Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.0 TANZANIA ................................................................................................... 45 3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 45 3.2 OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL REDD+ STRATEGIES FOR BENEFIT SHARING ............................ 45 3.2.1 What Are the Forms of REDD+ Benefits Identified in the National Strategy? ...................................................................................................................... 46 3.2.2 What Are the Types of REDD+ Beneficiaries Identified in the National Strategy? ...................................................................................................................... 47 3.2.3 What Institutional System is Proposed to Channel Benefits to the Intended Beneficiaries? ............................................................................................ 48 3.3 THE CASE OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS AS ILLUSTRATED BY ENDUIMET WMA .... 49 3.3.1 General Description of Enduimet WMA ............................................................. 49 3.3.2 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 52 3.3.3 Functions Performed by the Institution ............................................................... 53 3.3.4 Link between Land Rights and Communities’ Access to Benefits ................. 54 3.3.5 Consultation/Participation of Local Communities ............................................. 54 3.3.6 Grievance/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms ........................................................ 55 3.3.7 Evaluation of Past Performance .............................................................................. 55 3.3.8 Conclusion: How Adapted is this Model to Manage REDD+ Benefits at the Local Level? ......................................................................................................... 56 3.4 THE CASE OF PARTICIPATORY FOREST MANAGEMENT AS ILLUSTRATED BY SULEDO FOREST .............................................................................................................................. 57 3.4.1 General Description of Suledo Forest .................................................................. 57 3.4.2 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 59 3.4.3 Functions Performed by the Institution ............................................................... 60 3.4.4 Link between Land Rights and Communities’ Access to Benefits ................. 61 3.4.5 Consultation/Participation of Local Communities ............................................. 61 3.4.6 Grievance/Conflict Resolution Mechanisms ........................................................ 61 3.4.7 Evaluation of Past Performance .............................................................................. 62 3.4.8 Conclusion: How Adapted is this Model to Manage REDD+ Benefits at the Local Level? ......................................................................................................... 63 3.5 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 64 3.5.1 Lessons Learned from WMAs and VLFRs: Challenges and Opportunities for REDD+ Benefit-Sharing.................................................................................... 64 3.5.2 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 67 TANZANIA CASE STUDY APPENDIX 3.1: LIST OF INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED DURING THE FIELD VISIT (MAY 13–27, 2011) ......................................................................................... 69 4.0 NEPAL ........................................................................................................... 71 4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 71 4.2 OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL REDD+ STRATEGIES FOR BENEFIT SHARING ............................ 71 4.2.1 Potential Forms of REDD+ Benefits ..................................................................... 73 4.2.2 Potential REDD+ Beneficiaries ............................................................................... 74 4.2.3 Potential Institutional Mechanisms for Benefit Distribution ........................... 77 4.3 REDD+ DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ....................................................................................... 79 4.3.1 Overview of Key Institutions .................................................................................. 81 4.3.2 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 81 4.3.3 Link between Land Rights and Communities’ Access to Benefits ................. 81 4.3.4 Benefit Sharing Functions ......................................................................................... 83 4.3.5 Consultation of Local Communities ..................................................................... 84 4.3.6 Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms ................................................ 84 4.3.7 Evaluations of Past Performance ............................................................................ 84 4.4 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE REDD+ DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ................................... 85 4.4.1 Legal and Policy Framework.................................................................................... 85 4.4.2 Governance and Management ................................................................................ 85 4.4.3 Community Engagement .......................................................................................... 86 4.4.4 Disbursement Efficiency ........................................................................................... 86 ii PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER
4.4.5 Disbursement Effectiveness ..................................................................................... 86 4.4.6 Disbursement Equity ................................................................................................. 87 4.5 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 87 NEPAL CASE STUDY APPENDIX 4.1: LIST OF INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED DURING THE FIELD VISIT (MAY 13–27, 2011) .................................................................................................... 89 5.0 INDONESIA .................................................................................................. 90 5.1 COUNTRY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. 90 5.1.1 The Rise of REDD+ ................................................................................................... 91 5.2 OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL REDD+ STRATEGIES FOR BENEFIT SHARING ............................ 92 5.2.1 Potential Forms of REDD+ Benefits ..................................................................... 94 5.2.3 Potential REDD+ Beneficiaries ............................................................................... 94 5.2.4 Potential Institutional Mechanisms for Benefit Distribution .......................... 96 5.3 THE KATINGAN REDD+ DEMONSTRATION PROJECT .......................................................... 99 5.3.1 Overview of Key Institutions ............................................................................... 100 5.3.2 Funding Sources ....................................................................................................... 101 5.3.3 Link between Land Rights and Communities’ Access to Benefits .............. 101 5.3.4 Benefit Sharing Functions ...................................................................................... 102 5.3.5 Consultation of Local Communities .................................................................. 103 5.3.6 Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms ............................................. 103 5.3.7 Evaluations of Past Performance ......................................................................... 104 5.4 RUPES/RIVERCARE PROJECT .................................................................................................. 104 5.4.1 Overview of Key Institutions ............................................................................... 104 5.4.2 Funding Sources ....................................................................................................... 106 5.4.3 Link between Land Rights and Communities’ Access to Benefits .............. 106 5.4.4 Benefit Sharing Functions ...................................................................................... 107 5.4.5 Consultation of Local Communities .................................................................. 108 5.4.6 Grievance and Conflict Resolution Mechanisms ............................................. 108 5.4.7 Evaluations of Past Performance ......................................................................... 108 5.5 LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE KATINGAN REDD+ PROJECT AND RUPES/ RIVERCARE PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 109 5.5.1 Legal and Policy Framework for Land Tenure and Access to Benefits ..... 109 5.5.2 Governance and Management ............................................................................. 109 5.5.3 Community Engagement ....................................................................................... 109 5.5.4 Efficiency of Benefit Sharing Schemes ................................................................ 110 5.5.5 Effectiveness of Benefit Sharing Schemes .......................................................... 110 5.5.6 Equity of Benefit Sharing Schemes ...................................................................... 110 5.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 111 INDONESIA CASE STUDY APPENDIX 5.1 – LIST OF INTERVIEWS ............................................... 113 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 114 PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER iii
Page 1 and 2: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND RESOURCE GOVERN
Page 3: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND RESOURCE GOVERN
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 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?