Please download to get full document.

View again

of 23

Benefit sharing redd women

Benefit sharing redd women
0 views23 pages
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Documenttranscript
  Chapter X Benefit Sharing under the REDD+ Mechanism: Implications for Women Rowena Maguire ABSTRACT This chapter examines benefit-sharing under the REDD+ mechanism, focusing upon implications for women. In particular it will focus upon the competing motivations and constrains that are at play amongst the different networks and stakeholders involved (environmental, developmental, government, community and international institutions) and how these may manifest themselves in decisions about benefit sharing claims. It also examines the complex intertwining of property and participation rights women and the importance of ensuring gender equality in REDD+ instruments. 1.1 Introduction This chapter explores the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) Mechanism operating under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the benefit sharing provisions of this mechanism. REDD+ requires developing countries to implement activities and strategies to increase carbon storage within forest estates and in return receive results-based finance to carry out these activities. Climate justice advocates have warned of the potential unintended consequences of REDD+ on the property rights and livelihood rights of those communities living in, or bordering forest estates where REDD+ activities are carried out. The concept of benefit-sharing is used within the REDD+ discourse to refer to ‘  benefits ’  that will flow to communities, land holders, governments and industry who change their forestry practices to comply with REDD+ policies. These benefits typically compromise financial and non-financial components dependent upon the conditions at the REDD+ site. One of the key equity challenges surrounding REDD+ is ensuring that these  benefits flow to those at the local level who are directly impacted by REDD+ activities. This chapter explores particular issues that may arise for women in accessing benefits flowing from REDD+ investment and argues that existing REDD+ instruments at the international and national level need to specifically refer to the gendered dimensions of forest management to  prevent REDD+ initiatives from negatively impacting on women. 1.2 The Emergence of REDD+: Implications for Women  R. Maguire 2 The fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use activities account for 24% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 1  As such, the UNFCCC has a significant interest in the development of policies to mitigate emissions from this sector. The negotiation of international rules concerning forestry, land and agricultural practices has been controversial. Many states view forest and land resources as sovereign resources and have resisted signing international agreements committing them to manage their forest resources according to certain standards or meeting prescribed targets. 2  At the Earth Summit negotiations in 1992, states agreed to the legally binding conventions on Climate Change 3  and Biological Diversity, 4  however, the  North/South divide concerning international forestry regulation meant that only a Non-Legally Binding set of Principles 5  concerning forest use could be agreed upon. At the heart of this  North/South conflict lay concerns by Southern countries that Northern countries had destroyed their own forests for monetary gain and were now seeking to prevent Southern countries from growing by locking up their forests as conserved estates. 6  These unresolved issues of sovereignty and economic development meant that the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol did not require states to manage their forest resources in accordance with legally binding obligations. 7  This global impasse on forestry meant that international finance to encourage forest conversation in developing countries was limited and significant deforestation and forest degradation continued to occur. 8  In 2005, two Southern countries (Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica) along with support from seven other Southern countries (Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua) put forward a proposal within the UNFCCC COP negotiations to develop policy which provided financial incentives to developing countries to conserve forest areas. This proposal, entitled ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action’ , 9  was monumental in changing the international debate about forest management in developing countries, as it managed to avoid dealing with issues concerning sovereignty by instead incentivizing states to implement improved forest management practices voluntarily in return for financial reward. The REDD+ proposal was therefore an unprecedented first step by Southern countries to create an international instrument on forest conservation and protection. 10  The development of this policy within the UNFCCC arena also meant the initiative captured 1  Pachauri and Meyer (2014), p. 47. 2  Humphreys (2009), p. 171. 3  UNFCCC. 4  Convention on Biological Diversity. 5  Forest Convention .   6  Mickelson (1996), p. 239. 7  Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol allows parties to take into account the effect of land-use policies and measures into their emission reduction calculations. During the first Kyoto commitment period, Parties were not obliged to report upon the sink and or source emission from land-use change practices, but Parties are required to report upon such activities under the second commitment period of Kyoto. 8  Maguire (2013), p. 125. 9  Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action, FCCC/CP/2005/MISC.1, 11 November 2005. 10  McDermott (2014), pp. 14-16.    Benefit Sharing Under the REDD+ Mechanisms: Implications for Women 3  political attention, which many previous forest initiatives had failed to do, by linking forest conservation with the broader goal of mitigating climate change. The submission made a compelling case as to why emissions from deforestation should  be included within the international carbon framework. It highlighted that land use emissions accounted for 10  –  25% of all global human induced emissions and that developing nations currently had no way of engaging with the Kyoto Protocol for emission reductions generated from reduced deforestation rates. The submission argued that the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC, found in article 2 and requiring ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system ’  ,   will be made more difficult and expensive unless both industrial and developing countries actively contribute to emission reductions from all sources. The submission received broad support and the REDD+ regulatory regime has been incrementally  built by COP decisions. In order to understand the key components of the REDD+ mechanism, it is necessary to look at a number of COP decisions which cumulatively outline the steps for developing countries to undertake to participate in the mechanism. Article 7(2) of the UNFCCC gives the COP general authority to examine the obligations of the parties in light of the objectives of the Convention and to make decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation of the Convention. Chapman et al. summarize that the COP REDD+ process requires the creation of: a national REDD+ strategy or action plan; the establishment of a national forest reference emissions level and forest reference level; the development of a forest monitoring system; and the creation of a system to report upon the Cancun safeguards. 11  The UNFCCC defines REDD+ activities as: 1) reducing emissions from deforestation, 2) reducing emissions from forest degradation, 3) forest conservation, 4) sustainable forest management, and 5) enhancement of forest carbon stocks. 12  The various COP decisions on REDD+ 13  were formally recognized by the Paris Agreement which endorses the existing COP REDD+ framework. 14  REDD+ safeguards were developed with the objective of preventing REDD+ from negatively impacting upon forest communities. In addition, safeguards seek to ensure that other social and environmental benefits are achieved during REDD+ implementation beyond carbon sequestration. 15  For example, if a forest area is conserved and local forest users are no longer able to gather firewood from the forest site, another source of energy or firewood must be  provided. Such provisions are crucial from a climate justice perspective as the poor and vulnerable should not be responsible for bearing the costs of mitigating climate change. The Cancun safeguards require: a.   That actions complement or be consistent with National Forest Programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements; 11  Chapman, Wilder, Millar and Dibley (2015), pp. 103-104. 12  Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, FCCC/CP/2010/Add.1. 13  The UNFCCC has created a booklet on all relevant COP decisions: UNFCCC Secretariat (2016) Key decisions relevant for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). 14   Paris Agreement, art. 5. 15  Savaresi (2016), p. 129.  R. Maguire 4 b.   Transparent and effective national governance structures, taking into account national legislation and sovereignty; c.   Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities noting the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; d.   Full and effective participation by relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous  people and local communities; e.   That actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity and enhance other social and environmental benefits; f.   Actions to address the risk of reversals; and g.   Actions to reduce displacement of emissions. 16  While a number of these safeguards are consistent with ensuring that the rights of women are  protected during REDD+ investment, there is no specific mention of the requirement to design and implement the projects in a gender responsive manner. As these safeguard provisions  provide the framework for protecting those vulnerable persons in REDD+ projects, this is the most logical place to include a gender responsive requirement. Amendment of the safeguards to include a gender responsive approach will be essential in order to see changes in REDD+ financing, project design and implementation. Existing literature demonstrates that women and men use forest resources in different ways, 17  meaning that changes to forest practices brought about by REDD+ interventions will have different impacts for women and men. Sunderland et al. summarise that while roles and responsibilities of men and women vary across regions and culture, there are some broader gender divisions of labour: [M]en are typically reported to manage and use natural resources for cash-crop based agriculture, hunting, logging, construction and the harvest of smaller portfolio of high value forest products for sale… In contrast women are said to focus more on subsistence agriculture and to be primarily responsible for collecting wild resources for household use, with a particular focus on those  products that contribute to immediate household-level food security. 18   Women are therefore more dependent upon forest areas for subsistence purposes and men for economic purposes. Conserving forest areas on the basis that some benefit may flow in the future does not mitigate the pressing daily obligation  –   held mainly by women  –   to cook and feed their families. Establishing strict forest use and access rules without consulting women means that women have to either travel further to gather firewood and food resources, or violate the forest access rules and risk prosecution in order to feed their families. Such decisions and/or impacts are socially unacceptable and inefficient. 19  In order to prevent such situations, women 16  Decision 1/CP.16- Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries, Appendix 1,  paragraph 2. 17  Agarwal (2009a);   Coleman and Mwangi (2013); Hecht (2007); Peach Brown et al. (2011). 18  Sunderland et al (2014), p. 56. 19  Agarwal (2000), p. 288.  Benefit Sharing Under the REDD+ Mechanisms: Implications for Women 5 must be educated about REDD+ and then empowered to actively participate in the consultation and design process, so that their forest uses are articulated and accommodated. Alarmingly, early studies indicate that women are not as involved as men in REDD+  project planning and implementation activities. A study by the Centre of International Forestry Research examined 77 villages in 20 REDD+ sites across six countries and found that women have been less involved in project level design, decisions, and processes compared to men. 20   Overall they found that women’s participation in REDD+ was mainly passive –   receiving information and training, compared with more substantial participation such as participatory mapping and clarification of tenure rights. Another study carried out the by the Rights and Resource initiative in the Asian region similarly found that institutions implementing and supporting REDD+ are not systemically incorporating gender considerations within their REDD+ policies, plans, and projects. 21  This emerging research seems to suggest that women will face barriers in ‘benefiting’ from REDD+ as their forest uses are being overlooked in the   planning phase, which in turn suggests that women will face barriers in gaining access to carbon and non-carbon benefits during the implementation phase. 1.3 What is a REDD+ Benefit? The term ‘b enefit sharing ’ is used within  REDD+ discourses when referring to processes and mechanisms for distributing funds from various sources at the international level to national governments, subnational governments, and communities involved in implementing REDD+  projects. The COP is yet to provide guidance as to what constitutes a REDD+ benefit or the requirements of a benefit sharing mechanism. The  Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic  Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity  provides some guidance on the meaning of benefit sharing. 22  Article 5(4) of the Nagoya Protocol states that benefit sharing may include monetary and/or non-monetary benefits, while the Annex to the agreement lists a number of forms that  benefits might take. Table 1: Annex to Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing Monetary Benefits : may include but not limited to Non- Monetary Benefits : may include but not limited to Access fees/fee per sample collected or otherwise acquired Sharing of research and development results Up-front payments Collaboration, cooperation and contribution in scientific research and development Programmes,  particularly biotechnological research activities, where possible in the Party providing genetic resources 20  Larson et al. (2015). 21  Gurung and Billah Setyowati (2012). 22  Nagoya Protocol.
Advertisement
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x