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