The Issue:
Early on in REDD+ development, “3Es” for REDD+ success were defined: efficiency, effectiveness and equity – yet, the latter cannot be objectively measured as different people have different conceptions of what is fair.
In this regard, the design of benefit sharing mechanisms is crucial for the success of REDD+. Distribution of REDD+ benefits should set the necessary incentives for reducing carbon emissions from forests. At the same time, it is important that stakeholders perceive these mechanisms as fair, otherwise the legitimacy of and support to REDD+ will suffer.
In the context of multifunctional landscapes where forests are used by a variety of stakeholders, assessing the fairness of REDD+ benefit sharing is crucial: Should the ones who are investing the most money into more sustainable practices – for example businesses that decide to go green – receive benefits? Or groups who have acted as custodians to natural environments for a long time, like indigenous people? Others highlight the importance of legal frameworks.
Research Findings:
Drawing on data from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, a new research paper analyzes experiences from 6 countries and 21 REDD+ projects. Researchers identify different rationales for benefit sharing, each of it impacting the design of these REDD+ components. The study concludes that based on the wide variety of interpretations pertaining to what constitutes ‘fair’ benefit sharing, the concept has to be clarified early on before REDD+ project implementation. In this regard, considering the political context as well as the process of sharing benefits is key.
Some key facts and figures:
- Debates on REDD+ do not clearly differentiate between ‘net benefits’ and ‘gross benefits’ – due to the fact that some REDD+ benefits might come at a cost, for example when communities have to forego sources of income from forests, it is important to make this distinction
- Almost 90% of surveyed government officials in Brazil agreed that REDD+ benefits should reward large-scale businesses for reducing forest emissions – in Indonesia, only 38% agreed with the statement
- Sources of REDD+ finance influence benefit sharing mechanisms: market finance is more likely to reward those that reduce emissions directly whereas fund-based finance is more flexible and could include development, livelihood and other considerations
- Based on an analysis of current practices and debates, the study identifies 6 rationales for REDD+ benefit sharing:
1. Benefits should go to those with legal rights
2. Benefits should go to those that reduce emissions
3. Benefits should go to low-emitting forest stewards
4. Benefits should go to those that incur costs
5. Benefits should go to those that facilitate REDD+
6. Benefits should go to those that need them most (the poorest)
