2011年-世界发展银行全球_Participatory_Forest_Management_and_REDD_in_Tanzania_32页_3mb

Summary of "Participatory Forest Management and REDD+ in Tanzania"

Core Content

This report examines the integration of participatory forest management (PFM) with REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) in Tanzania, drawing on two decades of experience with PFM and current REDD+ preparations. The goal is to inform policy processes and suggest options for incorporating PFM lessons into emerging REDD+ frameworks.

Main Views and Key Information

1. PFM Experience in Tanzania

• PFM Models: Tanzania has developed two PFM models:

  • Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM): Rights and responsibilities are transferred to community institutions.
  • Joint Forest Management (JFM): Management responsibilities are shared between the state and local actors.

• Effectiveness: CBFM has shown better results in improving forest conditions and reducing disturbances due to clear and enforceable rights and responsibilities.

• Legal Framework:

  • Land is categorized as "reserved", "village", or "general".
  • The 1999 Village Land Act and 1999 Land Act create ambiguities, especially around "unused and unoccupied" land.
  • There is a lack of clarity on the definition of "unoccupied and unused" land, which affects the interpretation of land tenure and carbon rights.

• Forest Tenure and Carbon Rights:

  • Carbon rights are a critical and complex issue in REDD+.
  • Two main approaches are being considered:
    • Carbon rights follow land tenure: This would require legal clarification and agreement on the status of different land types.
    • Carbon is a public good: Retained by the state, with potential to support vulnerable groups and ensure equitable distribution.

2. Benefit Sharing in PFM and REDD+

• Importance of Agreements: Clear, binding agreements are essential for effective benefit sharing between stakeholders.
• CBFM vs. JFM:
  • In CBFM, all benefits are transferred to local actors.
  • In JFM, there is no clear agreement on how much benefit is transferred, which raises concerns about the long-term viability of the model.
• Potential Risks:
  • Communities managing high biodiversity forests with little deforestation may not benefit from REDD+ payments.
  • Poorer or marginalized groups may be excluded from the benefits of PFM.
  • Women are underrepresented in management forums, leading to poor reflection of their interests.

3. Vertical and Horizontal Benefit Sharing

• Vertical Sharing: Distribution between national and local actors.

  • A national fund may be established to disburse REDD+ carbon credits.
  • Payments are likely to be performance-based rather than based on capacity or development needs.
  • This could lead to a concentration of benefits among more capable institutions, disadvantaging weaker ones.
  • Capacity building grants may be necessary to support local institutions.

• Horizontal Sharing: Distribution within communities.

  • It is crucial to ensure equitable distribution to avoid marginalization.
  • Current PFM practices may not be inclusive enough, particularly for the poor and women.

4. Legal and Institutional Challenges

• Legal Ambiguities: Inconsistent definitions of land types create uncertainty in tenure and benefit sharing.
• Government Experience: Tanzania has a history of transferring funds to sub-national levels through decentralised systems.
• Potential for REDD+ Integration: A REDD+ fund may need to be stand-alone to avoid mixing with other government funds, but this raises questions about administrative costs and recovery mechanisms.

5. Policy Implications and Recommendations

• Need for Legal Clarity: Clear definitions and legal frameworks for land and carbon tenure are essential for effective REDD+ implementation.
• Inclusive Benefit Sharing: Policies should ensure that all community members, including the poor and women, are included in the distribution of benefits.
• Performance-Based Payments: While transparent and verifiable, performance-based systems may favor more capable institutions.
• Capacity Building: Support mechanisms are necessary to build the capacity of local institutions and ensure equitable outcomes.
• Balancing Complexity and Inclusivity: Introducing multiple criteria for fund allocation can increase complexity and administrative costs, which must be managed carefully.

Conclusion

The report highlights the importance of learning from PFM experiences to improve REDD+ implementation in Tanzania. It suggests that a balance must be struck between performance-based incentives and inclusive, equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms to ensure long-term success and community engagement. Legal clarity, institutional capacity, and inclusive governance are identified as key factors in achieving this.