1. Challenges and Ways Forward with
Benefit Sharing
Diji Chandrasekharan Behr
dchandrasekharan@worldbank.org
2. Structure of the presentation
1. Challenges
2. Frameworks / instruments for
tackling challenges
• Legal instruments
• Developing mechanisms
3. “Challenges” …
• Who should benefit?
…..rights, claims and interest
Multiple forms of rights
Multiple categories of holders of rights and
interests
4. “Challenges”…
• How should benefits be distributed (basis and
mechanism)
• Effective, transparent and practical
• Capacity
• Existing institutional arrangements
• Monitoring and reporting
• Appropriate benefits
8. An illustration
Identifying and working with
beneficiaries when rights are
unclear
Assessing options for
effective mechanisms to
share benefits
9. An illustration
Identifying and working
with beneficiaries when
rights are unclear
Assessing options for
effective mechanisms to
share benefits
10. Identification of Beneficiaries
• Benefits of adopting a legal pluralism framework
• Identify all beneficiaries
• Equity and fairness
• Incentivize behavior
• Steps for identifying beneficiaries
• Participatory approach for identification
• Legal framework analysis
• Assessment of land/natural resource rights and
interests, past/present/future benefit streams, etc.
• Examination of governance institutions, local
organizations
11. Selecting legal instruments for
working with beneficiaries
Role for legal instruments
-- Provide clarity and predictability
Primary legislation
Secondary (delegated/subordinate) legislation
Contracts
Formal
Informal
Tiered and nested
12. An illustration
Identifying and working with
beneficiaries when rights are
unclear
Assessing options for
effective mechanisms to
share benefits
13. What is the options assessment
framework?
Assists in assessing how a specific (or
range of) benefit sharing mechanism
type(s) can be delivered effectively
14. How to share benefits :
Four main types of benefit sharing
mechanisms
Poverty
National reduction fund National level
reforestation payments for
funds hydrological
National National services
input based performance based
mechanism mechanism
Out-grower Sub-national Sub-national
schemes
input based performance based
Tax redistribution
mechanism mechanism schemes
Conservation
trust Community
BioCF projects Payment for
based natural
watershed
resource
services
management
17. Building blocks of mechanisms
for sharing benefits
I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private
Sector Institutional Capacity
II. Appropriate National or Subnational Legal Framework
Relevant to REDD+
III. Strong Financial Management Capacity and
Experience
IV. Strong Monitoring Capacity and Experience*
18. What is part of a building block?
I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private
Sector Institutional Capacity
i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing
agency
ii. Capacity of CSOs
iii. Capacity of communities
iv. Capacity of private sector
19. What is part of a building block
(cont.)
I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private
Sector Institutional Capacity
i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing
agency
Effective cooperation with national
and subnational government
agencies working on SFM
Ability to engage with CSO and
private sector in forest policy
development
Physical presence
Working relationship with Ministry of
Finance or Treasury
Capacity in SFM, community
development
Prior experience in benefit sharing
20. Why use an options
assessment framework?
• To learn from experience - 17 key learning points for
successful benefit sharing mechanism
• Assess levels of readiness within country for
implementing particular benefit sharing mechanism types
• Inform discussions on the mechanism types to pursue
• Identify key enabling actions to prioritize
26. THANK YOU
For more information on these frameworks please visit
www.profor.info/node/2010
If you have questions, please contact:
Diji Chandrasekharan
dchandrasekharan@worldbank.org
29. What is the options assessment
framework?
Assists in assessing how a specific (or
different) benefit sharing mechanism
type(s) can be delivered effectively
30. What is part of a building block?
I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private
Sector Institutional Capacity
i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing
agency
ii. Capacity of CSOs
iii. Capacity of communities
iv. Capacity of private sector
31. What is part of a building block
(cont.)
I. Adequate Government, Civil Society and Private
Sector Institutional Capacity
i. Capacity of benefit sharing mechanism implementing
agency
Effective cooperation with national
and subnational government
agencies working on SFM
Ability to engage with CSO and
private sector in forest policy
development
Physical presence
Working relationship with Ministry of
Finance or Treasury
Capacity in SFM, community
development
Prior experience in benefit sharing
32. How is the assessment
done?
Users score the country context against each component (0 = absent, 1 =
partially present, 2 = present).
i. Capacity
of benefit sharing mechanism Score
implementing agency
Effective cooperation with national and subnational 0-2
government of SFM
Ability to engage with CSO and private sector in forest policy 0-2
development
Physical presence 0-2
Working relationship with Ministry of Finance or Treasury 0-2
Capacity in SFM, community development 0-2
Prior experience in benefit sharing 0-2
What is the options assessment
framework?
33. What does the aggregate score
tell us?
% score is obtained based on country’s total score/maximum score
Scoring Range Benefit Sharing Mechanism Type Feasibility Level of Enabling Action Required
Lowest REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type not Very high level of enabling action required
currently feasible given the country context. across all building blocks.
REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type not Very high level of enabling action required for a
currently feasible but may become so over the selection of building blocks or
long term (3–5+ years) if appropriate enabling High level of enabling action required across all
actions are undertaken. building blocks.
REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type may High level of enabling action required for a
become feasible over the medium term (2–3 selection of building blocks or
years) if appropriate enabling actions are Moderate level of enabling action required
undertaken. across all building blocks.
REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism type may Moderate level of enabling action required for a
become feasible over the short term (1–2 yrs) if selection of building blocks or
appropriate enabling actions are undertaken. Low level of enabling action required across all
building blocks.
Highest REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism appears Low level of enabling action required across a
ready to be feasible. small number of building blocks.
34. To use or learn more about the
Options Assessment Framework
http://www.profor.info/node/2010
Advisory Board Meeting 2011
Notas do Editor
You have heard from our colleagues about some of the issues and challenges they are facing with respect to benefit sharing at the national level and efforts they are making to address these issues in specific country contexts. One of the objectives of this scoping dialogue is to hear from you about efforts to deliver effective, equitable and efficient benefit sharing and advance on addressing the issues with benefit sharing. This will be the focus of the dialogue tomorrowIn this presentation I wanted to share with you some work that has been done and used to inform discussions on benefit sharing and help stakeholders advance in how they are thinking about specific issues. These are tools/frameworks/guidance that has been developed to assist stakeholders in a country.
Very simple structure – just a few slides on what I mean by challenges and then a few more specifically on frameworks and instruments.
Heard from the earlier about some of the that still need for further clarity and discussion – who should benefit, how to determine benefits (whether they are opportunity costs based, or based on negotiations, etc.), and so on. These issues also surfaced when PROFOR and FCPF hosted virtual dialogues with 12 FCPF countries and at the workshops we have held on benefit sharingThese issues have various challenges associated with them. For example, SLIDE with respect to who benefits – there is the question of who should be rewarded and whose behavior needs to be changed. There is also the challenge of thinking through SLIDE how the beneficiaries are identified, whether it is based on rights, claims or interest. SLIDE How multiple forms of rights can be accommodated and SLIDE How multiple categories of holders of rights and interests are all included. Mulitple forms of rights:Formal lawCustomary lawNormative practices, perception, history, etc.
SLIDE Another example of a challenge is how benefits be distributed (on what basis benefits should be determined and what mechanism should be used to transfer benefits SLIDE How to establish arrangements that are effective, transparent and practicalSLIDE How to determine capacity requirements for these arrangements or how to work within the capacity available in the countrySLIDE How to tie these arrangements in with existing institutional arrangementsSLIDE How to link the benefit sharing arrangements with other key pieces of the REDD+ architecture – such as the MRV effortsSLIDE How to ensure the appropriate benefits are transferred through the systemYou all know these are not simple challenges and as a result there are [SLIDE]
That said, in the last 18 months the release of a set of tools, assessment frameworks, guidance materials have “deconstructed” processes and concrete approaches to help countries think through benefit sharing arrangements and all the fundamental issues associated with it.
These products are designed to equip stakeholders with approaches that can be tailored to a country context and that can help generate, through participatory processes, information and insights to steer dialogues and processes on benefit sharing in a country. They are not prescriptive
For purpose of illustration I will briefly describe two products associated with work that PROFOR led on benefit sharing. The first is guidance for identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The logic underlying this product was that in most countries, while the goal of REDD+ approaches should be strengthen and secure local claims to resources and forests. This can take time. Where stakeholders are willing to engage in REDD+ activities while working on strengthening and securing local rights, there is, therefore, the need to have some instruments that help stakeholders identify and work with individuals and groups who need to be engaged in REDD+ while efforts are underway to make rights more clear
Makes the case for adopting a pluralistic legal framework for purposes of designing initiatives Helps Identify all beneficiaries whose claims to and use of the resource base should be recognized and addressed (under all legal systems) It puts in place a fair and equitable because it acknowledges rights of the people who live in or near the forests, are often dependent on forests and forest resources for livelihoods It helps inform how to incentivize behavior and determine whose incentives need to be changed among local stakeholdersUsing such a framing then informs how beneficiaries should be identified and the product provides guidance on how this can be done. Madagascar has a pluralistic legal environment governing land. In the Makira Forest Protected Area project where project sells emission reductions from avoided deforestation to provide financial incentives for community-led land stewardship. The identification of rights and interests of stakeholders and information regarding the existing administrative structure helped project planners design an appropriate project governance structure and also determine who to include in the REDD activity
Adopting a pluralistic legal framework means operating outside any one legal system. Need to create a structure for the REDD+ initiative that makes rights and responsibilities clear and offers predictability of outcomes. Legal instrument should provide clarity -- establish the law – the rules everyone agrees toMust provide predictability. What happens if non performance.Depending on the country context some legal instruments may be more suited than other to achieve this level of clarity and predictability.For example in Madagascar, the formal law states that all forests except for those on titled land are state property. Madagascar’s customary law, on the other hand, supports the rights of local communities to access forestland and use forest products. Customary law has a high degree of social legitimacy. Efforts to harmonize the systems have resulted in legislation for comanagement between the state and local communities. Because of the legal context of Madagascar, for the Makira Project, the legal measure that was needed to further formalize what is allowed and not allowed was simpler legal instrument that clarified the transfer of responsibilities for forest management and use of forest resources to local communities. This was done with a decree on and forest management contracts.
Framework that is built on the experience with 18 concrete cases of benefit sharing arrangements that span the different mechanism types I just mentioned. It is also a framework that is developed as an e-tool and can be used to facilitate discussions
The framework also breaks down mechanisms for sharing benefits into four fundamental building blocks (and associated with each of these are specific components). The framework enables stakeholders in a country who are apply it (whether at the subnational or national level) to determine what is in place in their country with respect to each these building blocks and make informed decisions regarding the mechanism types to pursue and what enabling actions to invest in to put in place the selected mechanism types.
For each basic building block the framework lists various components
For each component have a list of elements and examples to make more tangible what is associated with each elementThe framework is structured so that the users can “score” the situation on the ground against each of these elements to identify what is needed to effectively deliver a particular mechanism type
The two approaches I have described, and the others I mentioned earlier are not blue printThey are designed to be used in a participatory way with representative stakeholders, in a facilitated consultative process and they are designed to be tailored for a particular use Mentioned earlier that there are no simple solutions…
Decisions on benefit sharing are not technical, they are political decisions
These are decisions that need to be well informed about who is using the resources and how, what costs are, the most appropriate form of benefit and more, because getting benefit sharing right is necessary for achieving the objectives of REDD+
For each basic building block the framework lists various components
For each component have a list of elements and examples of each element