CHALLENGE

Madagascar faces severe challenges from the illegal logging and exportation of precious woods like rosewood (Dalbergia spp) and ebony (Diospyros spp), damaging pristine ecosystems and depriving the state of the revenue that could support a sustainable forest management system. Although the 16^th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) agreed on an action plan in 2013 to protect precious hardwoods, little has been done to improve the capacity needed to implement this plan.

APPROACH

This report aims to inform the implementation of the scientific work envisaged under the CITES Action Plan, along with priority activities identified by the Government of Madagascar. In the short-term, scientific and technical tools can provide a credible basis for enforcing the Malagasy and international laws that govern trade in precious hardwoods. In the medium and long-term, these tools can help to reliably identify precious woods, and thus support enforcement agents in sustainably managing forests. 

This report focuses on: (1) geographic range and population status of precious timber species of Dalbergia and Diospyros species; (2) species identification technologies; (3) silvicultural potential for regeneration of these species; and (4) private sector potential for developing a value chain for the sustainable exploitation of precious timbers.

RESULTS

This report reveals significant gaps in the knowledge and available tools needed to implement the CITES Action Plan, but also finds that a solid foundation exists for overcoming each of these gaps – if donor and technical partners step up to work with relevant institutions and authorities in Madagascar. Malagasy and international experts in each of the key areas (taxonomy, field collection and identification, development and management of a reference collection and a database, wood anatomy, DNA barcoding, and mass spectrometry) have conducted promising pilot initiatives and are working in close collaboration with a shared vision of how to address the most pressing issues and to develop the needed knowledge and tools. Now is the time to scale these efforts up.

The report is available in English and French.

CHALLENGE

Madagascar faces severe challenges from the illegal logging and exportation of precious woods like rosewood (Dalbergia spp) and ebony (Diospyros spp), damaging pristine ecosystems and depriving the state of the revenue that could support a sustainable forest management system. Although the 16^th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) agreed on an action plan in 2013 to protect precious hardwoods, little has been done to improve the capacity needed to implement this plan.

APPROACH

This report aims to inform the implementation of the scientific work envisaged under the CITES Action Plan, along with priority activities identified by the Government of Madagascar. In the short-term, scientific and technical tools can provide a credible basis for enforcing the Malagasy and international laws that govern trade in precious hardwoods. In the medium and long-term, these tools can help to reliably identify precious woods, and thus support enforcement agents in sustainably managing forests. 

This report focuses on: (1) geographic range and population status of precious timber species of Dalbergia and Diospyros species; (2) species identification technologies; (3) silvicultural potential for regeneration of these species; and (4) private sector potential for developing a value chain for the sustainable exploitation of precious timbers.

RESULTS

This report reveals significant gaps in the knowledge and available tools needed to implement the CITES Action Plan, but also finds that a solid foundation exists for overcoming each of these gaps – if donor and technical partners step up to work with relevant institutions and authorities in Madagascar. Malagasy and international experts in each of the key areas (taxonomy, field collection and identification, development and management of a reference collection and a database, wood anatomy, DNA barcoding, and mass spectrometry) have conducted promising pilot initiatives and are working in close collaboration with a shared vision of how to address the most pressing issues and to develop the needed knowledge and tools. Now is the time to scale these efforts up.

The report is available in English and French.

CHALLENGE

Partnerships and benefit sharing arrangements between local and outside partners have gained prominence in recent years for several reasons. More forest areas are being designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Private investors are interested in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with local communities in order to gain access to natural resources, local skills and labor. And there is a growing recognition that the eventual success of afforestation and reforestation activities and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), including sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest restoration, will rest in large part on the effective cooperation and support of forest-dependent people.

However the range of possible mechanisms by which benefits could be transferred is vast. Identifying who owns the rights to forest carbon is also a challenge: Is the carbon tied to property rights? Is it a global good? What happens when ownership of forest lands is contended or follows customary systems? The institutional and political dynamics on the ground can make it difficult to reach agreement on benefits to share. How can these be navigated?

APPROACH

PROFOR commissioned three studies to inform the design of benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ initiatives. The first provides practical guidance on how to identify and work with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The second clarifies how mechanisms that transfer benefits are structured and helps identify which mechanism type may be most suited for a country’s context. The third builds on a report titled Rethinking Forest Partnerships and Benefit Sharing: Insights on What Makes Collaborative Arrangements Work for Communities and Landowners and field work in Latin America and Africa -- it discusses how to set up agreements among parties and determine benefits.

Co-financing was provided by the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway, and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Evidence suggests that the establishment of a suitable benefit sharing mechanism is achievable, provided realities on the ground and a certain number of challenges are addressed effectively. The work produced an overview and three main reports available at left on this page:

• Overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives
• Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear -- this section draws lessons on negotiations, contracts and implementation from partnership examples in Brazil, Ethiopia and Madagascar
• Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits -- includes an interactive tool for countries to assess their needs 
• Benefit sharing in practice -- with nine case studies from Nicaragua, Tanzania and Uganda.
• A 28-page booklet summarizing this work is available in English, French and Spanish.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) introduced its part of the work (focusing on assessing options for benefit sharing mechanisms) in Durban in December 2011 at the Forest Day 5 Issues Marketplace. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) conducted training sessions on benefit sharing in June 2012 (see blog: "Questions countries are asking"). A Q&A with experts who participated in a panel discussion on benefit sharing at World Forest Week in September 2012 is also available on this page.

CHALLENGE

Partnerships and benefit sharing arrangements between local and outside partners have gained prominence in recent years for several reasons. More forest areas are being designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Private investors are interested in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with local communities in order to gain access to natural resources, local skills and labor. And there is a growing recognition that the eventual success of afforestation and reforestation activities and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), including sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest restoration, will rest in large part on the effective cooperation and support of forest-dependent people.

However the range of possible mechanisms by which benefits could be transferred is vast. Identifying who owns the rights to forest carbon is also a challenge: Is the carbon tied to property rights? Is it a global good? What happens when ownership of forest lands is contended or follows customary systems? The institutional and political dynamics on the ground can make it difficult to reach agreement on benefits to share. How can these be navigated?

APPROACH

PROFOR commissioned three studies to inform the design of benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ initiatives. The first provides practical guidance on how to identify and work with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The second clarifies how mechanisms that transfer benefits are structured and helps identify which mechanism type may be most suited for a country’s context. The third builds on a report titled Rethinking Forest Partnerships and Benefit Sharing: Insights on What Makes Collaborative Arrangements Work for Communities and Landowners and field work in Latin America and Africa -- it discusses how to set up agreements among parties and determine benefits.

Co-financing was provided by the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway, and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Evidence suggests that the establishment of a suitable benefit sharing mechanism is achievable, provided realities on the ground and a certain number of challenges are addressed effectively. The work produced an overview and three main reports available at left on this page:

• Overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives
• Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear -- this section draws lessons on negotiations, contracts and implementation from partnership examples in Brazil, Ethiopia and Madagascar
• Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits -- includes an interactive tool for countries to assess their needs 
• Benefit sharing in practice -- with nine case studies from Nicaragua, Tanzania and Uganda.
• A 28-page booklet summarizing this work is available in English, French and Spanish.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) introduced its part of the work (focusing on assessing options for benefit sharing mechanisms) in Durban in December 2011 at the Forest Day 5 Issues Marketplace. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) conducted training sessions on benefit sharing in June 2012 (see blog: "Questions countries are asking"). A Q&A with experts who participated in a panel discussion on benefit sharing at World Forest Week in September 2012 is also available on this page.

CHALLENGE

Partnerships and benefit sharing arrangements between local and outside partners have gained prominence in recent years for several reasons. More forest areas are being designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Private investors are interested in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with local communities in order to gain access to natural resources, local skills and labor. And there is a growing recognition that the eventual success of afforestation and reforestation activities and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), including sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest restoration, will rest in large part on the effective cooperation and support of forest-dependent people.

However the range of possible mechanisms by which benefits could be transferred is vast. Identifying who owns the rights to forest carbon is also a challenge: Is the carbon tied to property rights? Is it a global good? What happens when ownership of forest lands is contended or follows customary systems? The institutional and political dynamics on the ground can make it difficult to reach agreement on benefits to share. How can these be navigated?

APPROACH

PROFOR commissioned three studies to inform the design of benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ initiatives. The first provides practical guidance on how to identify and work with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The second clarifies how mechanisms that transfer benefits are structured and helps identify which mechanism type may be most suited for a country’s context. The third builds on a report titled Rethinking Forest Partnerships and Benefit Sharing: Insights on What Makes Collaborative Arrangements Work for Communities and Landowners and field work in Latin America and Africa -- it discusses how to set up agreements among parties and determine benefits.

Co-financing was provided by the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway, and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Evidence suggests that the establishment of a suitable benefit sharing mechanism is achievable, provided realities on the ground and a certain number of challenges are addressed effectively. The work produced an overview and three main reports available at left on this page:

• Overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives
• Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear -- this section draws lessons on negotiations, contracts and implementation from partnership examples in Brazil, Ethiopia and Madagascar
• Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits -- includes an interactive tool for countries to assess their needs 
• Benefit sharing in practice -- with nine case studies from Nicaragua, Tanzania and Uganda.
• A 28-page booklet summarizing this work is available in English, French and Spanish.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) introduced its part of the work (focusing on assessing options for benefit sharing mechanisms) in Durban in December 2011 at the Forest Day 5 Issues Marketplace. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) conducted training sessions on benefit sharing in June 2012 (see blog: "Questions countries are asking"). A Q&A with experts who participated in a panel discussion on benefit sharing at World Forest Week in September 2012 is also available on this page.

CHALLENGE

Partnerships and benefit sharing arrangements between local and outside partners have gained prominence in recent years for several reasons. More forest areas are being designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Private investors are interested in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with local communities in order to gain access to natural resources, local skills and labor. And there is a growing recognition that the eventual success of afforestation and reforestation activities and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), including sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest restoration, will rest in large part on the effective cooperation and support of forest-dependent people.

However the range of possible mechanisms by which benefits could be transferred is vast. Identifying who owns the rights to forest carbon is also a challenge: Is the carbon tied to property rights? Is it a global good? What happens when ownership of forest lands is contended or follows customary systems? The institutional and political dynamics on the ground can make it difficult to reach agreement on benefits to share. How can these be navigated?

APPROACH

PROFOR commissioned three studies to inform the design of benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ initiatives. The first provides practical guidance on how to identify and work with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The second clarifies how mechanisms that transfer benefits are structured and helps identify which mechanism type may be most suited for a country’s context. The third builds on a report titled Rethinking Forest Partnerships and Benefit Sharing: Insights on What Makes Collaborative Arrangements Work for Communities and Landowners and field work in Latin America and Africa -- it discusses how to set up agreements among parties and determine benefits.

Co-financing was provided by the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway, and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Evidence suggests that the establishment of a suitable benefit sharing mechanism is achievable, provided realities on the ground and a certain number of challenges are addressed effectively. The work produced an overview and three main reports available at left on this page:

• Overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives
• Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear -- this section draws lessons on negotiations, contracts and implementation from partnership examples in Brazil, Ethiopia and Madagascar
• Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits -- includes an interactive tool for countries to assess their needs 
• Benefit sharing in practice -- with nine case studies from Nicaragua, Tanzania and Uganda.
• A 28-page booklet summarizing this work is available in English, French and Spanish.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) introduced its part of the work (focusing on assessing options for benefit sharing mechanisms) in Durban in December 2011 at the Forest Day 5 Issues Marketplace. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) conducted training sessions on benefit sharing in June 2012 (see blog: "Questions countries are asking"). A Q&A with experts who participated in a panel discussion on benefit sharing at World Forest Week in September 2012 is also available on this page.

CHALLENGE

Partnerships and benefit sharing arrangements between local and outside partners have gained prominence in recent years for several reasons. More forest areas are being designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Private investors are interested in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with local communities in order to gain access to natural resources, local skills and labor. And there is a growing recognition that the eventual success of afforestation and reforestation activities and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), including sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest restoration, will rest in large part on the effective cooperation and support of forest-dependent people.

However the range of possible mechanisms by which benefits could be transferred is vast. Identifying who owns the rights to forest carbon is also a challenge: Is the carbon tied to property rights? Is it a global good? What happens when ownership of forest lands is contended or follows customary systems? The institutional and political dynamics on the ground can make it difficult to reach agreement on benefits to share. How can these be navigated?

APPROACH

PROFOR commissioned three studies to inform the design of benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ initiatives. The first provides practical guidance on how to identify and work with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The second clarifies how mechanisms that transfer benefits are structured and helps identify which mechanism type may be most suited for a country’s context. The third builds on a report titled Rethinking Forest Partnerships and Benefit Sharing: Insights on What Makes Collaborative Arrangements Work for Communities and Landowners and field work in Latin America and Africa -- it discusses how to set up agreements among parties and determine benefits.

Co-financing was provided by the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway, and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Evidence suggests that the establishment of a suitable benefit sharing mechanism is achievable, provided realities on the ground and a certain number of challenges are addressed effectively. The work produced an overview and three main reports available at left on this page:

• Overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives
• Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear -- this section draws lessons on negotiations, contracts and implementation from partnership examples in Brazil, Ethiopia and Madagascar
• Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits -- includes an interactive tool for countries to assess their needs 
• Benefit sharing in practice -- with nine case studies from Nicaragua, Tanzania and Uganda.
• A 28-page booklet summarizing this work is available in English, French and Spanish.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) introduced its part of the work (focusing on assessing options for benefit sharing mechanisms) in Durban in December 2011 at the Forest Day 5 Issues Marketplace. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) conducted training sessions on benefit sharing in June 2012 (see blog: "Questions countries are asking"). A Q&A with experts who participated in a panel discussion on benefit sharing at World Forest Week in September 2012 is also available on this page.

CHALLENGE

Partnerships and benefit sharing arrangements between local and outside partners have gained prominence in recent years for several reasons. More forest areas are being designated for use by local communities and indigenous peoples. Private investors are interested in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with local communities in order to gain access to natural resources, local skills and labor. And there is a growing recognition that the eventual success of afforestation and reforestation activities and programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), including sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest restoration, will rest in large part on the effective cooperation and support of forest-dependent people.

However the range of possible mechanisms by which benefits could be transferred is vast. Identifying who owns the rights to forest carbon is also a challenge: Is the carbon tied to property rights? Is it a global good? What happens when ownership of forest lands is contended or follows customary systems? The institutional and political dynamics on the ground can make it difficult to reach agreement on benefits to share. How can these be navigated?

APPROACH

PROFOR commissioned three studies to inform the design of benefit sharing arrangements in REDD+ initiatives. The first provides practical guidance on how to identify and work with beneficiaries when rights are unclear. The second clarifies how mechanisms that transfer benefits are structured and helps identify which mechanism type may be most suited for a country’s context. The third builds on a report titled Rethinking Forest Partnerships and Benefit Sharing: Insights on What Makes Collaborative Arrangements Work for Communities and Landowners and field work in Latin America and Africa -- it discusses how to set up agreements among parties and determine benefits.

Co-financing was provided by the Trust Fund for Environmentally & Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD) made available by the governments of Finland and Norway, and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Evidence suggests that the establishment of a suitable benefit sharing mechanism is achievable, provided realities on the ground and a certain number of challenges are addressed effectively. The work produced an overview and three main reports available at left on this page:

• Overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives
• Identifying and working with beneficiaries when rights are unclear -- this section draws lessons on negotiations, contracts and implementation from partnership examples in Brazil, Ethiopia and Madagascar
• Assessing options for effective mechanisms to share benefits -- includes an interactive tool for countries to assess their needs 
• Benefit sharing in practice -- with nine case studies from Nicaragua, Tanzania and Uganda.
• A 28-page booklet summarizing this work is available in English, French and Spanish.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) introduced its part of the work (focusing on assessing options for benefit sharing mechanisms) in Durban in December 2011 at the Forest Day 5 Issues Marketplace. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) conducted training sessions on benefit sharing in June 2012 (see blog: "Questions countries are asking"). A Q&A with experts who participated in a panel discussion on benefit sharing at World Forest Week in September 2012 is also available on this page.

CHALLENGE

Brazil’s Forest Code requires all private landowners to retain the original forest or woodland on 20% of their land to ensure the provision of ecosystem services. Over the years, however, due to poor enforcement of the law, most landowners have not kept adequate areas devoted to forest reserves ("Reserva Legal"). The New Forest Code (Law 12.651/2014) now allows the re-establishment of the forest reserve either on-farm or on other private and public lands that are currently degraded or under-utilized. In an effort to facilitate compliance, the new Forest Code also allows new generation forest plantations of native species that can be harvested, provided adequate attention is devoted to maintaining their ecosystem services (protection of watersheds and biological diversity).

APPROACH

The program consists of four elements:

1. Review of the economic and financial analysis of the proposed models, carried out by the State Secretariat for Environment (Secretaria do Meio Ambiente, SMA) in Sao Paulo, jointly with the Institute for Forest Research and Studies (IPEF).
2. Market study, which evaluates the market potential for key products considered under the replanting program by adapting the value chain approach already used under PROFOR.
3. Design of financing instruments, based on the review of existing instruments and dialogue with financing institutions.
4. Dissemination/Knowledge exchange which involves disseminating results of the study in three languages: Portuguese, English, and Spanish.

RESULTS

This activity is ongoing, to date. The following studies were completed:

(a) Assessing, validating, and adjusting, as needed, the analysis carried out on the economic viability of the proposed sustainable forest management (SFM) models 

(b) Assessing market potential for wood products (See attached report by Amantino Ramos de Freitas and summary by Maria Isabel Braga.)

(c) Evaluating existing studies and information, and implementing additional studies to fill existing information gaps, aiming at the elaboration of a business model for a multipurpose pilot forestry pole in the Paraíba do Sul River Basin

(d) Defining a research and development agenda based on what has already been done regarding forest restoration in the Mata Atlântica and Amazon biomes, and on an analysis of potential benefits based on the results of research already completed

Some key findings so far are:   

• All studies agreed that returns of investments in native species plantations could be high. Yet the level of risk is so high that in practice it is rare to find significant scale investments in native species. The time required for native species to produce valuable timber is significantly longer than the two exotic species that are produced on a large scale in Brazil, Eucalyptus and Pinus. This long period to recuperate the investment generates risks that are difficult to overcome. Research and development, which can reduce risks and variability of performances, can contribute to mitigate such risks. In addition, it is important to increase the emphasis on non-timber products (like fruits, palm hearth, and so on), which can reduce the period required to recuperate the investment.   
• Research and development (R&D) to scale up native species silviculture in Brazil. The study proved that, in some situations, planting native trees in Brazil can be a good yet risky business. 
• The study identified 30 native species with higher potential for commercial production of timber (15 species from the Atlantic biome and 15 from the Amazonian biome). Specific gaps and priorities were identified in eight research areas: (i) seeds and seedlings, (ii) forestry breeding and improvement, (iii) wood technology, (iv) topo climatic zoning, (v) forestry management, (vi) vegetative propagation, (vii) market for wood products, and (viii) policy and legislation. 
• The results have found that the cost to develop 30 species is around US$8 million over 20 years. The estimated results are as follows: (a) productivity to increase in the range of 25 percent in the short term and from 56 percent to 85 percent in the medium and long term, (b) forestry costs to decrease by 20 percent, and (c) round wood to lumber conversion rates from 20 percent to 40 percent in thinning, and from 40 percent to 50 percent in the final cut. Together, these three variables could possibly increase and impact IRR up by 5 percent, making forestry with native species viable in Brazil, with a risk adjusted return comparable to mainstream investments such as eucalyptus plantations.
• For every US$1 dollar invested in R&D, there is an estimated gain of US$2.4 in benefits, with a necessary scale of at least 10,000 hectares to justify investments in R&D. In terms of scale, this means that US$8 million is needed for R&D plus US$100 million for forest assets (US$10,000 per hectare over 30 years). Based on the potential future market demand of tropical timber species, the study estimated a potential of more than 1 million hectares for silviculture with native species to meet future demand tropical lumber by the year 2050, corresponding to more than 10 percent of the Brazilian Nationally Determined Contribution target on restoration of degraded lands. The next step is to identify the specific interests of the multilateral agencies, public sector, private companies and financial sector to actually invest in such development program and native forestry plantation assets. 

These findings are informing a concept note for a new project proposal to the World Bank for implementation of commercially viable multi-purpose native tree forests.

More findings and results will be shared on this page when they become available.