Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

More documents

Recommendations

Info

carried out by Yayasan Puter will further strengthen the ability of villages to equitably resolve internal disputes. 5.3.7 EVALUATIONS OF PAST PERFORMANCE It is too early to evaluate the performance of this REDD+ demonstration project. 5.4 RUPES/RIVERCARE PROJECT The sub-district of Sumberjaya is located in West Lampung Province. It forms the upper watersheds of all major rivers on the island of Sumatra. Approximately 40 percent of Sumberjaya is subsequently classified as protection forest and 10 percent as national park. Nonetheless, nearly three-quarters of the land has been converted to coffee gardens by small-scale farmers. The government believed that uncontrolled deforestation was causing erosion, which threatened the operation of the Way Besai hydropower company (PLTA). Thousands of farmers were consequently evicted from Sumberjaya between 1991 and 1996. In 2004, the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) started working in Sumberjaya through its RUPES project (Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services). During the first phase of the project, ICRAF focused on supporting local communities to gain access to the Government of Indonesia‘s HKm program. The HKm program gives farmers conditional land tenure to cultivate protection forest for coffee. In exchange, they must adopt sustainable farming practices and protect the remaining natural forest. The HKm program now covers approximately 70 percent of Sumberjaya‘s protection forest and involves nearly 6,400 farmers (ICRAF, 2010). Between 2008 and 2009, ICRAF worked with PLTA to implement a pilot project known as the RiverCare program, which would reward farmers who could reduce river sedimentation through improved land management practices. A competition was held between 30 groups of HKm farmers over six months. The group that developed the most promising erosion control measures was subsequently trained in river sediment monitoring. As a reward for the sediment reductions achieved by the group, PLTA installed a micro-hydroelectric generator for the community. Runner-up HKm groups received cash payments of up to 7.5 million Rupiah (approximately US$875). 172 ICRAF has been inactive in the area since the RiverCare pilot program ended in 2009. However, they are currently considering a second phase of RiverCare, which would expand the program to new communities and potentially introduce new performance criteria beyond reduced sedimentation. 173 5.4.1 OVERVIEW OF KEY INSTITUTIONS ICRAF: ICRAF is a global research organization dedicated to generating and applying the best available knowledge to stimulate agricultural growth, raise farmers‘ incomes, and protect the environment. The RUPES project seeks to integrate rewards for environmental services into development programs to alleviate rural poverty and protect the environment. It has 15 research sites in six Asian countries: India, Nepal, China, Vietnam, Philippines, and Indonesia. ICRAF played a major role in securing HKm permits for farmer groups in the Sumberjaya sub-district, and designed and implemented the RiverCare pilot program. 172 Interview with Eddy Perwanto. 173 Interview with Chandra Wijaya. 104 PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER
HKm groups: Farmer households must organize into groups in order to apply for an HKm permit. The Buluh Kapur HKm group, which was visited for this case study, includes 107 households. Each HKm group has its own management structure, which is responsible for collecting and managing group funds, monitoring and enforcing the group‘s internal rules, and supporting its members. FKKT-HKM: The Forum Komunikasi Kelompok Tani HKm (henceforth referred to as ―the HKm Forum‖) in West Lampung is a membership based organization representing 30 HKm groups, which include roughly 7,000 farmer households, of which approximately 20 percent are headed by women. 174 The HKm Forum was established in 2008 by ICRAF. The Forum provides technical support to its member groups and seed funding for communal investments in livelihoods enhancing activities. Within the Forum, the women‘s group is a strong sub-group, which provides its own technical guidance and micro-lending program. RiverCare Group: The HKm group that won the RiverCare competition–the Buluh Kapur group–formed a RiverCare Group. This group has a management structure that is separate from the HKm group‘s structure (with the exception of the president), and is responsible for monitoring river sedimentation levels, maintaining the micro-hydro generator, and collecting monthly maintenance fees from participating households. PLTA: The Way Besai hydropower company participated in the RiverCare program and financed the micro-hydro installation for Buluh Kapur sub-village. They also work closely with the Forum to support livelihood enhancement efforts and to provide seed funding. PLTA‘s engagement is led through their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program. Government: The Ministry of Forestry maintains the power to designate an area of the forest estate – either production or protection forest – as an HKm area. Following this designation, the Bupati (head of district government) has the right to allocate permits to farmer groups to utilize the HKm area. The district forest agency typically plays a supporting role in the HKm permit application process, and is also responsible for monitoring the activities of active HKm groups. TABLE 5.2: OVERVIEW OF KEY INSTITUTIONS Institution Key Functions ICRAF Supports farmer groups to secure HKm license, developer of RiverCare project HKm groups Unites over 100 farmer households to secure a HKm license FKKT-HKM Unites over 30 HKm groups to provide technical support and protect the groups’ interests RiverCare Group Manages the RiverCare project for the Buluh Kapur HKm group PLTA Is the ecosystem service “buyer” in the RiverCare project and technical support to the FKKT-HKM Government Approves and monitors HKm licenses 174 Interview with Eddy Perwanto. PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER 105
Page 1 and 2:
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND RESOURCE GOVERN
Page 3:
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND RESOURCE GOVERN
Page 6 and 7:
3.0 TANZANIA ......................
Page 8 and 9:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AA Autho
Page 10 and 11:
IUPHHK Timber Resources Utilization
Page 12 and 13:
PREFACE The Institutional Mechanism
Page 14 and 15:
3. Increasing experience in Payment
Page 16 and 17:
BOX 1.1: COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION AND
Page 18 and 19:
� Risk of deforestation; � Prop
Page 20 and 21:
Priority Ecosystems (INEGI classifi
Page 22 and 23:
Overview of key institutions and ac
Page 24 and 25:
It appears that this project is rel
Page 26 and 27:
deliberate, and continuous outreach
Page 28 and 29:
� Additional reforestation: Befor
Page 30 and 31:
elected as assistants to members of
Page 32 and 33:
MEXICO CASE STUDY APPENDIX 1.1: LIS
Page 34 and 35:
Today, the DRC is the most-advanced
Page 36 and 37:
2.2.1 WHAT ARE THE FORMS OF REDD+ B
Page 38 and 39:
to be harmonized with the 2006 Cons
Page 40 and 41:
FIGURE 2.3: TENTATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR
Page 42 and 43:
herbaceous or shrubby savanna that
Page 44 and 45:
comprised of the 18 clan chiefs wit
Page 46 and 47:
NOVACEL staff and supporters is tha
Page 48 and 49:
2.4.2 FUNDING SOURCES As mentioned
Page 50 and 51:
These institutions are in essence p
Page 52 and 53:
The institutional model for social
Page 54 and 55:
In the case of logging concessions,
Page 56 and 57:
DRC CASE STUDY APPENDIX 2.1: LIST O
Page 58 and 59:
sharing. First, consultations with
Page 60 and 61:
emissions). There is also the quest
Page 62 and 63:
the village would earn less through
Page 64 and 65:
3.3.2 FUNDING SOURCES Revenues star
Page 66 and 67: village went from earning $50,000 U
Page 68 and 69: hunting quotas set too high by the
Page 70 and 71: Suledo Forest lies in the Kiteto Di
Page 72 and 73: The ZEC aims to acquire rights to m
Page 74 and 75: 3.4.7 EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANC
Page 76 and 77: 3.5 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMME
Page 78 and 79: incentives for populations to engag
Page 80 and 81: � The size and composition of agg
Page 82 and 83: Type of organization Organization n
Page 84 and 85: FIGURE 4.1 MAP OF NEPAL AND LOCATIO
Page 86 and 87: improved tenure security, enhanced
Page 88 and 89: ―distant users‖). Presumably, t
Page 90 and 91: which are housed in the district of
Page 92 and 93: This demonstration project has been
Page 94 and 95: significant backlog of unapproved O
Page 96 and 97: Monitoring and Verification: A moni
Page 98 and 99: management. REDD+ simply provides a
Page 100 and 101: initially be directed towards a par
Page 102 and 103: 5.0 INDONESIA 5.1 COUNTRY CONTEXT S
Page 104 and 105: REDD), and the Forest Investment Pr
Page 106 and 107: FIGURE 5.3: THREE IMPLEMENTATION PH
Page 108 and 109: TABLE 5.1: BENEFIT DISTRIBUTION ACC
Page 110 and 111: Land user partnerships: A REDD+ pro
Page 112 and 113: � Learn lessons and build capacit
Page 114 and 115: identifies the owner and boundaries
Page 118 and 119: 5.4.2 FUNDING SOURCES The RUPES pro
Page 120 and 121: Monitoring and verification: HKm gr
Page 122 and 123: provided by Yayasan Puter was not e
Page 124 and 125: emission reductions. However, emerg
Page 126 and 127: REFERENCES Almeida, F. & Hatcher, J
Page 128 and 129: Graf, S. & Iglesias, L. 2010. Pago
Page 130 and 131: REDD+ Forestry and Climate Change C
Page 132: U.S. Agency for International Devel
show all

Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?