Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?

Mohammed, Essam (2011): Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter? Published in:

Abstract

Ensuring that the poor or the most vulnerable sections of society benefit from REDD+ projects is crucial to building both national and international legitimacy and to fostering successful delivery of conservation and social objectives. In both academic and non-academic literature, issues of the equity of benefit-sharing at a community or household level are overlooked compared with distributional issues at the national and international level. Therefore, this paper aims to look at some of the issues related to benefit distribution at village and household level. Two very important factors that are likely to affect benefit distribution from REDD+ at a village level are whether payments are made directly to households or to communities as a whole; and whether payments are made in cash or in kind. In addition, the paper looks at the following design questions, which are closely related to these above factors: 1. What should the provision of benefits be based on – landholding size, actual emission reductions or the demography of the community – to ensure that equitable design criteria are met? 2. How can it be ensured that more vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, the smalllandholders and landless poor, women and children do not lose out? 3. What impact would the type of benefit transferred have on the well-being of the communities and the local economy? To this end, experiences are reviewed from payments for ecosystem services, integrated conservation and development projects, community-based natural resource management and food or cash transfer programmes across the global south. In addition, benefit distribution systems that would enable the REDD+ pilot projects in general are suggested, and the REDD pilot project in Cat Tien National Park in particular, to be more pro-poor. Evidence is examined on how well schemes meet external criteria of equitable benefit distribution as well as assessing the perceptions of those involved. Conclusions drawn include: l Whether benefits are provided to a community as a whole or to individual households, and what benefits to transfer, are decisions that should be made on the basis of community consultation and careful assessment of their preferences. l Even though determining payment types and levels is best tailored through consultations with local people to best match community aspirations and those in need, economic feasibility, local institutional capacity and governance structures, and the effects on the local economy and on the livelihoods of the poor households should be carefully weighed and assessed. l Assessment of the preference for payment type should not be a one-off activity. Because participant communities are unlikely to have experience in receiving rewards in exchange for ecosystem service provision, their stated preferences may not be accurate in the early stages of the scheme. Once the scheme is implemented and communities start receiving payment, their preferences should be periodically assessed and changes in payment type should be made accordingly. This will increase the implementation and transaction costs of REDD+. Project developers and designers should budget for the cost of participation at the project design phase. l To promote pro-poor benefit distribution from REDD+ interventions, benefit distribution based on proportionality and the equality of opportunities to participate would be more relevant in areas where the participants are characterized by less inequality. In an unequal society (for example characterized by land disparity), on the other hand, benefit distribution based on need that positively discriminates in favour of the poor would be more desirable so that poor or weak claimants do not receive disproportionately lower benefits than the relatively well-off.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: REDD; PES; Social benefits
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics

References

Ahmed, A. U., Quisumbing, A., Hoddino, J., Nasreen, M., Bryan, E. 2009. Comparing food and cash transfers to the ultrapoor in Bangladesh. Research Monograph 163. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.

Asquith, N. M., Vargas, M. T., Wunder, S. 2008. Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65, 675–684.

Bennett, M. T. 2008. China’s sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual? Ecological Economics 65, 699–711.

Bleaney, A., B. Vickers, and L. Peskett. 2009. What could REDD look like in Vietnam? Available at: http://redd-net.org/files/WhatcouldREDDlooklikeinvietnam.pdf. Accessed on: 13 May 2010.

Blom, B., Sunderland, T., Murdiyarso, D. 2010. Getting REDD to work locally: Lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environmental Science and Policy 13(2), 164–172.

Börner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Rügnitz Tito, M., Pereira, L., Nascimento, N. 2010. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 69(6), 1272–1282.CARE nd. CARE makes carbon finance work for poor and marginalised people. Available at http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/carbon/CarbonFinance09.pdf. Accessed on 22 June 2011.

Carpenter, C. 2008. The Bali Action Plan: Key Issues in the Climate Negotiations. Summary for Policy Makers. An Environment and Energy Group Publication, UNDP.

Chapin, M. 2004. A challenge to conservationists. World Watch Magazine, Nov/Dec 2004, 17–31.

Cunha, J. M., De Giorgi, G., Jayachandran, S. 2010. The price effect of cash versus in-kind transfers. See http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/7/784/papers/Jayachandranfinal.pdf (accessed 7 December 2011).

Engel, S., Pagiola, S., Wunder, S. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.

Faminow, M. 1995. Issues in valuing food aid: The cash or in-kind controversy. Food Policy 20(1), 3–10.

FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. 2010. Payments for environmental services from agricultural landscapes – PESAL. See http://www.fao.org/es/esa/pesal/PESdesign6. html (accessed 7 December 2011).

Ferraro, P. J., Kiss, A. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298, 1718–1719.

Fisher, R., Maginnis, S., Jackson, W., Barrow, E., Jeanrenaud, S. 2008. Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Landscapes, People and Power. Earthscan, London. Frost, P. G. H., Bond, I. 2006. CAMPFIRE and payments for environmental services. Markets for Environmental Services Report Number 9. International Institute for Environment and Development,London.

Garfinkel, I. 1970. Is in-kind redistribution efficient? Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper 74-70, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

González Guillen, M. 2004. Evaluación del Programme de Pago de Servicios Ambientales Hidrologicos(PSAH). Cited in: Porras, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Neves, N. 2008. All That Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries. Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Groom, B., Palmer, C. 2008. Direct vs indirect payments for environmental services: The role of relaxing market constraints. Environmental Economy and Policy Research Working Paper No. 36/08, University of Cambridge.

Guluma Y. 2004. Cash for work projects: A case study in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Save the Children UK, London.

Heyman, J., Ariely, D. 2004. Effort for payment. A tale of two markets. Cited in: Asquith, N. M., Vargas, M. T., Wunder, S. 2008. Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65, 675–684.

Hoang, M. H., Van Noordwijk, M., Pham T. T. (eds). 2008. Payment for environmental services in Vietnam – Lessons and experiences in Vietnam. World Agroforestry Center in Vietnam, Hanoi.

Hughes, R., Flintan, F. 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. See http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/9080IIED.pdf (accessed 6 December 2011).

Jayne, T. S., Yamano, T., Weber, M. T., Tschirley, D., Benfica, R., Chapoto, A., Zulu, B. 2003. Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: Implications for poverty reduction strategies. Food Policy 28, 253–275.

Johannesen, A.B. 2006. Designing integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs): illegal hunting, wildlife conservation, and the welfare of the local people. Environment and Development Economics. 11, 247-267.

Karousakis, K. 2009. Promoting biodiversity co-benefits in REDD., OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 11. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Lindhjem, H., Skjelvik, J. M., Eriksson, A., Fitch, T., Hansen, L.-L.P. 2009. The Use of Economic Instruments in Nordic Environmental Policy 2006–2009. Nordic Council of Ministers, TemaNord 2009:578. See http://www.norden.org/da/publikationer/publikationer/2009-578 (accessed 7 December 2011)

Madeira, E. M. 2009. REDD in design: Assessment of planned first-generation activities in Indonesia. Resources for the Future DP09–49.

Maiese, M. 2003. Distributive justice. In: Burgess, G. and Burgess, H. (eds). Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. See http://www.beyondintractability. org/essay/distributive_justice/ (accessed 7 December 2011).

Nguyen, V., McGrath, T., White, P. 2006. Agricultural land distribution in Vietnam: Emerging issues and policy implications. Unpublished MPRA Paper. See http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/25587/ (accessed 7 December 2011).

Pagiola, S. 2007. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65(4), 712–724.

Parker, C., Cranford, M. 2010. The Little Biodiversity Finance Book: A Guide to Proactive Investment in Natural Capital (PINC). Global Canopy Programme, Oxford.

Pernia, E. M. 2003. Pro-poor growth: What is it and how is it important? ERD Policy Brief 17, Asian Development Bank.

Peskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen-Jones, E., Edwards, G., Brown, J. 2008. Making REDD work for the poor. IUCN/ODI for the Poverty and Environment Partnership, Gland.

Petheram, L., Campbell, B. M. (2010) Listening to locals on payments for environmental services. Journal of Environmental Management 91(5): 1139–1149.

Planet Action. n.d. REDD in Cat Tien National Park, Viet Nam. See http://www.planet-action.org/ web/85-project-detail.php?projectID=4453 (accessed 7 December 2011).

Porras, I. 2010. Fair and green? Social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Porras, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Neves, N. 2008. All That Glitters: A Review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries. Natural Resource Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Preece, L. D., Cangas, B. H., Achdiawan, R., Sunderland, T. C. H., Ruiz Perez, M., Campbell, B., Stacey, N. 2009. Conservation in the Lower Mekong: Preliminary analysis. Personal communication received by B. Blom. Cited in: Blom, B., Sunderland, T., and Murdiyarso, D. 2010. Getting REDD to work locally: Lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environmental Science and Policy 13(2), 164–172.

Robertson, N., Wunder, S. 2005. Fresh Tracks in the Forest: Assessing Incipient Payments for Environmental Services Initiatives in Bolivia. CIFOR, Bogor.

Rogers, B. L., Coates, J. 2002. Food-based Safety Nets and Related Programs. World Bank, Washington.

Schwarte, C., Mohammed, E. Y. 2011. Carbon righteousness: How to lever pro-poor benefits from REDD+. IIED Briefing.

Scholz, I., Schmidt, L. 2008. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: meeting the main challenges ahead. German Development Institute. Briefing Paper 6.

Skutsch, M., Vickers, B., Georgiadou, P. Y., McCall, M. K. 2011. Alternative models for carbon payments to communities under REDD+: A comparison using the Polis model of actor inducements. Environmental Science and Policy 14(4), 140 151.

SNV [Netherlands Development Organisation]. n.d. Cat Tien Pro-Poor REDD Project. See http://www.snvworld.org/en/regions/asia/ourwork/Pages/CatTien.aspx accessed 7 December 2011).

Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., et al. (eds). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

Sommerville, M., Jones, J., Rahajaharison, M., Milner-Gulland, E. 2010. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 69, 1262–1271.

Struhsaker, T. T., Struhsaker, P. J., et al. 2005. Conserving Africa’s rain forests: Problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Cited in: Sommerville, M., Jones, J., Rahajaharison, M. and Milner-Gulland, E. 2010. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 69, 1262–1271.

Tacconi, L. 2009. Compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation vs compensated reductions. Ecological Economics 68(8–9), 2469–2472.

Takahashi, K. 2007. Sources of regional income disparity in rural Vietnam: Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition. IDE Discussion Paper No. 95. Törnblom, K. Y., Vermunt, R. (eds). 2007. Distributive and Procedural Justice: Research and Social Applications. Ashgate Publishing, London. UN-REDD. n.d. About REDD+. http://www.un-redd.org/AboutREDD/tabid/582/Default.aspx (accessed 5 December 2011).

UN-REDD Programme Vietnam. 2009. Consideration for designing of a REDD-compliant benefit distribution system for VietNam: Executive summary. See http://www.theredddesk.org/sites/ default/files/resources/pdf/2010/Benefit_Distribution_system_final_Executive_Summary2. pdf (accessed 5 December 2011).

Van der Jagt, C., Gujadhur, T., van Bussel, F. 2000. Community Benefits through Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) in Botswana. CBNRM Support Programme, Occasional Papers No. 2. IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Botswana.

Wagstaff, G. F. 1994. Equity, equality, and need: Three principles of justice or one? An analysis of ‘equity as desert’. Current Psychology 13(2), 138–152.

Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42.