Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture: Experiences from Ongo Community...
description
Transcript of Poverty and sustainable development impacts of REDD architecture: Experiences from Ongo Community...
POVERTY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS OF REDD
ARCHITECTURE:
Experiences from Ongo Community Forest, Uganda
Assoc. Prof. Gorettie NabanogaDr. Justine Namaalwa
21st March 2014 -Edinburgh
PRESENTATION OUTLINE• The Ongo Community Forest Project • The Socio-Economic conditions of the
Community• The Pre-REDD Analysis• The approach to examining preferences
– The focus group discussions – The low-cost choice experiment
• The Key findings • Lessons Learnt• The Information Dissemination Sessions
2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
• Aim: To generate knowledge on how REDD can be designed at the national/sub-national level to promote positive development co-benefits
• The project tasks (Outputs)
(1) Investigating the different REDD design options feasible under different management regimes
(2) Working with a REDD pilot project – to generate evidence and improve the understanding
of implementing low-cost REDD pilot activities
3
THE ONGO COMMUNITY PROJECT• Historical Events (2000-2006)– Community Forest Management Initiatives by 2 CBOs– Formation of the Communal Land Association (CLA)– Forest Boundary Demarcation– Draft Constitution & Management Plan
• Pilot CFM Activities by ECOTRUST (2007)– Further development of CLA– Final Drafting of Constitution & FM plan – Complementary TGB Project
• Idea of the SFM/REDD Pilot by ECOTRUST (2011)– Project Documents, Solicit carbon buyers/funders
4
THE ONGO COMMUNITY PROJECT
• ACQUISITION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS– Formal Registration of CLA as CBO (2012)
– Application for Land Title (Freehold)• Request Approved (2012)
• Forest Land Surveyed (2013)
• Site visit by Project Funders (Myclimate)
• Review of the constitution
5
FORMATION/FUNCTIONALIZATION OF INSTITUTIONS
• The CLA was formally registered as a CBO – Facilitate communities to abide by
rules & regulations– Collaboration between district
technical staff & environmental protection unit in enforcing rules and regulations
• Community empowerment– CLA mandated to convene meetings
for several purposes– More information sharing– Review of the constitution
• Accountable and transparent management of funds– Streamlined through opening up a
bank account
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (2011/12)
• Livelihood activities • Most of the households
practice subsistence farming
• Major cash crops: Tobacco, Rice and Maize– About 50% engaged in
Tobacco = harvest poles at least once every 3yrs for construction of barns
• Rice and Maize – minimal use of fertilizers = clear new land for high yields
Clearing of land for cultivation and extraction of poles (for both subsistence & commercial activities) are the major drivers of deforestation
and forest degradation
THE PRE-REDD ANALYSIS
• Sufficient awareness of the role of forests in countering climate change (rainfall patterns and quantity as the most important aspects).
• Individuals we willing to halt DD activities if compensated for their income/livelihood loss
• Preferred compensation formats were;– alternative sources of livelihoods– increased employment opportunities – better social services in the community
• However, some individuals preferred compensation by cash payments
THE PRE-REDD ANALYSIS CONT’D
• 12% of the women felt that compensation scheme might limit their access to important subsistence forest resources-firewood
• 16% individuals disagreed with the proposed intervention-(insufficient compensation for reduced use of the resource)
• Those in agreement with the proposed intervention– improvement of the overall income situation in the
community and reduction of conflicts (+ve)– corruption and unequal distribution of benefits (-ve)
REDD+ interventions are generally agreeable to the community. However, community heterogeneity must be considered with
regard to forest uses & thus diverse forms of compensations preferred (cash, several in-kind or both)
The approach to examining preferences -
1. The Focus Group Discussions2. The Low-cost Choice Experiment
10
THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
• Sessions disaggregated by sexAreas of Focus • The major drivers of Deforestation &
Forest Degradation• Activities that require compensation• The commitment activities to be
undertaken• Compensation types and levels• Distribution and Governance
arrangements for the compensation packages
• Sustainability of the project
THE LOW-COST CHOICE EXPERIMENT
• Different commitment activities and compensation formats & levels = designed into packages
• Adequate visual aids used to enhance people’s ability to understand the packages
• A total of 5 packages were designed and a status quo option (package 6)
12
THE LOW-COST CHOICE EXPERIMENT
• Packages were explained to the participants• Participants given a chance for peer
learning• Individuals present were assigned a unique
voter’s number– Linked to their socio-economic characteristics (Sex,
Membership to CLA, proximity to the forest boundary, and wealth status (poor, rich average)
• Individuals expressed personal preferences for the different packages – Casting votes (twice)
• Results of the 2nd round of voting announced – discussions
01
06
72
47
12
0
Linking with the Socio-Economic Characteristics
• Sex of respondent: –majority of the men preferred package 3 • Package 3 = raising seedlings for income and
revolving fund
–majority of women preferred package 5 • Package 5 = An additional aspect of improved
agricultural practices• Daily subsistence and income generating for
women16
Linking with the Socio-Economic Characteristics• Proximity to the forest:– Proportionately more women than men who live near
the forest =Preferred Option 5– Distant participants = Preferred Option 3
• Age of Participants– Increasing preference for package 3 with increasing age– Decreasing preference for package 5 with increasing age• Involvement in agricultural activities
17
LESSONS LEARNT1. Process should be consultative with
effective information flow – a pre-requisite to smooth implementation process
2. Misinterpretation of Terminologies & approaches – Compensation vs Incentives = promote perverse
incentives
3. The problem of elite capture
LESSONS LEARNT
4. Ensure effective participation of all stakeholders (FGDs)– Documents in local languages
– Freedom of expression by both men and women
5. The local/poor communities are not homogeneous, and even for communally owned resources, individuals have specific preferences – Even if the approach is assumed pro-poor/pro-people,
specific interest groups should be considered in the design and implementation of a given approach
19
DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS
20
THE PEOPLE’S CHOICE ON COMPENSATION FORMATS
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK
• Ecotrust team– The research outputs inform the implementation process
for the pilot
• District technical staff– Acknowledged the value added in the partnership
between Academicians/researchers and project implementers
22
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK• Local people of
Ongo Community– Community were very
anxious and had long waited: delayed implementation = perverse incentives
– The dissemination process gave them an opportunity to own the findings
23
STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK• National-level stakeholders
(MPs, Line Ministries, Researchers, Academicians, CSOs)– Evidence-based research
should support discussions in National and international Fora e.g. the COP 19 at Warsaw
– Urgent need for up-scaling the methodology (pilots & research)• Systematic flow of data =
benefit the National REDD process
• Need for more research as many of the questions had no concrete answers = Discussion opened a Pandora box
24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Funding: Norad
• Co-ordinators: UMB & IIED
• Implementing Agent -REDD+ Pilot: ECOTRUST
• Field Activities: Makerere University
Researchers & Field Assistants • Key Stakeholders: Ongo Community• Other Collaborators: District Technical staff
and other Local leaders
Thank YouAsante sana Mwebale nyoAfoyo matek
26