit from REDD? OPERATIONALISING CARBON FINANCE IN...

© 2007 theIDLgroup Ltd

Will the Rural Poor Benefit from REDD?

OPERATIONALISING CARBON FINANCE IN GHANAOPERATIONALISING CARBON FINANCE IN GHANA Roundtable Meeting, 27-28 November 2008

Michael Richards, FRR (a division of theIDLgroup Ltd, UK), in association with Forest Trends


POTENTIAL SOCIAL/EQUITY BENEFITS

Property Rights & Governance• Opportunity to strengthen property rights • REDD is an incentive for improved governance & policies

Capacity Building• Community empowerment leading to creation of new opportunities• Human and social capital development• Participatory carbon monitoring

Economic/financial opportunities• Carbon cash & in-kind payments • Employment• Community forest management, eco-tourism, alternative livelihoods and farming can be compatible with REDD

Environmental co-benefits• Erosion control, pollinisation, water quality, biodiversity, etc.


Equity risk 1: Carbon property rights

• Land in Ghana is owned by the communities (TAs) but trees belong to state (except if planted)

• Does tree ownership = carbon rights?

• On and off-reserve differences? NB Potential of CREMAs

• Increasing international policy discussions on how to safeguard community rights

National recognition of rights and tenure based on UN 2007 Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples?


Equity risk 2: “Paying the Bad Guys”

The ‘additionality’ principle of baseline & credit REDD favours developers

REDD policy options:

Tackle deforestation agents via tougher laws, stronger compliance? AND/OR

Pay deforestation agents for not breaking a weakly applied law?

Problem of perverse incentives – both at the national and community levels

NB Fund-based approach - easier to reward community conservation and avoid perverse incentives, but low ‘additionality’


Will carbon benefits outweigh the foregone benefits or livelihoods? (opportunity costs)

Will carbon payments be high enough to dissuade chainsaw operators?

¢ Will the transaction costs be too high?

Premium if high social and biodiversity benefits?

‘Back-end’ carbon payments but ‘up-front’ incentives

Role for ODA to support/subsidise community REDD?

Equity risk 3. Community conservation economics


Equity risk 4: National REDD Strategies

Policing/exclusionary policies v. CFM and community conservation

Balance between compensating the developers & law enforcement?

How to define and target ‘equity’ - ‘do no harm’ or ‘maximise social benefits’? (need to define pro-poor criteria in REDD strategy)

Community REDD Investment Fund proposed

Multiple Stakeholder Consultation and Outreach to be basic part of World Bank FCPF R-Plan


Equity risk 5. Institutional failure

Institutional/governance problems (national or local) increase risk & transaction costs

Transparency & accountability in financial management is critical

Conflict resolution and judiciary process

Effective channelling of targeted REDD incentives

Intra-community distribution: benefit sharing & accountability in stool-based tenure systems


Influence of post Kyoto REDD deal

Market based system + Fund-based system? Perverse incentive for communities?

‘Degradation’ – will it be included? Should favour communities, but higher measurement costs

Nested approach? Communities could gain even if national policy failures

Accounting mechanism? ‘Partial accounting’ or ‘full accounting’? (e.g., agro-forestry)

Include soil carbon? Africa should try and negotiate REDD +

Over-regulation of REDD carbon? Will REDD be any simpler than CDM?

International standards and premiums? Voluntary adoption by governments – also linked to funding?


Potential effect on food, land (& timber) prices – less land for farming, more competition

Less ODA for pro-poor development? – donors may prefer REDD

Forest users/farmers are marginalised in the current forest management regime

Will the international community properly fund climate change adaptation?

Wider equity concerns


Legal, Property Rights and Governance

• Clear legal definitions & protection

• Flexible and equitable long-term contracts

• Community mapping using GPS

• Appropriate state enforcement mechanisms

• Equitable judiciary and conflict resolution procedures

• Community access to legal advice

MAKING REDD WORK FOR THE POOR – POVERTY ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP (PEP) REPORT


Information/popular education – ‘voice and choice’

Participatory design - REDD strategy, policies and projects

Demonstration projects - participatory carbon measurement

Governments – develop & incorporate pro-poor criteria; recognise & adopt international social standards, poverty impact assessment

Strengthen local institutions – reduce transaction costs

Partnerships and networking - support capacity building process

‘Global Support Platform for Pro-Poor REDD’ - international initiative with regional and national focus

MAKING REDD WORK FOR THE POOR cont. (PEP)


Some conclusions

There are equity risks – but these can be countered by appropriate government action supported & rewarded by the international community

Carbon property rights and governance will be the main determinants of equity impacts

Tensions in market-based approach – international focus on how to make REDD pro-poor, e.g., market regulation + Fund-based approach to compensate carbon stocks

ODA support - community conservation & adaptation finance

Local institutional capacity building, information, networking

Future – soil carbon would be more pro-poor than REDD

© 2007 theIDLgroup Ltd Will the Rural Poor Benefit from REDD? OPERATIONALISING CARBON FINANCE IN...

Documents

Transcript of © 2007 theIDLgroup Ltd Will the Rural Poor Benefit from REDD? OPERATIONALISING CARBON FINANCE IN...