[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/43648.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammed, Essam
Abstract
Ensuring that the poor or the most vulnerable sections of society benefit from REDD+ projects is crucial to building both national and international legitimacy and to fostering successful delivery of conservation and social objectives. In both academic and non-academic literature, issues of the equity of benefit-sharing at a community or household level are overlooked compared with distributional issues at the national and international level. Therefore, this paper aims to look at some of the issues related to benefit distribution at village and household level. Two very important factors that are likely to affect benefit distribution from REDD+ at a village level are whether payments are made directly to households or to communities as a whole; and whether payments are made in cash or in kind. In addition, the paper looks at the following design questions, which are closely related to these above factors: 1. What should the provision of benefits be based on – landholding size, actual emission reductions or the demography of the community – to ensure that equitable design criteria are met? 2. How can it be ensured that more vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities, the smalllandholders and landless poor, women and children do not lose out? 3. What impact would the type of benefit transferred have on the well-being of the communities and the local economy? To this end, experiences are reviewed from payments for ecosystem services, integrated conservation and development projects, community-based natural resource management and food or cash transfer programmes across the global south. In addition, benefit distribution systems that would enable the REDD+ pilot projects in general are suggested, and the REDD pilot project in Cat Tien National Park in particular, to be more pro-poor. Evidence is examined on how well schemes meet external criteria of equitable benefit distribution as well as assessing the perceptions of those involved. Conclusions drawn include: l Whether benefits are provided to a community as a whole or to individual households, and what benefits to transfer, are decisions that should be made on the basis of community consultation and careful assessment of their preferences. l Even though determining payment types and levels is best tailored through consultations with local people to best match community aspirations and those in need, economic feasibility, local institutional capacity and governance structures, and the effects on the local economy and on the livelihoods of the poor households should be carefully weighed and assessed. l Assessment of the preference for payment type should not be a one-off activity. Because participant communities are unlikely to have experience in receiving rewards in exchange for ecosystem service provision, their stated preferences may not be accurate in the early stages of the scheme. Once the scheme is implemented and communities start receiving payment, their preferences should be periodically assessed and changes in payment type should be made accordingly. This will increase the implementation and transaction costs of REDD+. Project developers and designers should budget for the cost of participation at the project design phase. l To promote pro-poor benefit distribution from REDD+ interventions, benefit distribution based on proportionality and the equality of opportunities to participate would be more relevant in areas where the participants are characterized by less inequality. In an unequal society (for example characterized by land disparity), on the other hand, benefit distribution based on need that positively discriminates in favour of the poor would be more desirable so that poor or weak claimants do not receive disproportionately lower benefits than the relatively well-off.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammed, Essam, 2011. "Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?," MPRA Paper 43648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:43648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43648/1/MPRA_paper_43648.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannesen, Anne Borge, 2006. "Designing integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs): illegal hunting, wildlife conservation, and the welfare of the local people," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 247-267, April.
    2. Jayne, T. S. & Yamano, Takashi & Weber, Michael T. & Tschirley, David & Benfica, Rui & Chapoto, Antony & Zulu, Ballard, 2003. "Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 253-275, June.
    3. Asquith, Nigel M. & Vargas, Maria Teresa & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 675-684, May.
    4. Katia Karousakis, 2009. "Promoting Biodiversity Co-Benefits in REDD," OECD Environment Working Papers 11, OECD Publishing.
    5. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    6. Ahmed, Akhter U. & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Nasreen, Mahbuba & Hoddinott, John F. & Bryan, Elizabeth, 2009. "Comparing Food and Cash Transfers to the Ultra-Poor in Bangladesh," Research reports 163, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Lorge Rogers, Beatrice & Coates, Jennifer, 2002. "Food-based safety nets and related programs," Social Protection Discussion Papers and Notes 29735, The World Bank.
    8. Jesse M Cunha & Giacomo De Giorgi & Seema Jayachandran, 2019. "The Price Effects of Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 240-281.
    9. Myers Madeira, Erin, 2009. "REDD in Design: Assessment of Planned First-Generation Activities in Indonesia," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-49, Resources for the Future.
    10. Bennett, Michael T., 2008. "China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 699-711, May.
    11. Scholz, Imme & Schmidt, Lars, 2008. "Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: meeting the main challenges ahead," Briefing Papers 6/2008, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    12. Takahashi, Kazushi, 2007. "Sources of Regional Income Disparity in Rural Vietnam: Oaxaca-Blinder Decomposition," IDE Discussion Papers 95, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    13. Faminow, Merle D., 1995. "Issues in valuing food aid: The cash or in-kind controversy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-10, February.
    14. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    15. Tacconi, Luca, 2009. "Compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation vs compensated reductions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2469-2472, June.
    16. Sommerville, Matthew & Jones, Julia P.G. & Rahajaharison, Michael & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1262-1271, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hallegatte, Stephane & Bangalore, Mook & Bonzanigo, Laura & Fay, Marianne & Narloch, Ulf & Rozenberg, Julie & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien, 2014. "Climate change and poverty -- an analytical framework," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7126, The World Bank.
    2. Meley M. Araya & Ole Hofstad, 2016. "Monetary incentives to avoid deforestation under the Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD)+ climate change mitigation scheme in Tanzania," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 421-443, March.
    3. Essam Yassin Mohammed & Ina Porras & Maryanne Grieg-Gran & Luiza Lima & Afriano Soares & João Tezza Neto & Virgilio Viana, 2013. "Assessing Preferences For Compensation Packages Using The Discrete Choice Method: The Case Of The Bolsa Floresta Program In Amazonas, Brazil," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 1-20.
    4. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    5. Annabelle Jade Bladon & Essam Yassin Mohammed & Belayet Hossain & Golam Kibria & Liaquat Ali & E J Milner-Gulland, 2018. "Evaluating the ecological and social targeting of a compensation scheme in Bangladesh," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Ickowitz, Amy & Sills, Erin & de Sassi, Claudio, 2017. "Estimating Smallholder Opportunity Costs of REDD+: A Pantropical Analysis from Households to Carbon and Back," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 15-26.
    7. Skutsch, Margaret & Balderas Torres, Arturo & Carrillo Fuentes, Juan Carlos, 2017. "Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 58-66.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    2. Dale Whittington & Stefano Pagiola, 2012. "Using Contingent Valuation in the Design of Payments for Environmental Services Mechanisms: A Review and Assessment," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 27(2), pages 261-287, August.
    3. Scheufele, Gabriela & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Payments for Environmental Services: Concepts and Applications," Research Reports 244011, Australian National University, Effective Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services in Lao PDR.
    4. Neitzel, K. Christoph & Caro-Borrero, Angela Piedad & Revollo-Fernandez, Daniel & Aguilar-Ibarra, Alonso & Ramos, Alya & Almeida-Leñero, Lucia, 2014. "Paying for environmental services: Determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 46-55.
    5. Gong, Yazhen & Bull, Gary & Baylis, Kathy, 2010. "Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1292-1302, April.
    6. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    7. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    8. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    9. Pagiola, Stefano & Zhang, Wei & Colom, Ale, 2009. "Can payments for watershed services help save biodiversity? A spatial analysis of highland Guatemala," MPRA Paper 13728, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    11. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    12. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    13. Ryckembusch, David & Frega, Romeo & Silva, Marcio Guilherme & Gentilini, Ugo & Sanogo, Issa & Grede, Nils & Brown, Lynn, 2013. "Enhancing Nutrition: A New Tool for Ex-Ante Comparison of Commodity-based Vouchers and Food Transfers," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 58-67.
    14. Sylvie Démurger & Haiyuan Wan, 2012. "Payments for ecological restoration and internal migration in China: the sloping land conversion program in Ningxia," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, December.
    15. Kisaka, Lily & Obi, Ajuruchukwu, 2015. "Farmers’ Preferences for Management Options as Payment for Environmental Services Scheme," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(3), pages 1-22, September.
    16. Alireza Daneshi & Mostafa Panahi & Saber Masoomi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Hossein Azadi & Muhammad Mobeen & Pinar Gökcin Ozuyar & Vjekoslav Tanaskovik, 2021. "Assessment of non-monetary facilities in Urmia Lake basin under PES scheme: a rehabilitation solution for the dry lake in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10141-10172, July.
    17. World Bank Group, 2016. "Cash Transfers in Humanitarian Contexts," World Bank Publications - Reports 24699, The World Bank Group.
    18. Sylvie Démurger, 2011. "Payments for ecological restoration and rural labor migration in China: The Sloping Land Conversion Program in Ningxia," Post-Print halshs-00673808, HAL.
    19. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    20. Stefano Pagiola & Ana Rios & Agustin Arcenas, 2010. "Poor Household Participation in Payments for Environmental Services: Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Quindío, Colombia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 371-394, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    REDD; PES; Social benefits;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:43648. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.