REDD+ Governance, Benefit Sharing and the Community: Understanding REDD+ from Stakeholders ’...

Journal of Forest and Livelihood 11(2) July, 2013

55

INTRODUCTION

Reducing Emission from Deforestation andForest Degradation, including conservation andsustainable management of forest andenhancement of forest carbon stock (REDD+)is a climate change mitigation strategy whichaims to offer financial incentive to foreststewards for their contribution to forestmanagement and carbon stock enhancement.REDD+ has successfully created a globalexcitement (Angelsen and McNeill 2012),which, in turn, has raised optimism at nationallevel, at least during the initial phases (Khatriand Paudel 2013). Also, there has been a rapidproliferation of activities at national as well asat international level aimed at reducingdeforestation and forest degradation (Siloriet al. 2013). This is partly due to high level ofexpectations that people had from REDD+ inreducing emissions and improving livelihoodsof forest-dependent communities. In Nepal,such expectations have attracted stakeholdersto engage with REDD+ initiatives.

Yet, there have been diverse opinions and viewson the REDD+ mechanism. It is thought to bea viable option for addressing climate change.First, it is one of the cheapest options fortackling climate change (Stern 2006) and aneffective climate strategy in ‘making live treesmore valuable than the dead ones’ (Angelsenet al. 2012). Second, emissions in one place canbe offset by carbon enhancement elsewhere

REDD+ Governance, Benefit Sharing and the Community:Understanding REDD+ from Stakeholders’ Perspective in Nepal

(Perspective)

Govinda Paudel* and Rahul Karki*

* ForestAction Nepal

Corresponding author: [email protected]

(Skutsch and DeJong 2010). Third, in additionto carbon benefits, it contributes to generateco-benefits such as social benefits (e.g. povertyreduction, community development) and non-carbon benefits (e.g. ecological) (Busch et al.2010). Finally, it fosters collaboration in thefight against climate change, while facilitatinghuge financial flow from developed anddeveloping countries (Angelsen and McNeill2012).

Despite such assertions about REDD+,international negotiations have not yet cometo a consensus on its institutional mechanism,including financing , implementation andbenefit sharing (Angelsen et al. 2012). REDD+has become increasingly complex (Angelsenet al. 2012) and, therefore, realizing REDD+outcomes is neither fast nor easy (Hansen et al.2009). Scholars have argued that it threatenscommunity autonomy (Phelps et al. 2010), localpeople’s access to forests (Graham 2012),community livelihood, biodiversity andprovision of ecosystem services (CBD 2010). Tothe extreme, REDD+ has been perceived as‘CO

2lonialism1 of forests’ with false hope and

empty promises and consequently generatingnegative results for the people, politics andclimate (Goldtooth 2010).

Some pertinent questions around REDD+ haverecently been raised. These include (i) Are

Paudel and Karki

1Advocates of indigenous people’s right have coined a term ‘CO2lialism’ for referring REDD+ as a recent manifestation of ‘colonialism’.

In this view, REDD+ is a ‘CO2lonialism’- capitalism of the trees and air (Goldtooth, 2010, p.13).


56

the stakeholders optimistic, pessimistic orindifferent towards REDD+?; (ii) Do they see apossibility of benefiting from carbon as well asnon-carbon incentives?; (iii) How do REDD+benefits trickle down to the forest stewards, e.g.communities?; and (iv) How could the benefitsbe distributed? Both theoretical and empiricalstudies have shown that the knowledge ofREDD+ amongst the stakeholders at present isnot sufficient (Romijn et al. 2012) to answerthese questions. However, Purnomo et al. (2012)argue that communities managing forests canindependently decide whether REDD+ isnecessary only when they have adequateknowledge, power and leadership. Therefore,searching answers to these questions becomesimportant.

Amidst such global debate, Nepal has initiatedreadiness process by developing ReadinessPreparation Proposal (RPP) in partnership withthe World Bank’s Forest Carbon PartnershipFacility (FCPF). The REDD+ process iscoordinated by the REDD Forestry and ClimateChange Cell (REDD Cell). Besidesimplementation of RPP with financial supportfrom FCPF, a number of other projects andinitiatives such as research and studies, capacity-building activities, piloting REDD+ project,workshops and sharing at national andinternational fora are being undertaken tosupport the readiness process. Along with this,the preparation of National REDD+ Strategyis underway. In these initiatives, a number ofstakeholders, including Government of Nepal(GoN), academics, researchers, donor andinternational organizations, federations andnetworks, freelance consultants and media areactively engaged. It has been crucial in facilitatingdebates on REDD+ and forging partnershipsand collaborations to synergize their efforts, forwhich greater understanding of perspectives hasbeen crucial.

To fulfil this gap, the authors conducted briefinterviews with 11 stakeholders who wereengaged in the REDD+ initiatives in Nepal.These actors were selected on the basis of their

involvement and expertise in REDD+. Theirideas and perspectives have been synthesized andbrought to the forefront of discussion. Primarily,professionals from GoN, academic institutions,international organizations, federations andnetworks were interviewed, in addition tofreelance media persons. To focus the discussionduring interviews, facilitate articulation ofopinions of interviewees, and organize,synthesize and distil information, four questionswere asked: (i) What do you think about therelevance of REDD+ in Nepal, particularly inthe context of community forestry? (ii) Doesthe current REDD+ process address the issuesraised around REDD+ so far? (iii) What shouldbe the financing mechanism and basis ofpayment system?; and (iv) What do you suggestto make REDD+ beneficial to communities?Face-to-face interviews, email communicationand telephone conversations were carried outin order to collect the views of the interviewees.

The responses were organized, summarized andshared with the interviewees concerned to makesure that their views are articulatedappropriately. The second section of the paperpresents the responses and views of theindividual interviewees, while the final sectionpresents a brief synthesis of the responses.

STAKEHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVEON REDD+ PROCESS

Narendra Chand, REDD Forestryand Climate Change Cell, Ministry ofForests and Soil Conservation

REDD+ can be beneficial toNepal if we are able to getpayment for both carbon andnon-carbon credits. However,the success of REDD+ largelydepends on how successfully weaddress the issues ofdeforestation and forest

degradation. For this, substantial ‘behaviouralchange’ is essential among the actors involvedin the REDD+ process. If this really happens,

Paudel and Karki


57

REDD+ will also contribute significantly to thecountry’s biodiversity or sustainable forestmanagement efforts. Existing politicalinstability, however, may pose a great threat toplanned actions against deforestation.

The current REDD+ initiatives have tried tomake the REDD+ process inclusive andparticipatory. However, it is widelyacknowledged that the REDD+ actors areneither fully prepared nor have the capacity totake on emerging challenges. Strategic actionsthat are expected to address deforestation/forestdegradation are not in place. Though we arestriving to address the concerns of allstakeholders, it is becoming increasinglydifficult to take into consideration theaspirations of diverse actors.

Regarding the REDD+ financing mechanism, ahybrid of what is being practised in thegovernment and the trust fund can be a feasibleoption to ensure funds reach the forest usersefficiently and in a transparent manner. Theforest users should be paid on the basis of carbonenhancement, carbon retention, non-carbon(ecological) services and biodiversityconservation.

The REDD Cell will play a coordinating roleamongst the REDD actors, including thegovernment agencies concerned. The cell willalso take part in designing REDD+-relatedpolicies. Engagement in REDD+ discussionsand lobbying for the REDD+ paymentmechanism at international level can be a likelyrole for the REDD Cell in the future.

Bharat K Pokharel, HELVETASSwiss Inter-cooperation Nepal

Looking at the currentdiscourse on REDD+ and itsimpact on ground, it does notseem to be beneficial to forest-dependent communities asexpected. Whether REDD+ isrelevant in Nepal or notdepends on how it is linked

with the community-based forestry regimes andthe extent of tenure rights that localcommunities and private forest- and tree-ownerscan enjoy, and the type of policy and legalframeworks of the national and localgovernments for recognizing the role of localcommunities and private land owners in forestmanagement and restoration. In and aroundcommunity forest areas, it is clear that localcommunities, private land holders andgovernment cannot afford to meet all therequirements of REDD+ in terms of meetingthe conditions of additionality, permanence,leakage, scientific measurements and technicalknowledge. It also does not seem to be relevanteven in non-community forest areas in the Terairegion because it cannot meet the objectives ofREDD+, which is to create new forest areas toincrease the forest cover and density and reducethe rate of deforestation and forest degradation.Only devolution can meet the objectives ofREDD+. However, real devolution can onlyhappen with accountable, democratic and pro-poor government at the centre. With the currentmixed electoral system (i.e., majority electionand proportional representation systems), thechance of having any stable government isremote. Therefore, an effective REDD+ alsoseems a remote possibility in Nepal. However,voluntary market and continuation ofdevelopment cooperation in forestry andclimate sectors in Nepal for some time canperhaps be an option. As far as the role of ourinstitution is concerned, internationally wehave been engaged with our developmentpartners and government delegates to make theREDD+ policy in favour of forest-dependentpoor and local communities. In Nepal, we havebeen supporting government, localcommunities, private sector actors, schoolteachers, children, youth clubs and farmers toimplement national and local-level adaptationplans and raise their awareness of the possiblecost and benefits of both climate mitigation andadaptation measures. It is up to them to choosethe activities in which they would like to be

Paudel and Karki


58

involved. Our organization, nevertheless, hasrealized that Nepalese farmers and localcommunities could benefit more if they investtheir time and energy in climate adaptationmeasures.

Bhaskar Karky, InternationalCentre for Integrated MountainDevelopment (ICIMOD)

In theory, REDD+ is relevantin Nepal; however, in practicewe do not yet know itsrelevancy. The rules,agreements and policies by andlarge will determine theapplicability and feasibility,which are yet to be ascertained.

Nevertheless, we have some preconceptionsabout how and on what basis the REDD+payment should be. REDD+ payment shouldbe on the basis of two major criteria: carbonand population density. This is also what we’veobserved through the learning from the pilotproject. REDD+ payment is neither a povertyreduction nor a social uplift programme. Theinvestor is solely interested in the paymentgenerating incentive for increasing the carbonstock. There is a need for putting in much moreefforts by all sides to work out a common, feasibleand sustainable mechanism for implementingREDD+ that meets its intended objectives. Asa regional learning platform that shares newknowledge between the regional REDD+stakeholders, ICIMOD will provide technicalbackstopping to its regional member countriesand their focal points to pilot and test theREDD+ initiatives and share their lessons onwhat worked and what did not.

Santosh Rayamajhi, Institute ofForestry (IoF), Pokhara

REDD+ is very much relevantin Nepal as a paymentmechanism so as to supportforest management initiativesthat are being carried out eitherby the government or bylocal communities. It can serveas a strong motivational factor

to both conservation and expansion of forestsin Nepal. The primary basis of REDD+ paymentshould be the additionality of carbonsequestration as compared to the base situation.To make REDD+ a success, a national-levelREDD+ fund should be established based onthe national forest coverage and payment shouldbe allocated according to the estimate of carbonsequestration by different types of forests. TheMinistry of Forests and Soil Conservation andits Departments have to be mobilized to takethe stock of the base year carbon and carry outperiodic inventory through a combination ofmodern technology, including GIS tools andLiDAR-based forest inventory, and on-the-ground survey. Additional efforts should bedirected at strengthening and institutionalizingthe role of forestry field staff for monitoring,capacity building , field research anddocumentation. In this connection, IoF as anacademic institution, may have three distinctroles. These include (i) Orient and train newcadre of foresters and in-service staff in theconcept, theory and process of REDD+, (ii)Conduct research for establishing baseline,methods, process and benefit sharing

Paudel and Karki


59

mechanism as well as offer policy feedback, and(iii) Disseminate research findings, nationalpolicy implications and process mechanisms ofREDD+ through seminars, workshops andpublications.

Apsara Chapagain, Federation ofCommunity Forestry Users Nepal(FECOFUN)

We carried out REDD+ pilotingin three districts and havebeen conducting awareness-raising programmes in 16districts. During projectimplementation, in both cases,we realized that not only the

basic objectives but also the major activities ofcommunity forestry and REDD+ match to someextent. For example, the activities carried outunder the REDD+ projects such as forestmanagement and alternative energy promotionhave already been carried out by communitiesas part of community forestry developmentactivities. Therefore, REDD+ might add valueto the community forestry activities, particularlyin managing forest. Nevertheless, I don’t thinkthat it will create a lot of changes, but it willsupport sustainable forest managementactivities.

Looking at Nepal’s negotiation power and thelevel of incentive that the community forest usergroups would enjoy, it is still doubtful whetherthe real forest stewards will receive fair benefits.Also, the major question remains whether apolicy conducive to transforming tenure rightswill be designed or not. There are still unclearand dubious tenure rights over forest products,carbon and other environmental services, as thestate still owns forestland, while thecommunities have been utilizing forestresources. In addition, there are questions to beaddressed so that the benefits will be shared fairlywithin the group. More attention is required to

address the issues of the poor and themarginalized.

The government has been putting efforts interms of formulating a policy and programme inthe course of preparing Nepal for REDD+.However, by looking at the past experience ofpolicy processes, there are still questionswhether the current policy process is democraticand inclusive enough in formulating a fair andequitable REDD+ policy. Similarly, in theimplementation side, the REDD+ activities ledprimarily by the government have rarely beendecentralized in the real sense. As a responsibleinstitution, FECOFUN always carries out itsactivities by keeping forest user groups at thecentre. There is need for space for FECOFUNin all REDD+ processes as it is the umbrellaorganization of community forest users inNepal. Besides, FECOFUN has a significantrole in coordination and consultation with forestusers and dissemination of REDD+ informationto them.

Rama Ale Magar, The HimalayanGrassroots Women’s NaturalResource Management Association(HIMAWANTI)

In the current scenario atnational level, stakeholders areaware of, and have a high levelof expectation from, anddedication to, the REDD+scheme. The REDD+initiative is positive in thesense that the stakeholders are

aware, capable and dedicated towards it.However, policy formulation andimplementation of REDD+ scheme is not aseasy as perceived by many stakeholders.Immediate attention and greater clarity areneeded in various dimensions such as how toreceive REDD+ payments from the developedcountries.

Paudel and Karki


60

The REDD+ strategy formulation process needsto be inclusive and participatory in such a waythat all stakeholders concerned, particularlywomen, should be able to participate in someway or the other. For this, a few issues need tobe clarified: language should be simple andcomprehensible to everybody, and a propermonitoring mechanism should be in place.Similarly, the policy should also guide theformulation of a fair benefit sharing mechanismat local level. Also, the basis of payment shouldinclude representation of women and Dalits2,as suggested by the pilot project conductedduring the last four years. The design of thepayment mechanism should avoid too manylayers so as to keep it simple and efficient. It isimportant to provide spaces for theorganizations of women and the marginalizedin the payment mechanisms, including carbontrust fund distribution committee, so as toensure effective and fair implementation ofREDD+ from their perspectives. With the aimsto promote women’s participation in REDD+initiatives and to ensure their forest rights,HIMWANTI Nepal is engaged in networking,lobbying and advocacy.

Pasang Dolma Sherpa, NepalFederation of IndigenousNationalities (NEFIN)

Indigenous peoples have asymbiotic relationship withforest, land and other naturalresources for their livelihoodsand identity. Therefore,REDD+ would be relevant inNepal only if it adequatelyaddresses the concerns and

issues of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities by ensuring andrecognizing their traditional customary law,practices, and knowledge system.

The Government of Nepal is working ondeveloping the national REDD+ strategy inNepal and also implementing their programs.In this process, it is a crucial time for indigenouspeoples for their full and effective participationin the whole process of developing relevantpolicies and programs. Therefore, the concernedGovernment agencies, other relevantstakeholders including bilateral and multi-lateral agencies, donors and non-governmentsorganizations will need to address the issues andconcerns of indigenous peoples’, particularlytheir rights of continuing traditional livelihoodssystem enshrined by international treaty andconvention like ILO C 169 and UNDRIP inNepal. It is also pertinent for them to supportand cooperate for developing the capacity andawareness level of indigenous peoples for theirmeaningful participation and engagement in theprocess of REDD+ and other relevant policiesand programs to contribute for sustainablemanagement of forest and livelihoods in Nepal.

Sunil Pariyar, Dalits Alliance forNatural Resources (DANAR), Nepal

REDD+ implementation isnot expected to make muchdifference to the poor andDalit communities in Nepal.Dalit communities are mostlydependent on forestresources for their livelihoods.However, in many cases, they

have been deprived of their right to access forestresources despite the implementation of thecommunity forestry programme. This has beenparticularly due to lack of a policy provision thatexclusively promotes Dalit participation in thepolicy process and secures their rights over forestresources. Also, in a situation when the entirecommunity forestry institution has been facingthe accusation of weak governance, the issue ofbenefiting the poor and Dalit communities

Paudel and Karki

2 Dalits are the oppressed communities who are often considered as untouchable class of society.


61

degradation. However, REDD+ implementationseems to be a challenging task as long as theissue of elite capture over resources exists. Asthere are different forest managementmodalities in Nepal, there should be a differentREDD+ payment mechanisms for each forestmanagement regime. More payment should bedone in areas where high level of efforts is neededto curb deforestation, improve governance andto ensure rights of local forest managers. Thecarbon-centric payment should be focused onlyon those areas where conservation of forest isnecessary and enhancement of carbon stock ispossible. While designing a paymentmechanism, local stakeholders’ investment androle should be recognized and respected. Whilea multi-stakeholder committee should beformed to govern the REDD+ payments, theMinistry of Commerce and Supplies and thelocal government should be given thecoordinating role at national and local levelrespectively. There is need for significant changein the structure of the REDD Cell and theprocesses it follows to make the REDD+preparation initiatives more inclusive andparticipatory.

As we all know, there are several issues relatedto the Terai forest management and thegovernment has not been serious in this.ACOFUN was established to address some ofthe pertinent issues in Terai forestmanagement. It aims to establish local peoples’rights over forest resources by handing overforests to the Terai dwellers that are preventedfrom exercising their rights. In this context,ACOFUN has been advocating for policychange at national level and capacity buildingfor forest management and awareness raising onREDD+ at grassroots level in the Terai. It hasalso been trying to be the part of various policyfora with an aim to contribute to ensuringequitable benefits.

through the REDD+ mechanism is dubious.Without addressing the issues of exclusion,discrimination, exploitation, inequity anddomination at grass roots level in communityforestry, REDD+ may not be beneficial for Dalitcommunities and in the long run the REDD+scheme itself may fail to fulfil its basic objectives.

If a policy and legal framework are formulatedfor REDD+ and implemented in such a way thatDalit participation is promoted and their forestrights are secured in practice, then only will ascheme like REDD+ be beneficial to Dalitcommunities. Also, a strong monitoring ,reporting and verification (MRV) mechanismfor social safeguards at local level is imperative.Moreover, there needs to be adequateconsultations among relevant stakeholdersbefore designing any payment mechanism.Nevertheless, the role of civil societyorganizations (CSOs) as a watchdog might beuseful while the government coordinates, ownsand implements the whole range of REDD+initiatives.

REDD+ would be effective if the supportingagencies, including donors, through theirongoing initiatives, give due consideration toDalit communities and put efforts on issues ofinclusion, capacity building and advocacytogether. In this situation, DANAR’s role wouldbe to advocate for Dalits’ rights.

Ram Rup Kurmi, Association ofCollaborative Forest Users of Nepal(ACOFUN)

REDD+ is relevant only if thegovernment and stakeholdershave the exact translation ofthe principles of REDD+ inorder to improve forestgovernance and addressdeforestation and forest

Paudel and Karki


62

it is imperative also for the existence andsustainability of forest entrepreneurs.

Krishna Murari Bhandari, FreelanceJournalist

REDD+ is something thatNepalese may receive inthe form of bonus.However, this does notmean one will receive it forfree. There are liabilitiesand costs associated withit. Whatsoever, it should be

planned in such a way that it benefits the realforest managers. Analysis of country’s economicand poverty conditions should be considered asone of the prioritized agenda while formulatinga REDD+ policy. Though embarking onREDD+ would not require any financial costfor Nepal, measures should be applied carefullywhile adopting its activities.

There is a famous saying in Nepali “Kaam garnekaalu, Makai khane bhalu” (nearest Englishtranslation: one enjoys benefits over the workof another). Should this happen in the case ofREDD+, it would not benefit the country. Tomake sure the benefits are shared fairly andequitably at local level, there are different ideasand mechanisms being discussed atinternational and national level. However, thereare risks associated with each one of them. Forthis, communication and other skills andtechniques matter. Looking at the presentdevelopment trend in Nepal, there is a highprobability that only 10–15 percent of the fundmight reach the community, while the rest beingspent on administrative purpose. A national-level payment mechanism through thegovernment machinery may not be fully trusted,as we have seen inefficiency and corruption. Onthe other hand, if private sector middlemen orbrokers are involved in the REDD+ process,which is highly likely, the lion’s share of the

Kapil Adhikari, Federation of Forest-based Industries and Trade (FenFIT)

REDD+ is more important forindustrialized countries, as theyare required to reduce theiremission levels through thismechanism. But for developingnations, where large numbers ofpeople are living in poverty,utilization of natural resources,

for instance water and forest, would be moreimportant than REDD+. REDD+, in otherways, is a domination of developed countries overthe developing. If the income throughsustainable management of forest exceeds thatfrom REDD+, then why should we choose thelatter?

Though REDD+ looks fine in principle, it isyet to demonstrate value addition to the existingforest management and forest-based economy.

Before talking about a fair REDD+ benefitsharing mechanism within the country andcommunities, a cost–benefit analysis should becarried out to see whether the payment ofREDD+ implementation would exceed its cost.If REDD+ seems to be beneficial, then aninclusive multi-stakeholder process may bedesigned and initiated to allow otherstakeholders to raise their concerns and ownthe process where government can play acoordinating and facilitating role. Regarding apayment system for REDD+ incentive,establishing a separate fund would perhaps be abetter option. Such fund could be managed by amulti-stakeholder mechanism, includinggovernment, at two levels: one at national leveland another at district level. The district levelmechanism may be effective to monitor thegrassroots-level REDD+ activities and to ensurethe real forest right holders receive the payment.

FenFIT always has its own stance of scientificand sustainable management of forest because

Paudel and Karki


63

money may go as part of their service charge andtransaction cost. This situation has been verymuch apparent in the agriculture sector ofNepal, where local farmers have been victim ofmiddlemen’s game. We cannot say similarsituation might not arise in REDD+. Therefore,every mechanism has its pros and cons, whichshould be studied and analyzed carefully to bestsuit the country’s context.

In the current scenario, media has been viewedmerely as news reporters. They have simply beenused for publishing news. However, this will notwork now. If media is not welcomed to beinvolved in the overall REDD+ process, supportof the media cannot be exprected. Media needsto be viewed as a partner rather than merelyreporters. Their involvement should be in everyphase, from project design to sharing of resourceson REDD+. The role of media will be critical inevery aspect of REDD+ in Nepal.

SYNTHESIS

This note summarizes the diverse opinions ofthe respondents listed in the preceding section.The stakeholders have different and contrastingopinions on the relevance of REDD+ in Nepal.People who agreed on the relevance of REDD+believed that it would incentivize thecommunities and government to carry out forestmanagement activities. Others also agreed inthis line but with conditional requirements. Intheir view, REDD+ would be relevant to Nepalif the rights of local communities, indigenouspeoples and other marginalized communitiessuch as Dalits, women and poor are keptinviolable and they get fair share of the benefits.They do not believe in free lunch, and, therefore,REDD+ will have conditions. So, if REDD+ isdesigned to ensure equitable sharing of benefitsamong the local forest managers, it will benefitthe country.

Similarly, there were also views arguing thatNepalese forest stewards, such as communitiescannot afford to meet the conditionality of

REDD+ such as permanence, leakage, carbonmeasurements and other technicalities. In thisview, REDD+ is more in favour of developedcountries than developing ones. It is a schemeoffered to have a domination of rich countriesover the poor and, therefore, discourages the useof forest resources for development andlivelihoods. Though it looks fine in principle, itis not convincing in practice. From this point ofview, it can be argued that it is too early toindicate relevance of REDD+ for Nepal. Thereal benefits of REDD+ would only bedetermined through its actual implementation.

In response to the question on whether thepresent REDD+ process addresses the issuesrelated to inclusion, participation, capacitybuilding , etc., most actors opined that thecurrent process is less likely to address thoseissues. Most of the civil society actors areconcerned that participation, inclusion,capacity building and actors’ role in REDD+decision-making have not been adequatelyconsidered. They assert that the process itself isnot conducive to encouraging participation andengagement of women, Dalits and poor. Forthem, initial efforts intending to address theseissues are gradually becoming naïve andobligatory. Moreover, the current REDD+process has been perceived to not have fullyembraced the aspirations of women, indigenouspeoples and other communities, and a lot is tobe done to make the process transparent,inclusive and participatory.

The actors, however, have similar responsesregarding the REDD+ financing mechanismand the basis of carbon payment. All agreed thatthe carbon fund should be managed separatelyand jointly controlled through a multi-stakeholder body. The mechanism shouldminimize the transaction costs, for example,fund operating at two levels: national and sub-national/local (at district) level. However, themechanism should ensure that forest managersget equitable benefit. In their view, carbon

Paudel and Karki


64

enhancement as well as carbon retention,actions against deforestation and forestdegradation, shift from traditional carbon-intensive energ y use to alternative energ ysources, and efforts to contribute to livelihoodimprovements of the poor and the marginalizedshould be the basis of carbon payment. Finally,all stakeholders gave specific suggestions thatwill eventually contribute to the success ofREDD+. These suggestions include variety ofactions and approaches on awareness raising,capacity building, participation in the REDD+policy process, advocacy for the rights of themarginalized communities and equitable benefitsharing.

REFERENCES

Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D.Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D.Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D.Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D.Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D. 2012. The Evolution of REDD+.In: A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W.D. Sunderlin, and L.V.Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices,CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

AAAAAnnnnnggggg elseelseelseelseelsen, An, An, An, An, A . , B. , B. , B. , B. , Brrrrrooooo c kc kc kc kc khhhhhaaaaauuuuus, M., Ss , M., Ss , M., Ss , M., Ss , M., Suuuuundendendendenderrrrr lllll iiiiin, Wn, Wn, Wn, Wn, W.D.D.D.D.D. a. a. a. a. andndndndndVVVVVeeeeerrrrrchot, Lchot, Lchot, Lchot, Lchot, L..... 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges andChoices. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

BBBBBuuuuusch, Jsch, Jsch, Jsch, Jsch, J., G., G., G., G., Gooooodododododoyyyyy, F, F, F, F, F., T., T., T., T., Tuuuuurrrrrnenenenenerrrrr, W, W, W, W, W.R.R.R.R.R. a. a. a. a. and Hnd Hnd Hnd Hnd Haaaaarrrrrvvvvveeeeeyyyyy, A, A, A, A, A..... 2010.Biodiversity Co-benefits of Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation under Alternative Reference Levels and Levelsof Finance. Conservation Letters, 11111(2).

CBDCBDCBDCBDCBD. 2010. REDD-plus and Biodiversity Benefits. Conventionof Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/WS-REDD 1/2 - ABackground Document for Global Experts, Workshop onBiodiversity of REDD, 20-23 September, 2010, Nairobi.

GGGGGoooooldldldldldtttttooooootototototh, Th, Th, Th, Th, T.B.K.B.K.B.K.B.K.B.K..... 2010. Why REDD/REDD+ Is NOT aSolution. No REDD: A Reader (http://noredd.

m a k e n o i s e . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / 2 0 1 0 /REDDreaderEN.pdf accessed on 29 July 2013)

Graham, K.Graham, K.Graham, K.Graham, K.Graham, K. 2012. REDD+ and Adaptation: Will REDD+Contribute to Adaptive Capacity at the Local Level?’Overseas Development Institute. (http://redd-net.org/f i l e s / R E D D % 2 0 A D A P T I O N % 2 0 L O N G % 2 0 -%20MASTER%20final.pdf accessed on 21 July 2013)

HHHHHaaaaannnnnsesesesesen, C.Pn, C.Pn, C.Pn, C.Pn, C.P., L., L., L., L., Luuuuundndndndnd, J, J, J, J, J.F.F.F.F.F. a. a. a. a. and Tnd Tnd Tnd Tnd Trrrrreue, Teue, Teue, Teue, Teue, T..... 2009. Neither Fast norEasy: the Prospect of Reduced Emissions from Deforestationand Forest Degradation (REDD) in Ghana. InternationalForestry Review, 1111111111(4): 439-455.

Khatri, D.B. and Paudel, N.S.Khatri, D.B. and Paudel, N.S.Khatri, D.B. and Paudel, N.S.Khatri, D.B. and Paudel, N.S.Khatri, D.B. and Paudel, N.S. 2013. Nepal Getting Ready forREDD? An Assessment of REDD+ Readiness Process inNepal. Discussion Paper. Kathmandu: ForestAction Nepal.

PPPPPhelhelhelhelhelps, Jps, Jps, Jps, Jps, J., W., W., W., W., Webebebebebb, Eb, Eb, Eb, Eb, E.L.L.L.L.L. a. a. a. a. and Agnd Agnd Agnd Agnd Agrrrrraaaaawwwwwaaaaalllll, A, A, A, A, A..... 2010. Does REDD+Threaten to Recentralize Forest Governance? Science, 328328328328328:312-313.

PPPPPuuuuurrrrrnononononomo, H., Smo, H., Smo, H., Smo, H., Smo, H., Suuuuuyyyyyaaaaammmmmttttto, Do, Do, Do, Do, D., A., A., A., A., Abbbbbddddduuuuullllllllllaaaaah, Lh, Lh, Lh, Lh, L. a. a. a. a. and Ind Ind Ind Ind Irrrrraaaaawwwwwaaaaattttti, Ri, Ri, Ri, Ri, R.H..H..H..H..H.2012. REDD+ Actor Analysis and Political Mapping: AnIndonesian Case Study. International Forestry Review, 1414141414(1):74-89.

Romijn, E., Herold, M., Kooistra, L., Murdiyarso, D. andRomijn, E., Herold, M., Kooistra, L., Murdiyarso, D. andRomijn, E., Herold, M., Kooistra, L., Murdiyarso, D. andRomijn, E., Herold, M., Kooistra, L., Murdiyarso, D. andRomijn, E., Herold, M., Kooistra, L., Murdiyarso, D. andVVVVVeeeeerrrrrchot, Lchot, Lchot, Lchot, Lchot, L..... 2012. Assessing Capacities of Non-Annex ICountries for National Forest Monitoring in the Contextof REDD+. Environmental Science and Policy, 19-2019-2019-2019-2019-20: 33-48.

SiloSiloSiloSiloSilorrrrri, C.S., Fi, C.S., Fi, C.S., Fi, C.S., Fi, C.S., Frrrrrickickickickick, S., L, S., L, S., L, S., L, S., Luuuuuiiiiinnnnntttttelelelelel, H. a, H. a, H. a, H. a, H. and Pnd Pnd Pnd Pnd Poudyoudyoudyoudyoudyaaaaalllll, B.H., B.H., B.H., B.H., B.H. 2013.Social Safeguards in REDD+: A Review of ExistingInitiatives and Challenges. Journal of Forest and Livelihood,1111111111(2).

SkSkSkSkSkuuuuutttttsch, M. asch, M. asch, M. asch, M. asch, M. and Dnd Dnd Dnd Dnd De Je Je Je Je Jooooonnnnnggggg , B.H.J, B.H.J, B.H.J, B.H.J, B.H.J..... 2010. The PermanenceDebate. Science, 327327327327327: 1079.

SSSSSttttteeeeerrrrrn, N.n, N.n, N.n, N.n, N. 2006. The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate

Change. Cambridge University Press.

.....

Paudel and Karki

REDD+ Governance, Benefit Sharing and the Community: Understanding REDD+ from Stakeholders ’...

Documents

Transcript of REDD+ Governance, Benefit Sharing and the Community: Understanding REDD+ from Stakeholders ’...