Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture

Description:

Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture A joint research programme by The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:252
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: palv7
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com