Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

improved tenure security, enhanced access to forest resources, and up-front (i.e., not performance-based)
investments in sustainable livelihoods.
In addition, the R-PP and interim strategy identify broader societal benefits that REDD+ programs will be
expected to deliver. These indirect benefits of REDD+, sometimes called ―co-benefits,‖ are likely to play an
important role in Nepal. Since Nepal‘s potential for carbon reduction and sequestration is low relative to
countries with more significant forest carbon stocks and higher rates of deforestation, there are concerns that
forest carbon revenues will not be able to offset significant transaction and opportunity costs. Bundling
REDD+ strategies with broader ecosystem service, poverty reduction, and climate change adaptation
programs could help to build stronger incentives for forest protection and to minimize transaction costs. Key
co-benefits identified in the R-PP include:
� Reduced poverty and improved livelihoods for people who depend on forest resources;
� Enhanced biodiversity, soil, and water conservation;
� Enhanced value of timber and non-timber forest products;
� Enhanced adaptive capacity of forests and forest dependent communities to climate change; and
� Improved capacity of forest management institutions, including local government and local communities.
4.2.2 POTENTIAL REDD+ BENEFICIARIES
The R-PP and interim strategy discuss three potential beneficiaries of REDD+: local communities,
government, and the private sector. At this stage, it is not clear what would constitute a legitimate basis for
identifying beneficiaries and dividing REDD+ revenues among them. Several potential criteria are mentioned
in the R-PP and interim strategy, including carbon rights, opportunity cost, levels of effort and investment
(i.e., inputs), and performance (i.e., outputs). Broader social equity and fairness concerns underlie each of
these criteria. During interviews, most stakeholders asserted that clarifying rights to carbon in state-owned
forests will be a critical determinant of access to benefits, particularly for local communities.
Communities:
There appears to be broad consensus among stakeholders that forest-dependent communities should be a key
beneficiary under REDD+. Approximately 80 percent of the population in Nepal relies on forest resources
for some aspect of their livelihoods. Communities, therefore, play a significant role in forest management and
use regardless of their legal tenure status; their active participation in REDD+ will be vital to its success.
Currently, there are three main tenure regimes that allow local communities to legally capture benefits from
state-owned forest: (1) community forestry (CF); (2) collaborative forest management (CFM); and (3) buffer
zone management (see Box 4.1). Under each regime, communities are legally entitled to share in forest
benefits. However, the relative size of this share has been an ongoing source of tension between
communities, local government, and central government. These tensions are fueled by differing notions of
fairness and by ambiguities in the legal framework 130.
For example, communities participating in the CF program (most prevalent in the Middle Hills region)
currently retain all benefits from the forests they collectively manage in accordance with the Forest Act of
1993. However, the Local Self Governance Act of 1998 entitles local government to 10 percent of revenues
from national forests. Furthermore, MoFSC has shown an increasing interest to reclaim a portion of these
revenues now that community-managed forests have regenerated and become more lucrative (Dahal &
Banskota, 2009). Although their attempts to do so have been unsuccessful to date, the promise of REDD+
130 Refer to carbon rights case study for more extensive review of legal framework.
74 PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER