CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Are land-based carbon projects good for local people?

Many rural communities are keen to embark on carbon projects as a way of generating income, jobs, and other social benefits. Offset buyers are also attracted to the idea of reducing emissions and simultaneously helping local people. Others are wary that these projects may do more harm than good. However, until recently, there was no clear methodological guidance for carbon project developers to track social and biodiversity impacts. The combination of robust standards for assessing the social performance of projects, and the use of credible methods of social impact assessment could help ensure positive outcomes for local people.

The emphasis in the early years of the carbon markets has been mainly on assuring the integrity of project emission reductions; co-benefits have received much less attention. But the balance is changing, and there are justifiable concerns that co-benefits must, like carbon, be real, ‘additional’ and, as far as possible, measurable. This is partly necessary for market confidence as offset buyers increasingly seek evidence that they are getting what they pay for, including co-benefits. On ethical or equity grounds, carbon projects must at the very least ‘do no harm’ (See related IIED conclusions on REDD+ in the miombo drylands.)  

A cost-effective and credible impact assessment toolbox would help carbon project developers meet the verification requirements of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards and contribute to building more robust, sustainable projects.

APPROACH
In response to such issues, Forest Trends has formed an alliance with three other NGOs – the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), Rainforest Alliance, and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) – to produce a user-friendly Manual for project proponents on how to conduct cost-effective and credible social impact assessment. Support for this project comes from PROFOR, Morgan Stanley, NORAD, GEF-UNDP, and USAID-Translinks.

The manual is intended for carbon offset project designers and implementers who are not specialists in monitoring and evaluation (M&E).

The Manual was field-tested in 2010 in Brazil, Guatemala and Peru. 

RESULTS
Forest Trends released a first version of its manual in June 2010, proceeded to test it in the field (see case studies listed on this page) and solicited feedback. A second version, which integrated biodiversity concerns as well, was released in the fall of 2011 in three parts: a core guidance document and two toolkits (for social and bioversity impact assessments). 

Guidance to project developers has been provided by regional training workshops held in Peru (June 2010), Tanzania (October 2010), Kenya (August 2011 with GEF-UNDP funding) and DRC (September 2011 with USAID-Translinks funding).  This has resulted in training of approximately 80 terrestrial carbon project developers and other REDD+ stakeholders from about 10 countries.  These workshops involved hands-on training using ‘real’ REDD+ projects as case studies over a period of 3-4 days.

In Tanzania, the Tropical Forest Conservation Group (TFCG) REDD project in Lindi District has undertaken a large scale SIA exercise in 2011 following their participation in the SIA Training workshop in Zanzibar in October 2010.

FINDINGS
Experience during field testing and further training in social impact assessment shows that the benefits of using the ‘theory of change’ approach to impact assessment go well beyond the generation of a credible social monitoring plan which can meet the CCB or other multiple benefit standards. These wider benefits include: strategic project design necessary for achieving social and biodiversity objectives (clear objectives are essential for identifying monitoring indicators); participation of project stakeholders; promotion of adaptive project management; and the ease of understanding and explaining the results to a range of stakeholders.

Keys to better participation of local stakeholders include the quality of the ‘focal issue working group’ facilitators (so the latter need to be more carefully selected and trained); some prior training or exposure for community participants; the use of a ‘practice activity’ to develop good practice consultation skills; and various issues around the more effective participation of local stakeholders, especially women.

Based partly on the costs in the three case studies, the authors estimate that the cost of generating a credible social monitoring plan using their approach will be in the range $25,000-35,000 depending on various factors.

CHALLENGE
Governments are increasingly aware that REDD+ frameworks will need to include benefit sharing mechanisms that promote social and environmental safeguards while seeking full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities (as stated in UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 adopted at COP16 in Cancun in December 2010). How to design and establish REDD+ frameworks and policies in countries while guaranteeing equitable benefit sharing mechanisms and adequate incentives for REDD+ purposes, however, is less clear and a significant challenge for countries trying to get ready for REDD.

APPROACH
The experience of payments for environmental services (PES) systems set up in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador in the last decade provide valuable inputs for shaping REDD+ strategies in participating countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Costa Rica has implemented a nationwide PES program since 1997; Mexico since 2003; Ecuador since 2008. Between them, these programs are currently helping to conserve over 3 million hectares of forests. Their experience shows how to make PES work, but also -- problems to avoid.

This activity supported by PROFOR will help share technical lessons from PES for REDD+ within the context of a South-South learning exchange initially limited to the REDD+ countries in the region. 

Although the challenges related to the appropriate design and implementation of REDD+ go beyond those of PES schemes, the PES experience in these three countries could provide insights on many of the core elements of a future REDD+ strategy. The lessons fall into five areas: 

1. Participation agreements

2. Equity or social objectives

3. Trade-offs and synergies between multiple (ecosystem) benefits

4. Measuring, reporting and verification (MRV)

5. Sustainable finance and administrative costs

RESULTS

The lessons of payments for environmental services systems set up in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador were identified and discussed in a participatory fashion, that has gradually created a regional and global community of experts around PES/REDD+ issues.  

In the process, participants identified and captured twenty-nine lessons, now available in reports in English, Spanish and French on this page.

Some of the lessons gathered under the header "Sustainable Finance in PES and REDD+" include for example:

• Diversify funding sources and duration of contracts to reduce risks.
• Enable legislative framework to engage the private sector: Use public funding during formulation, preparation and during first phases of implementation, then a combination of incentives/market funds to attract the private sector.
• Clearly define objectives and baselines, and use adaptive management techniques to improve targeting: Avoid if you can “post-modeling” baselines. Try “ex-ante” baselines if you can. Most PES schemes are now “post-modeling” which is costly and not the best choice.
• Explore options to control administration costs: Strengthen current institutions and technical teams instead of setting new ones or depending exclusively on external consultants 

The sharing of lessons across borders has helped attract interest from other partners such as FCPF and the World Bank Institute and extended the reach and longevity of these lessons. For example, six webinar sessions co-organized by the World Bank Institute and “Finanzas Carbono” attracted about 1,200 participants.

Through outreach and back to back presentations to the participants committee of the FCPF, the policy board countries of UN REDD, the Partners of the REDD+ Partnership, countries of Forest Eleven and Finanzas Carbono, the activity has reached approximately 54 countries including many countries preparing national REDD+ strategies.  Time will tell if countries will make use of PES lessons in the design of their respective REDD+ strategies when they submit their REDD+ preparation plans for evaluation in 2014-16.

CHALLENGE
Governments are increasingly aware that REDD+ frameworks will need to include benefit sharing mechanisms that promote social and environmental safeguards while seeking full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities (as stated in UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 adopted at COP16 in Cancun in December 2010). How to design and establish REDD+ frameworks and policies in countries while guaranteeing equitable benefit sharing mechanisms and adequate incentives for REDD+ purposes, however, is less clear and a significant challenge for countries trying to get ready for REDD.

APPROACH
The experience of payments for environmental services (PES) systems set up in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador in the last decade provide valuable inputs for shaping REDD+ strategies in participating countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Costa Rica has implemented a nationwide PES program since 1997; Mexico since 2003; Ecuador since 2008. Between them, these programs are currently helping to conserve over 3 million hectares of forests. Their experience shows how to make PES work, but also -- problems to avoid.

This activity supported by PROFOR will help share technical lessons from PES for REDD+ within the context of a South-South learning exchange initially limited to the REDD+ countries in the region. 

Although the challenges related to the appropriate design and implementation of REDD+ go beyond those of PES schemes, the PES experience in these three countries could provide insights on many of the core elements of a future REDD+ strategy. The lessons fall into five areas: 

1. Participation agreements

2. Equity or social objectives

3. Trade-offs and synergies between multiple (ecosystem) benefits

4. Measuring, reporting and verification (MRV)

5. Sustainable finance and administrative costs

RESULTS

The lessons of payments for environmental services systems set up in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador were identified and discussed in a participatory fashion, that has gradually created a regional and global community of experts around PES/REDD+ issues.  

In the process, participants identified and captured twenty-nine lessons, now available in reports in English, Spanish and French on this page.

Some of the lessons gathered under the header "Sustainable Finance in PES and REDD+" include for example:

• Diversify funding sources and duration of contracts to reduce risks.
• Enable legislative framework to engage the private sector: Use public funding during formulation, preparation and during first phases of implementation, then a combination of incentives/market funds to attract the private sector.
• Clearly define objectives and baselines, and use adaptive management techniques to improve targeting: Avoid if you can “post-modeling” baselines. Try “ex-ante” baselines if you can. Most PES schemes are now “post-modeling” which is costly and not the best choice.
• Explore options to control administration costs: Strengthen current institutions and technical teams instead of setting new ones or depending exclusively on external consultants 

The sharing of lessons across borders has helped attract interest from other partners such as FCPF and the World Bank Institute and extended the reach and longevity of these lessons. For example, six webinar sessions co-organized by the World Bank Institute and “Finanzas Carbono” attracted about 1,200 participants.

Through outreach and back to back presentations to the participants committee of the FCPF, the policy board countries of UN REDD, the Partners of the REDD+ Partnership, countries of Forest Eleven and Finanzas Carbono, the activity has reached approximately 54 countries including many countries preparing national REDD+ strategies.  Time will tell if countries will make use of PES lessons in the design of their respective REDD+ strategies when they submit their REDD+ preparation plans for evaluation in 2014-16.

CHALLENGE
Governments are increasingly aware that REDD+ frameworks will need to include benefit sharing mechanisms that promote social and environmental safeguards while seeking full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities (as stated in UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 adopted at COP16 in Cancun in December 2010). How to design and establish REDD+ frameworks and policies in countries while guaranteeing equitable benefit sharing mechanisms and adequate incentives for REDD+ purposes, however, is less clear and a significant challenge for countries trying to get ready for REDD.

APPROACH
The experience of payments for environmental services (PES) systems set up in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador in the last decade provide valuable inputs for shaping REDD+ strategies in participating countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region. Costa Rica has implemented a nationwide PES program since 1997; Mexico since 2003; Ecuador since 2008. Between them, these programs are currently helping to conserve over 3 million hectares of forests. Their experience shows how to make PES work, but also -- problems to avoid.

This activity supported by PROFOR will help share technical lessons from PES for REDD+ within the context of a South-South learning exchange initially limited to the REDD+ countries in the region. 

Although the challenges related to the appropriate design and implementation of REDD+ go beyond those of PES schemes, the PES experience in these three countries could provide insights on many of the core elements of a future REDD+ strategy. The lessons fall into five areas: 

1. Participation agreements

2. Equity or social objectives

3. Trade-offs and synergies between multiple (ecosystem) benefits

4. Measuring, reporting and verification (MRV)

5. Sustainable finance and administrative costs

RESULTS

The lessons of payments for environmental services systems set up in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador were identified and discussed in a participatory fashion, that has gradually created a regional and global community of experts around PES/REDD+ issues.  

In the process, participants identified and captured twenty-nine lessons, now available in reports in English, Spanish and French on this page.

Some of the lessons gathered under the header "Sustainable Finance in PES and REDD+" include for example:

• Diversify funding sources and duration of contracts to reduce risks.
• Enable legislative framework to engage the private sector: Use public funding during formulation, preparation and during first phases of implementation, then a combination of incentives/market funds to attract the private sector.
• Clearly define objectives and baselines, and use adaptive management techniques to improve targeting: Avoid if you can “post-modeling” baselines. Try “ex-ante” baselines if you can. Most PES schemes are now “post-modeling” which is costly and not the best choice.
• Explore options to control administration costs: Strengthen current institutions and technical teams instead of setting new ones or depending exclusively on external consultants 

The sharing of lessons across borders has helped attract interest from other partners such as FCPF and the World Bank Institute and extended the reach and longevity of these lessons. For example, six webinar sessions co-organized by the World Bank Institute and “Finanzas Carbono” attracted about 1,200 participants.

Through outreach and back to back presentations to the participants committee of the FCPF, the policy board countries of UN REDD, the Partners of the REDD+ Partnership, countries of Forest Eleven and Finanzas Carbono, the activity has reached approximately 54 countries including many countries preparing national REDD+ strategies.  Time will tell if countries will make use of PES lessons in the design of their respective REDD+ strategies when they submit their REDD+ preparation plans for evaluation in 2014-16.