REDD+ AND CARBON RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM THE FIELD

Transcription

1 REDD+ AND CARBON RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM THE FIELD Darryl Vhugen, Senior Attorney and Land Tenure Specialist, Landesa Soledad Aguilar, Environmental Policy and Law Analyst Jonathan Miner, Research Assistant, Landesa April 24, 2012

2 Background USAID/Tetratech ARD contract Collaboration with WRI Deforestation is second biggest source of carbon emissions after fossil fuels. 17% of global emissions from forest sector; essential for absorbing CO2. 13 million hectares of forestland lost annually. Relatively low cost of forest-related emissions abatement makes it crucial component of international climate change mitigation regime. Forest resources directly support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty. 2

3 REDD+: The 2 Ds and the + Basic idea: Countries that are willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so. 2005: climate discussions introduced the idea of creating a new mechanism to compensate developing countries for reducing their rates of deforestation. RED to REDD to REDD+ ( + = conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks). Final REDD+ system not yet established. Not resolved at Durban. Funding? Donors and/or private carbon markets. Reduced Emissions From Deforestation And Forest Degradation + 3

4 Carbon Rights Embracing the Muddiness. 4

5 Project Objectives Research and write paper evaluating strategies for and experience with defining carbon rights at the national and local levels to determine who is entitled to REDD+ benefits. Tried to create an analytical framework to help countries assess whether to adopt new laws or amend existing laws to facilitate effective and equitable REDD+ activities. Study based on lessons learned from analyzing the laws and circumstances of five countries Mexico, Indonesia, Nepal, Tanzania, and Mozambique. Objective of each case study: Assess the extent to which national laws establish a secure right to benefit from forest-related GHG emission reductions or sequestration. Focus on local communities right to benefit. 5

6 Carbon Rights and REDD+ Benefits No agreed-upon definition. Our working definition: the legal right to benefit from reduced forest carbon dioxide emissions and/or increased forest carbon sequestration. Determine what is the legal basis for entitlement to receive a forest carbon benefit? Benefits: Cash payments. Non-cash entitlements, goods or services, such as conditional tenure or improved infrastructure. Indirect benefits such as increased availability of forest products or improved governance. 6

7 Legal Approaches to Carbon Rights Explicit Rights Carbon benefit right is created by new law or amendment to existing law, clearly identifying the right and the right holder and how such right relates to land and forest ownership and use. Implicit Rights Defined by Existing Forest Tenure System Carbon benefit right is recognized based upon existing laws on land or forest rights that can be extended or interpreted to cover reduced CO2 emissions or enhanced forest-based carbon sequestration Contractual Rights Concession/PES/Easement Carbon benefit right is based upon an agreement that stipulates the nature and scope of rights. Agreements can exist between the government and private parties, or between private parties without government involvement. 7

8 Laws Creating Explicit Rights Explicit legal right: very few to date Australian States: Carbon rights a property interest separate from the land on which the trees are located. Right to sequestered carbon can be traded without transferring the land itself. Carbon right runs with the land. Requires registration. Also Alberta and Indonesia (maybe) 8

9 Implicit Rights Does an entitlement to benefit arise from existing rights to land and/or forest resources? Requires analysis of laws on land, forest resources, customary law, etc. For REDD+ purposes, reduced emissions or enhanced carbon stock could be a forest product or service. Key is determining who has right to receive benefits from forest resources or services. Overlapping rights to land and forest resources? 9

10 Contract Rights Arise through agreements between parties that are enforceable under existing national contract law. Will exist within explicit or implicit systems. Can range from large concessions to contracts with smallholders. Large concessions: corporate entities; ecosystem restoration agreements involving NGOs. 10

11 Mozambique-Nhambita Project Envirotrade pilot project distributing benefits based on contracts. Developer helped communities to delimit and register land. Communities verify boundaries of individual plots. Smallholders get T.A. on improving productivity and reducing emissions. 3,000 households complying with land use plans and receiving share of revenues received by Envirotrade sale of offsets on voluntary market. But transaction costs too high so will proceed only with large community-controlled forests (+ 100,000 HA). 11

12 Summary of Case Study Findings Country REDD+ Strategy Current Carbon Rights Legal Regime Mexico Under development; draft available Implicit; contractual (PES) Security of Right of Local Community Reasonably secure for ejidos and indigenous communities Nepal Under development; draft available Implicit; current laws contain relatively minor inconsistencies but carbon rights still unclear Reasonably secure for CFUGs for now due to political power; relatively insecure for others Tanzania Under development; draft available Implicit; current laws contain major inconsistencies-carbon rights very unclear Insecure Mozambique Under development; draft available Implicit; contractual (pilot PES); current laws contain major inconsistencies-carbon rights very unclear Insecure Indonesia Under development; draft available Explicit for pilot and early commercial projects; implicit for all other purposes; tenure and carbon rights mostly very unclear Insecure

13 KEY TAKE-AWAYS 13

14 Key Take-Aways Rights to benefit must be clear and enforceable. Explicit approach has potential for clear rights but difficult administratively. Implicit legal right. Important to have consistency between land and forest rights in determining who has right to forest resources. Who has right to benefit from non-extractive forest resources is often unclear. Problematic if right to forest resource is limited to subsistence use. Does receiving benefit from carbon require a forest use license? Contract rights. Beware of transaction costs. Important to consider the security of the right. 14

15 Key Take-Aways: 2 Carbon right and significant share of benefits should go to one in best position to protect the forest; usually local community. System should not undermine existing tenure rights, including customary rights. Should not harm the rights and circumstances of women, indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. If possible, improve such rights but avoid overreaching. Non-carbon safeguards: do good or simply avoid harm? 15

16 Thank You Contact: