Conservation CATIE 15

8/2/2019 Conservation CATIE 15

1/54


2/54


3/54

Estado de Mato Grosso datos

Area: 903,000 km Amazon 51%, Cerrado 43%, Pantanal 6%

2.9 millones de personas

Urbanization 76%

El estado brasilieo con la mas alta

produccin de cereales

Soja: 17 MT en 2008 (8% de produccion

global), Algodon 2 MT

Ganado: 26 M animales en 2008

2nd productor de madera en Amazonia

4.0 Mm de troncos/maderos procesados in

2009


4/54


5/54


6/54


7/54

ganado en Brasil/Amazonia (numero de

animales) y precio de res


8/54


9/54


10/54


11/54

Enfoque a noroeste deMato Grosso, a un

municipio (Cotriguau)

y a distinto actores y

instituciones/

instrumentos para laconservacin de

bosques y REDD+

Mato Grosso est

siendo estudiado por el

proyecto PolicyMix


12/54


13/54

Areas deforestadas en Mato Grosso

Areas deforestadas: 37% delterrritorio del estado

55% fue deforestado despues de 1990

Augmento en la demanda para

tierra de uso agricola

Costo de oportunidad medio

estimado $ 1,500 / ha

Costo de oportunidad es previsto

a augmentarRemaining forestsRemaining savannas

Main roads

Deforested areas


14/54

Estructura de la tenencia de tierra en Mato

Grosso

Category

Number ofareas

Area

# km 000 %

Indigenous Lands 68134 15

Conservation Units 7333 4

Smallholders settlements 386 43 5

Private properties ~ 100,000694 77

Registered in SLAPR 10,700206 23

Not yet registered ~ 90,000488 54

Total 903 100


15/54

Instituciones principales existentes en Mato

Grosso para la conservacion

ZSEE - Ecological Economic Zoning (regla de % de bosque en tierrasprivadas)

SIMLAM (Sistema Integrado de Monitoramento e Licenciamento

Ambiental) Land use planning

Monitoring and control

Incentive to sustainable activities (sustainable criteria)

Legal Mato Grosso program

Ecological Value Added Tax

I i i NUEVAS M G l


16/54

REDD Mato Grosso incluye:

Legal, Regulatory technical and institutional framework

REDD law and regulations

Principles criteria and procedures for the registration and/or certification of REDD

projects

State-wide sector specific programs: (private forests, family farming, indigenous peoples)

Defining the state baselines

Designing the institution for the issuance of REDD credits

Designing the functions to manage the REDD system

Instituciones NUEVAS en Mato Grosso para laconservacion:

REDD y crditos de carbon

Governors Climate and Task Force - ya est legalizado enCalifornia (cap and trade system)


17/54

Proyecto GEF/UNDP/Mato Grosso:

Promoted alternative land use systems and territorial environmental management

11 local partner organizations:

5 municipal governments

2 indigenous associations

3 associations of colonists / agrarian reform settlements

1.78 million for mosaic of protected areas

Non timber forest production investements (Brazil nuts, latex)

Attracted 1.5 million in public investment through the Mato Grosso Legal program

Pioneer FSC management certificate for 29,000 ha of certified forest management


18/54

REDD General approach and targets

Reference scenario basedon historical emissions

Estimate future deforestation?

crediting baseline?

Baseline and target for cerradoand for degradation?

Estimate of emissions?

Additionality:deforestation reduction

Generate REDD Certificates(Credits)

Deforestation reduction target in Mato Grossos forest area,2006-2020

reduction


19/54

Mucho analisis y planes para REDD+ enfatizan lacuantificacion del servicio de carbon como una moneda

(ton CO2-eq), y el sistema del monitoreo, y el mecanismo

de pagos correlacionados con los costos de oportunidad

(p.e. Banco Mundial FCPF).

Tendencia de organizacines globales mencionar los

aspectos institucionales, los derechos, y la legitimidad,

pero no los enfatizan ni enfatizan motivaciones sociales o

culturales en la conservacin. Enfasis en el mercado.

Problemas conceputales con el modelo de

REDD+/PES


20/54

Requiere un mercado perfecto para funcionar bien - lo cualtiene poca relevancia socio-ecologica (Muradian et al. 2010)

No se puede compensar para todos los costos de oporunidad

($1,500/ha) !

La commodificacin tiende a limitar nuestra percepciones almundo natural y al las relacines socio-ecologicas: aislapropiedades de los ecosistemas, no toma en cuenta valores

sociales o culturales, ni las relaciones de poder entre diferentesgrupos sociales. (Kosoy y Corbera 2010).


REDD+/PES


21/54

Mas all de un mercado, hay las estructuras de

gobernanza, las instituciones o las reglas de juego, y lasdinmicas sociales, culturales e economica-politicas

1. los derechos y obligaciones de distintos actores y como estanafectados

2. los costos de transaccion (que incluye el tiempo y el costo deinformacion)

3. perspectivas, intereses, valores de los distintos grupos


REDD+/RED


22/54

REDD+ tiene un enfoque limitado

- todo lo siguiente esta implicada

en el crisis global de la tierra:

Seguridad (o Soberania) Alimentaria

Pobreza rural

Agua Perdida de biodiversidad

Emisiones de gases de efecto

invernadero (GEI)

REDD/REDD+ se dirige a las

emissiones de GEI solamente!


23/54

Objectivo prinicpal: Identificar las condiciones contextuales

(institucional) que serian necesarios para que la conservacin debosques puede funcionar frente a distintos grupos agrarios.

Pregunta central: cuales instituciones/instrumentos son vistos

como legitimos (o no legitimos) desde su punta de vista social ycultural?

Hipotesis central: estrategias multiples son necesarios para la

legitimidad social de una politica de conservacin

Propuesta de tesis


24/54

Una propuesta para un mezclamix de

instituciones que lograria legitimidad social (y de alli,politica eficaz).

Una metodologia para probar para la legitimidad ycoherencia de las instituciones/instrumentos ya

validada en el campo.

Aporte investigativo a PolicyMix

Aportes del tesis


25/54

Legitimidad (Legitimacy):

everyone involved accepts the processes and

outcomes (Corbera et al. 2007) todos estan deacuerdo con el procedimiento y lasconsecuencias/resultados

Conceptos / definiciones claves


26/54

Costos de transaccin:

Costos no-monetarios y monetarios para participar, o estarde acuerdo con, una institucion

El tesis enfoque a los costos percebidos (tiempo, esfuerzo)de los actores

Conceptos / definiciones claves


27/54


28/54


29/54


30/54

Enfoque a un proyecto pilotoREDD+ en Cotriguau:

1 -- Mejoramienteo de la gobernanza de

bosques

2 -- Incentivos para la conservacion de bosquesen tierras con tenencia privada

89% de la deforestacin esta ocurriendo enpropiedades privadas

Propiedades privadas tienen 56% delbosque remanente

Incluye incentivos para

La conservacion de bosque remanente

Manejo sostenible de bosquesnaturales

La intensificacion de la ganaderia

3 -- Una garantia para compensacion paragrupos indigenos y tradicionales y paraagricultores colonistas

Los pagos sern realizados por via de los

mercados de carbon (voluntarios? California?)


31/54

Como probar que hay/no hay legitimidad., y en que

consisten estas percepciones?

Metodos cualitativos e etnogrficos

Mas que la informacion y beneficios/no beneficios;involucra interfaces entre grupos y instituciones

Metodologia


32/54

POLICYMIX WP 5 Guidelines for

Assessing Social Impacts and Legitimacy

in Conservation


33/54

POLICYMIX WP 6.1 Guidelines for the

analysis of institutions shaping biodiversity

policy instrument applicability


34/54

Metodos cualitativos organizados por subobjectivo

Qualitativemethods and

sample sizes

Key informantInterviews

unstructured (n=10)

Focus groups(total n=13)

Surveys

Land-basedstakeholders

Semi-structuredindividual

interviews (n=40)

Land-basedstakeholders

Subobje ct ive 1

Identification

of st akeholder actors

Subobje ct ive 2

Identification/

characteristics/

interdependencies o f

institutions

(n=10) (n=5)

Subobje ct ive 3

Stakeholder

perceptions on

Transaction costs

Procedures

Distributional

outcomes

Subobje ct ive 4

Stakeholder

perceptions on

Institutional

legitimacy;

Institutional

influence on

conservation

attitudes/culture/

subjectivity

(n=8) (n=60) (n=40)

Subobjectivo 1 mapeo de los actores sociales


35/54

Subobjectivo 1 - mapeo de los actores sociales

(stakeholders)

SUBOBJECTIVE 1 QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES

Determine stakeholder actor

groups involved in /affected by

the pilot REDD+ project inCotriguau, and, for each group,their perspective natural resources

rights/responsibilities or on policydesign priorties.

Ex post.

All scales (local to global).

Qualitative. Based on key

informant interviews and focus

groups.

How do local land-based actors perceive

their land and natural resource rights andresponsibilities?

What are the past and current policy design

and implementation priorities for policy

implementing stakeholder s in the REDD+

context? ( e.g. PES, protected areas, MRV,

agriculture)

Number and type of actors involved in design of various

institutions/instruments in the REDD+ context

e.g.

Cattle ranchers Land settler colonists and small farmers Agrindustrial f armers (soy, cotton) Indigenous/traditional communities (Rikbaksta ,

quilombos)

Loggers NGOs (ICV, TNC) Municipal and Mato Grosso state functionaries

Brazilian federal functionaries Carbon market intermediaries Activist/agrarian reform organizations?

Determinar cuales son los grupos de actores que estn implicados (como

agente o sujeto) el proyecto piloto de REDD+ en Cotriguau, y, para cadagrupo, sus perspectivas sobre el uso de recursos naturales o su sprioridades

sobre el diseo de programas y politicas



36/54

Scale Stakeholders/Organizations

Possible perspectives,interests, motivations,

values

Community or

individual level

Cattle ranchers

Land settler colonists

Indigenous communities

T imber ext ractor s

Livelihood

Business income

Culture

Municipal /

State

Municipal government

State government

State environmental ministry

ICV

Agricultural lobbies

Electoral

Revenues

Monitoring

Enforcement

EducationProject Management

National Amazon Fund

Brazil federal ministries

IBAMA INCRA FUNAI

Agricultural national lobbies

Sovereignty

Electoral

Development

Global PolicyMixUNFCCC

Government of Norway

Carbon project intermediaries (e.g.

finance/consulting companies e.g. Terra)

Carbon verifiers (VCS)

World Bank

UN-REDD

TNC

Global NGOs with alternative positions (FOE)

Oil/gas/coal lobbies

Cost effectiveCost efficientEnvironmentally effective


(stakeholders)


37/54

Actores en el paisaje


38/54


39/54


40/54


41/54


42/54


43/54


44/54

Subobjetivo 2 - mapeo de instituciones


45/54


SUBOBJECTIVE 2Institutional design (rules)

QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES

Determine the

institutions/instruments (formal andinformal) relevant to the pilot

REDD+ project, the c riteria/values

applied in their design, andinterdependencies/interplay betweenthem.

Ex post.

Local to national scale (not

global).

Based on review of secondaryliterature on formal le gal/policy

environment, and key informant

interviews.

Which institutions/instruments does REDD+ (in

Cotriguau) incorp orate: economic/incentives (e.g. PES/EFT) legal/regulatory/enforc ement (e.g. EEZ) information mechani sms (e.g. Simlam) customary/infor mal (e..g Rikbakta selfgovernance)

What values/criteri a (e.g. additionality, common goods)

are used in the design, implementation and adaptation of

these institutions/instruments?

What rights and responsibilities are involved with these

institutions / instruments ? e.g:1. land tenure rights2. representation/ac cess to institut ions3. entitlements4. access to grievan ce mec hanisms

Which institutional sy nergies and conflicts exist as a

result of REDD+ institutional interactions?

How are REDD + institutional criteria interdependent

with other biodiversity conservation and ruraldevelopment institutional criteria?

Formal legal and policy framework (historical and

present)

Number and type of institut ions comprising or relate d to

REDD+

Types of rules that each institution/instrument

establishes? (e. g. rules of exclusion, entitlemen t rules,

monitoring rules, d ecision -making rules)

Purpose of the institution/instrument in natural resource

governanc e (i.e. collective choice, conflict resolution,

enforcement, provisioning and recovery of its costs)

Functional levels for each institution/instrument (i.e.

constitutional, operational, collective choice) and thespatial di stribution of these functions

(e.g. state, municipal , rural, courts, online)

Scale s (structural tiers ) at which each

institution/instrument operates

(e.g. local, state, national, global)

Reasons for rule changes (e.g. changes in procedure and

changes in th e distribution of benefits/costs)

INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS / RULES ?

Determinar las instituciones/instrumentos (formales y informales) que

estn implicadas en el proyecto piloto REDD+, los criterios/valores en su

diseo/implmentacin, y interdependencias entre ellas


46/54



47/54

Institution (rights-responsibili ties

Type Scale Possible institutional rule criteria /values

(cf. Pascual et al. 2010)Payments to land

users/manag ers

(PES) based on

carbon markets

Economic Local/

State

Additionality vs. C arbon stock

Compensation

Common goods

Egalitarian

Actual provision

Ecological fiscaltransfer to

municipalities

(EFT)

Economic State

Guareented market

price for NTFP

Economic National/

Global?

Land tenure rights

and territorial

manag ement

Legal

(+informal)

National

Zoning (f orest

reserve) (EEZ )

Legal National/

State

SIG land use

system

(SIMLAM)

Information State Egalitarian ? (but favoring larger

landowner s with facility to access

intermediarie s, technology (transaction

costs))

Timber/wood

Certification

Information Global Common goods?

Agriculture/Agriforestry

Information National/State

Common goods

Subobjetivo 2 mapeo de institucionesDeterminar las instituciones/instrumentos (formales y informales) que

estn implicadas en el proyecto piloto REDD+, los criterios/valores en su

diseo/implmentacin, y interdependencias entre ellas

Subobjetivo 3 - percepciones sobre las consecuencias


48/54

de procedimiento y de distribucion

SUBOBJECTIVE 3

Stakeholder perceptions on institutional designand performance


Determine the perceptions of stakeholder in themunicipality/region (not actors at all sc ales!),on procedures,distributional outcomes

(incurred benefits and costs), and transactioncosts, involving REDD+ in Cotrigua u

(i.e. the various institutions that comprise or

are implicated in the pilot REDD+ project)

Ex post.

Local scale.

Informal / qualitative / e thnographic

analysis.

What institut ional/economic instrument proceduresare known?

Why do beneficiaries decide to participate in x

institutions/instruments related t o REDD+ ?

What are actors investments in time, learning to

participate or be in compliance (perceived

transaction costs)?

Are institutional procedures deemed to be fair?

based on recognition of stakeholderidentity

How are distributional outcomes (incurred benefits

and costs) deemed to be fair?

Are existing or new rights secure and enforced?

Number of participants and hectares in REDD+

Number of participants who fail to comply with

one or more institut ional rules

Actorsinterests, socio-cultural values and landuse practices taken into account or exclude d in the

design, impl ementation and adaptation of REDD+

institutional context?

Perceived time required to assess institut ions /

gather info rmation

Perceived time required for participation and

fulfillment of n ew responsibili ties

Perceptions of procedural justice

(being recogni zed, having a say, having

influence/pow er)

Perceptions of distributional justice

(money, training)

Determinar las percepciones de los actores en la regin sobre distintosprocedimientos, beneficios/costos (consecuencias), y costos de

transaccin, que tiene que ver con REDD+ o la conservacin (p.e.

programas ya implementadas por el GEF)


49/54

Subobjetivo 4 - percepcion de la legitimidad y


50/54

Subobjetivo 4 - percepcion de la legitimidad y

la influyencia de las instituciones REDD+

SUBOBJECTIVE 4

Recognition oflegitimacy/authority and

subjectivity


Determine if/how the legitimacyor authority of different

institutions/instruments (REDD+related) are recognized, and

if/howattitudes/c ulture/subjectivity

involving conservation/theenvironment are supported,

generated, or transformed.

Ex post and ex ante.

Local scale.

Informal / qualitative /

ethnographic analysis .

The local stakeholder s perceive institutions/inst ruments

as fair, just and legitimate?

How do local stakeholders define problems and

information gathering processes , and make decisions in relation to/with t hese institutions?

How do local stakeholders perceive that the

institutions/instruments have affected AND will affect

their land use and conservation practices?

Which actors shape the forest conservation and REDD+

institutional landscape, and how are their perspectives,interests and motivations represented in the final rules?

Discourse of different stakeholders surrounding the

legitmacy an d authority of different institutions

Qualitative extent of interaction between local stakeholders

and managing institions

Qualitative extent t o which local stakeholders define

problems and information gathering -processes

Characteristics of stakeholder group influence on

institutional design, implementation and adaptiveness

Determinar si la legitimidad o la autoridad de distinta

instituciones/instrumentos (conservacin o REDD+) son reconocidas, y si

valores/intereses/motivaciones para la conservacin y el uso sostenible de

bosques y la tierra, son apoyados o generados

M d fi


51/54

Metodos etnogrficos

ANNEX I: questionaire survey


52/54

Sample questionaire surveys for local land user stakeholders. The survey is organized by

reference to different insitutions (see table 2 for institutions involved in REDD+).

Insti tution: Payments for forest carbon credits (PES)

1. are you aw are of programs for payments for environmental servicesfor forestcarbon?

2. how do you accessthe program ? in other words, do you show identification, provideyour name? do you need specific doc uments? official title to land?

3. what is your understanding of how this program functions? what is forest carbon?4. what is the objective of the program, in your own words?5. In general, how do you view this program? (scale of 1-10: 1- very negatively 10- very

positively)

6. can you w eight the following in terms of how it influences your positive or negativeperception of this program (on a sc ale of 1 not at all to 10 tremendously):

effort / time needed to participate financial benefits or costs acc ess to training or information access to services acc ess to tools, in kind goods, or technology philosophy or values informing the design and implementation the program how it affects rights and responsibilities involving forests and land social/community value or importance for natural resource practices the programs ability / non-abili ty to adapt to local needs

7. how much time / effort / money does it take to participate? (scale of 1-10: 1-minimally difficult 10- impossibly difficult)

8. have you stopped participating or have you decided not to follow therecommendations? why?


53/54

9. do you feel that your voice is heard in decisionmaking around this program? Do youhave a say in how the program is designed, operates or changes? (scale of 1-10: 1-

negatively 10- tremendoustly)

10.how do you feel that PES has contributed to your material well being (scale of 1-10: 1-negatively 10- tremendoustly) (economic)11.how do you feel that PES has provided good information, or has helped you to access

or participate in other programs? (information) how much on a scale of 1-10?

12.do you feel that PES has contributed to your being able to have a say or an influencein how decisions are made? (sociopolitical) how much on a scale of 1-10?

13.how do you feel PES contributes to your rights, participation in collectivemanagement of natural resources (scale of 1-10 : 1 not at all 10-tremendously)

14.Has this institution affected your perspective on other programs/institutions? to engagewith or stop engaging with other programs/institutions? If so, how?

15.how do you feel this instituion has contributed to your sense of responsibili ty aboutthe environment?

16.can you characterize in your own words this sense of responsibilty?


54/54

Documents

Conservation CATIE 15