Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Overview of key institutions and actors: � Communities conduct forest management activities. The communities have agreed to maintain the forest land use over the long term and to not cut the trees, even if the carbon is not sold. The communities own the trees and the carbon absorbed/stored in them and they decide which plots are available for sale and sign off on the purchase. Community members receive technical training to participate in the project and to evaluate performance (e.g., through measuring tree growth, planting new trees, and forest management). � SAO (intermediary) is an NGO based in Oaxaca. SAO provides training and technical assistance to the communities regarding forest/carbon management and monitoring, project development and implementation, and administrative management. SAO offers carbon to the buyers and is authorized by the communities‘ assemblies to represent the interests of the communities. In addition to selling the carbon, SAO receives and transfers the payments from the buyers to the communities, oversees and validates the community forest management and monitoring activities, keeps records of the operation in a geospatially-referenced database, and prepares periodic updates to the buyers. Updates include financial reports with documentation of the transferring of the funds to the communities. � Community technicians (intermediary) are employed and trained by SAO. The technicians link SAO and the communities by translating technical matters into a common language and also by translating from Spanish to the native language. In many cases, technicians are members of the communities. 22 Technicians are responsible for working with the communities in developing annual forest management plans (e.g., when they will trim the trees, make fire barriers, etc.) and ensuring that these plans are successfully implemented. � Pronatura (intermediary) is another NGO with more visibility at the national level. Pronatura has been engaged in defining the methodology for estimating carbon sequestration and storage; training technical SAO personnel on carbon measurement; ensuring that the carbon sale is considered by the government as a commercial transaction; ensuring the recognition of CONAFOR of the system, including compatibility between the CONAFOR and SAO monitoring systems; and providing assistance on legal matters. Pronatura is also a signatory (sometimes as a witness) of the legal agreements with the buyers, although there are cases where the buyers choose to sign agreements with SAO directly. Both SAO and Pronatura issue certificates to the buyers to back up the carbon sales. Pronatura and SAO also ensure technical compatibility with CONAFOR‘s national monitoring system. � Buyers are mostly large national corporations, including Televisa (a television network), Gamesa (a bakery), and Chinoin (a pharmaceutical), in addition to private individuals and other smaller buyers from México and abroad. Link between land rights and communities’ access to benefits: Forested areas involved in the project are common areas that belong to the community. In setting up the project, ProNatura and SAO provided assistance to review the land tenure status to ensure that tenure was clear and properly documented and registered. 23 The process also involved working with the communities to review and clear up internal governance rules and processes within the communities, as well as identifying and establishing community institutions to execute the project. 22 In the case of the Santa María Tlahuitoltepec community, the technician has been involved in the project in different capacities for over five years. This was important to maintain the trust of the members of the community and to ensure the continuity of the project. For example, when community authorities change (every three years), the technician briefs the incoming authorities and brings them up to speed on the project. 23 Interviews with Carlos Marcelo Perez (SAO), Benjamín Antonio Ordoñez (Pronatura), and Alejandro Pérez Vázquez (SAO), and members of the community). 10 PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER
Benefit sharing functions: Carbon is offered to buyers at a rate of US$10 per ton of carbon. 24 From each payment, up to US$ 1 per ton of carbon sold is kept by SAO and up to US$1 per ton is kept by Pronatura to support their operations. The rest of the money is channeled to the communities. There is usually a symbolic handing over the money to the community authorities at an assembly meeting. This event is broadcasted on the local public radio stations. Often, the entire ejidal assembly (or agrarian authority) cashes the check together. Neither SAO nor Pronatura are involved in the way the communities use or share the funds and more research is needed to study internal community decision-making process. Consultation of local communities: Securing community support for the project has required extensive community consultations and dialogue through meetings with the assemblies, community leaders, and community authorities. It was important to secure buy-in from key community leaders first, who then played a critical role convincing and securing the buy-in from the rest of the members of the communities. Strengthening the project‘s social, legal, and technical bases involved building the knowledge base and technical capacities of the communities on various themes, such as the impacts of deforestation in the communities, ―business as usual‖ scenarios, ecosystem services, pollution, reforestation, forest carbon, carbon markets, and potential benefits for the communities of the carbon sequestration project for the medium and long terms. Grievance and conflict resolution mechanisms: Issues related to the project are addressed in the community assembly. From interviews with members of the community, it appears that the sense of duty to the community is very strong and individuals accept the decisions of the assembly without major issues. For example, the SAO community technician was living and working in México City when the assembly appointed him to serve as the community liaison with SAO (an unpaid position). He was informed of the decision by his family, and he returned to the community to serve. 25 After serving as the community liaison for a couple years, he was hired by SAO to become SAO‘s community technician working in the community. Also, interviews with two of the four women serving as assistants in the Agrarian Authority show that they accepted their appointments even though the work interferes with their daily activities. Evaluation of past performance: The first carbon sale was conducted in 2008 and included three communities. Since then, there have been seven additional sales involving the ten communities. As of March 2011, the project had sold 84,984 tons of carbon, including sales to offset emissions in the 2010 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP). Based on SAO surveys, the communities invested an average of 62 percent of the revenues in forest management, reforestation, or agro-forestry activities; 28 percent into social services within the community; and 10 percent to cover administrative expenses and/or salaries of the agrarian authorities. The surveys indicated that private land owners re-invested the revenues in their operations, incorporated it to the family income, or donated it to support the activities and expenses of the community authorities. In Tlahuitoltepec, the community invested funds in forest operations (greenhouses, equipment), temporary employment for forest management activities, and in complementing salaries and expenses of the agrarian authority. 26 24 This price is above the international carbon market range (between $3–7 USD per ton). 25 Interview with Alejandro Pérez Vazquez (SAO). 26 Interview with Carlos Marcelo Perez (SAO). PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER 11
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 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 116 and 117:
carried out by Yayasan Puter will f
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?