Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture A joint research programme by

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/legitimacy 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 issue;PES 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” (Redd=Norwegian 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!!