Transcript SES_2.4_Social_Co-benefits_2015_04x

Section 2. What Social And Environmental
Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And
Implementation of REDD+
2.4. Social Co-benefits
USAID LEAF
Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development
Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Name
Affiliation
Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Surin Onprom; Co-Lead
Name
Affiliation
Tran Thi Thu Ha
Vietnam Forestry University
Nguyen Dinh Hai
Vietnam Forestry University
Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead
RECOFTC
Thailand
Vo Mai Anh
Vietnam Forestry University
Claudia Radel; Co-Lead
Utah State University
Tran Tuan Viet
Vietnam Forestry University
Sarah Hines; Co-Lead
US Forest Service
Cao Tien Trung
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn
Chiang Mai University,
Thailand
Nguyen T. Trang Thanh
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Nguyen Thu Ha
USAID Vietnam Forests &
Deltas
Mohd Rusli Yacob
University Putra Malaysia
Maeve Nightingale
IUCN MFF
Kaisone Phengspha
National University of Laos
Guada Lagrada
PACT MPE
Phansamai Phengspha
National University of Laos
Le Van Trung
DARD Lam Dong
Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy
National University of Laos
Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh
AIT Thailand
Freddie Alei
University of Papua New Guinea
David Ganz
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Chay Kongkruy
Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Kalpana Giri
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy
Royal University of Phnom Penh,
Cambodia
Chi Pham
Project Coordinator
USAID LEAF Bangkok
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Introduction to Climate Change
The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context
Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics
II. WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD
2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV
2.2. Governance
2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
2.3.1. FPIC
2.4. Social Co-benefits
2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools
2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG
2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
III. STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER
3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs
3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards
3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards
At the end of this section, learners will be able to:

Explain the concept of co-benefits, within the REDD+ context

List a variety of different potential social co-benefits that
could arise from the implementation of REDD+, PES, or other
conservation programs or projects

Categorize social co-benefits under a variety of approaches

Analytically link the concepts of safeguards to co-benefits

Apply the concept of co-benefits, using a gender equity
example, to assessing international and national funds design

Introduction to and exploration of co-benefits as a concept

Co-benefit typologies

Activity: Brainstorming possible co-benefits in the context of
REDD+ or PES and categorizing them

Linking co-benefits and safeguards

Activity: The Green Climate Fund (applying the co-benefit
concept to fund design)

In-class presentation of materials

Discussions

Small group activities
Students should read:
Miyatsuka, A. and E. Zusman. Fact Sheet No.1 What are Cobenefits? Asian Co-benefits Partnership.
“Benefits that accrue as a side effect of a
targeted policy” (Pearce, 2000)
For Discussion:

Why use the term “co-benefits” and not simply “benefits”?

Should we instead use the term benefits?

What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of using
each term?
In context of REDD+, we use co-benefits in reference to nonclimate benefits that could accrue as an outcome of programs or
projects:
“All of the positive outcomes associated with multiple,
simultaneous emissions reduction” (Fitzgerald and Villarin, 2005)
“The potentially large and diverse range of collateral benefits
that can be associated with climate change mitigation policies in
addition to direct avoided climate impact benefits”
(Bollen, Guay, Lamet, and Corfee-Morlot, 2009)

The term “co-benefit” appeared in the 1990s and generated
wide interest

Term published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 2001.

Other terms have been used to connote similar ideas:

“side benefits”

“secondary benefits”

“collateral benefits”

“associated benefits”

The primary concern with REDD + is whether it might
negatively affect (do harm to) ecosystems and social systems
particularly in:

Indigenous and forest-dependent communities;

High biodiversity or low carbon areas.

But securing co-benefits, or doing good (e.g. biodiversity
conservation or poverty reduction) is also a key challenge in
REDD+

Is it possible to “do no harm”, and furthermore, to “do good”?

Can doing good potentially offset doing harm?

Desirable outcomes (co-benefits vs. co-impacts)

Intentional versus unintentional outcomes

Development-related, as co-benefits concept is used to link
development and mitigation goals, under for example a
sustainable development framework.
Explore the characteristics of desirable, intentional, &
development-related:
1
What qualifies as development? Does everyone agree
on what development goals should be?
2
Desirable to whom? Intentional by whom? Should the
intentional co-benefit goals of project developers or
designers always be transparently communicated to
project beneficiaries? Why or why not?
Key examples of co-benefits in context of REDD+ projects:

Biological diversity is a conservation or environmental cobenefit

Gender empowerment, household income, generation of
employment are social co-benefits
In the remainder of this module section, we will focus on
social co-benefits.

What is an example of a development co-benefit?

Can these be the same as social co-benefits?

How do they relate to environmental co-benefits?
1.
Break into small groups.
2.
In each group, brainstorm to generate a list of other
possible co-benefits for REDD+ programs and projects.
3.
Try to include in your group list both social co-benefits and
conservation/environmental co-benefits.

Social co-benefits add to the overall human wellbeing
gains achieved by PES/REDD+

Human wellbeing is “synonymous with
quality of life and distinguishes
between personal and
social wellbeing”
(Dasgupta, 2004)

Personal wellbeing

Social wellbeing
Resource
management
activities
Modified from Greiner and Stanley, 2013.
Type A: Income-related provider social co-benefit

Employment

Livelihood

Financial supports

Living standard of farmers

….........
Type B: Non-income related provider social co-benefit

Behavior and life styles

Self-esteem and self-determination

Human capacity building: organizational and individual

Reinforcing culture and traditional skill and knowledge

….........
Type C: Non-provider social co-benefits

The economic viability and stability of region

Reduced public expenditure

Fiscal benefits

Transfer of knowledge

….........
Total social co-benefits = Type A + Type B + Type C
1.
In groups, categorize each social co-benefit on your list
as type A, B, or C and briefly present.
2.
As a group, choose one of your listed social co-benefits.
3.
Identify the conditions under which this co-benefit
could be realized:
What would the project need to look like in order to
generate this co-benefit?
1.
Effective REDD+ policy depends on nested institutional
arrangements that connect local, national and global
scales;
2.
Safeguards and co-benefits are mutually constituted with
serious implications for the design of REDD+ activities;
3.
Safeguards are important to success of REDD+ in
sequestering carbon while providing social co-benefit.
To make REDD+ work
(creating social co-benefits),
what must social safeguards do?
Social safeguards must do the following:

Respect and protect rights and access to lands/resources
and the interests and livelihoods of indigenous peoples
and forest-dependent communities;

Ensure full and effective participation of communities in
all stages of REDD+;

Assure equitable sharing of REDD+ benefits with and
within communities;

Promote women’s empowerment and gender equality;

Provide a mechanism for resolution of disputes.
Twin Safeguards
Participation
Tenure Security
Social
Co-benefits
(Chhatre et al, 2012)
(Chhatre et al, 2012)
Create a list of other REDD+ safeguards, or use the list below. For each
safeguard, identify possible proximate and long-term co-benefits.
One Possible List of REDD+ Safeguards:
Example Table for Use with Exercise:
Safeguard
Proximate CoBenefit
Long-term CoBenefits
Safeguards can lead to co-benefits.
But can safeguards be specifically designed in order to
ensure desired (social) co-benefits and how?

An example of an international fund, currently there
are nine in total

Launched under COP17: Mechanism to transfer
funds from developed to developing countries

Will seek a balance between funding adaptation
and mitigation

Committed to “promoting environmental, social,
economic and development co-benefits and taking
a gender-sensitive approach” (GCF mandate
statement)

Illustrates that funding mechanisms can be
structured to result in social co-benefits, in this case
through articulation in the fund mandate
For Discussion:
Many women are already engaged in
economic sectors related to climate
adaptation and mitigation efforts –
including agriculture, renewable energy,
and forest management.
How can the GCF promote gender equality
and generate this social co-benefit?

Social co-benefits are intentional and desirable, which
introduces the question of for or to whom?

Social co-benefits can be classified in various ways to help
us organize how we conceptualize them.

Social co-benefits can arise from safeguards, and viceversa, safeguards can be designed to ensure social cobenefits.
Short answer questions:

A REDD project unexpectedly results in a loss of charcoal cooking
fuel, requiring household REDD income to be spent on an
alternative fuel. The alternative results in cleaner indoor air. Is this
an example of a co-benefit? Why or why not?

Give an example of a “type A” co-benefit, a “type B” co-benefit, and
a “type C” co-benefit.
Essay questions:

Discuss the normative nature of co-benefits. What does this imply
for incorporating co-benefits into REDD+ project design?
1.
Bollen, J., Guay, B., Lamet, S., and Corfee- Morlot, J., 2009. Co-benefits of Climate
Change Mitigation Policies. Economic Department Working Paper Nr. 693, OECD,
Paris.
2.
Chhatre, A., Lakhanpal, S., Larson, A. M., Nelson, F., Ojha, H., & Rao, J. 2012. Social
safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 4: 654-660.
3.
Dasgupta, P. 2004. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment. Oxford
University Press.
4.
Greiner, R., & Stanley, O. 2012. More than money for conservation: Exploring social
co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31: 4-10.
5.
Schalatek, L., and Burns, K. 2013. Operationalizing a Gender-Sensitive Approach in
the Green Climate Fund. Green Climate Fund Background Paper.
6.
Miyatsuka, A. and E. Zusman. Fact Sheet No.1: What are Co-benefits? Asian Cobenefits Partnership.
7.
Pearce, D. 2000. Policy Framework for the Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change
Policies, CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-1.
8.
Peng, Y. Fact Sheet No.3: Make Co-benefits Work: China Case. Asian Co-benefits
Partnership.
9.
Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010. REDD, forest governance and
rural livelihoods- The emerging agenda, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia
10.
WWF-CARE. Saving Forest & the Climate, Protecting Rights and Livelihoods. Policy
Brief REDD+.
11.
Zusman, E. Fact Sheet No.2: COP16 and Co-benefits. Asian Co-benefits Partnership.