(PDF) Community forest management and REDD+

Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol Community forest management and REDD + Peter Newton a,b, Brian Schaap a, Michelle Fournier a, Meghan Cornwall a, Derrick W. Rosenbach a, Joel DeBoer a, Jessica Whittemore a, Ryan Stock a, Mark Yoders a, Gernot Brodnig c, Arun Agrawal a,⁎ a International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research network, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA b Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA c International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 1630 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: The urgent need to limit anthropogenic carbon emissions has led to the global initiative on Reducing Emissions Received 28 August 2014 from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). One option to facilitate the design and implementation of Received in revised form 18 February 2015 REDD+ is to build on the experiences of community forest management (CFM). Despite tensions between the Accepted 25 March 2015 central objectives of REDD + and CFM, the two policy interventions share the objective of managing forests Available online 16 April 2015 sustainably. REDD+ projects can build on and benefit from the environmental, social, human, and institutional Keywords: capital associated with existing community forest governance. Using a comparative case approach with studies Climate change from Nepal and Tanzania, we illustrate interactions between REDD + and CFM. In Nepal, most REDD + pilot Conservation projects have been located in community forest sites, especially in high-carbon forests. In Tanzania, REDD + Governance funding is being used to expand the area of forest under Participatory Forest Management. Our study also Livelihoods highlights how community forestry institutions may need to be modified to satisfy key REDD+ criteria. Greater Policy institutional coordination, equitable benefit sharing mechanisms, and higher community capacity for monitor- ing, reporting, and verification are key areas needing change. There are significant risks, but the vast experience and significant successes of CFM can improve prospects for achieving REDD + objectives in other less- industrialized, forested countries. © 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. 1. Introduction environmental and socio-economic outcomes than compared to existing alternative management regimes (Klooster and Masera, 2000; The urgent need to limit anthropogenic carbon emissions has led to Gautam et al., 2002; Benneker and McCall, 2009). the global initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Identifying how CFM can be used to contribute to REDD+ goals, and forest Degradation (REDD +), to reduce greenhouse gas emissions the potential benefits and risks in doing so, requires careful analysis of from the forest sector and to promote forest conservation in less- available evidence because the objectives and mechanisms of the two industrialized countries. But designing national architectures for sets of policy interventions do not always overlap. Formal CFM was REDD + that integrate local actions on forests with national level developed principally to protect forests in order to support the subsis- outcomes in ways which are effective (at reducing emissions), efficient tence and income-generating extractive activities of forest-dependent (in doing so in an economically viable manner) and equitable (in communities (Arnold, 2001). Communities often harvest timber, distributing costs and benefits among stakeholders) continues to be fodder, firewood, and non-timber forest products from these forests, challenging (Angelsen, 2009). One option to facilitate the design and and make charcoal (Agrawal and Angelson, 2009). In contrast, implementation of REDD+ is to build on the experiences of community REDD+ was developed foremost to mitigate climate change by reduc- forest management (CFM). CFM refers broadly to forest use and gover- ing terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions (Miles and Kapos, 2008). In nance arrangements under which the rights, responsibilities, and the early developmental stages of REDD+, the generation of livelihood authority for forest management rest, at least in part, with local commu- benefits was considered a secondary ‘co-benefit’ (Angelsen, 2009). nities (Agrawal et al., 2008). Though not a panacea, research on commu- More recently, REDD+ policy formation and program implementation nity governance of tropical forests has found that this approach is have emphasized social safeguards, with livelihood benefits as an often more effective in improving forest management, with better important component of the initiative. The main REDD + funding programs, including the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the United Nations REDD program, now view carbon, biodiversity, and ⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Natural Resources and Environment, 440 Church livelihood goals as being inseparable, and these multiple conservation Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. Tel.: +1 734 647 5948. and development objectives are intertwined within the REDD + E-mail address:

(A. Agrawal). discourse (UN-REDD, 2010; FCPF, 2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.008 1389-9341/© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. 28 P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 Despite differences, there is substantial overlap between the goals of institutionally distinct forms of CFM. Because Nepal and Tanzania REDD+ and CFM in terms of long-term forest protection. Both interven- have played a leadership role in devolving forest management rights tions share the objectives of maintaining forest cover, limiting forest to local communities they cannot be considered representative of conversion to other land-uses, and maintaining forest integrity. Further, forest management arrangements among less-industrialized na- the two interventions share an approach to achieving this objective: by tions. But extensive experimentation with CFM and early pursuit of creating incentives for avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, REDD + in these countries makes them excellent cases for exploring often (but not always) including the generation of socioeconomic how REDD + and CFM can interact. benefits for forest-dependent people. We used two methods to gather data for our cases of Nepal and There are considerable risks involved in using CFM as a vehicle Tanzania: a thorough literature review, and interviews with leading to implement REDD +. The introduction of REDD + objectives and in-country experts. First, our literature review synthesized information programs can alter existing ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional from peer-reviewed journals, gray literature (including government equilibria in the forest landscapes in which they are developed and documents and civil society organization (CSO) reports), and websites implemented (Benneker and McCall, 2009). There are widespread (of government agencies, CSOs, and projects). Second, we conducted fears that REDD + programs could restrict traditional patterns of semi-structured interviews with experts on CFM and REDD + in each resource access for forest-dependent communities (Bushley and country to learn about recent developments around REDD + in their Khatri, 2011; Karky and Skutsch, 2010), motivate a partial recentraliza- country. In all, we conducted 32 interviews during June–August 2012, tion of forest management rights (Phelps et al., 2010), or slow the and May–June 2013 in Nepal and Tanzania, respectively, with actors decentralization process (Ribot et al., 2006). Changes initiated or cata- involved in CFM and the REDD+ process. These actors included govern- lyzed by REDD + may therefore result in either positive or negative ment officials, leaders of CSOs managing REDD + pilot projects, and impacts on CFM institutional arrangements (Putz and Redford, 2009). representatives of donor agencies (Appendix 1). Interviewees were With these risks in mind, from an alternative perspective there selected based on a snowball process, with a guiding aim of gathering are clear opportunities for emerging REDD+ policies and programs to perspectives from a diversity of interviewees that represented commu- benefit from CFM by building upon the capital, assets, and institutions nities, CSOs, and government agencies. A key aim of the interviews was associated with CFM arrangements. Many CFM systems have developed to fill gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the interactions substantial natural capital (e.g. healthy forests), institutional capital (e.g. between REDD+ and CFM in the two countries. The interviews were specifically designed forest user-associations), human capital (e.g. forest particularly helpful, since the development of REDD+ in both countries management, monitoring, and enforcement capacity), and social capital was occurring at the time of our fieldwork, and many details were not (e.g. forest-user communities with a high level of commitment to CFM) yet reported in published or gray literature. (Arnold, 2001). REDD+ interventions can harness and build upon this In both cases, information was identified to characterize the sta- existing capital in two ways. First, REDD + funding can be used to tus of REDD + in relation to CFM in each country, in terms of achieve mitigation objectives in current CFM sites. Community forest geographic distribution, legal framework, institutional capacity, governance arrangements may already maintain forest conditions and the stage of design and implementation. We particularly sought for sustainable resource use, even if they were not designed with the information on the development and implementation of REDD + objective of achieving verifiable emissions reductions or carbon stock pilot projects in the two countries. We used the information from values. With the right incentives, it may be possible to build on existing the review and the interviews to analyze the interactions between CFM institutions and local community capacities to achieve REDD + CFM and REDD +, assess the prospects for compatibility, and sum- objectives. Second, REDD + initiatives can expand the area of forest marize the lessons learned. owned, managed, or designated for use by indigenous people and communities. Such forests account for approximately 15.5% of forests 3. Results globally (RRI, 2014). Increasing the extent of forests managed by communities is one mechanism by which to invest REDD + funds We used information from the literature review and interviews to toward achieving reduced deforestation and forest degradation goals, characterize whether and how REDD + interventions are building on while satisfying REDD + requirements such as additionality and existing CFM structures in Nepal and Tanzania. The information and permanence. discussion in the Results and Discussion sections that follow represent The objective of this paper is to assess whether and how REDD + a synthesis of these two sources. interventions are building on existing CFM structures. We focus on two case-study countries, Nepal and Tanzania; both countries have a 3.1. Forest management in Nepal strong history of CFM, and both are implementing REDD+ architectures and activities. The analysis enables us to understand and illustrate the Nepal's forests cover 39% (5.8 m ha) of the country (MoFSC, 2010; opportunities for REDD+ objectives to be achieved by taking advantage Bampton et al., 2007). Of its topographical regions, the middle hills of existing CFM structures, and to identify areas where policy changes and the Terai are the most forested (MoFSC, 2010). More than 18,000 and capacity development might improve these opportunities. The Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs) manage approximately focus of this paper, therefore, is on the opportunities for REDD+ imple- 1.2 million ha of forest and are represented by the Federation of mentation to benefit from CFM. The risks to CFM posed by REDD+, are Community Forestry Users (FECOFUN), which advocates for the rights non-trivial and should not be ignored. Some of these risks are indicated of CFUGs and seeks to represent them in the policy-making process above, and we return to them in the Discussion. However, in-depth (Acharya, 2002). The government retains forest ownership in commu- exploration of these risks is adequately covered by other scholars nity forests, but individual CFUGs have forest access, use, and manage- (Benneker and McCall, 2009; Bushley and Khatri, 2011; Karky and ment rights. Most community forests and associated CFUGs are in the Skutsch, 2010; Phelps et al., 2010; Ribot et al., 2006). middle hills of Nepal rather than in the low-lying, more carbon rich Terai forests. This difference is partly the result of resistance by forestry 2. Methods staff to the development of CFM in commercially high-value Terai forests (Ribot et al., 2006; Bampton et al., 2007). We selected Nepal and Tanzania as the focal countries for our study because they have a long history of CFM and have played 3.1.1. REDD+ in Nepal leading roles in developing and establishing national REDD + strate- Nepal's REDD+ strategy is led by the Ministry of Forests and gies. In addition, the countries represent geographically and Soil Conservation (MoFSC), which developed a national Readiness P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 29 Preparation Proposal (R-PP), with about USD 7.8 million in donor support The most comprehensive pilot project underway in Nepal is the as of 2010 (MoFSC, 2010). Six REDD+ pilot projects have been launched, Forest Carbon Trust Fund project (FCPF, 2014; Table 1). Three features led by a combination of national and international CSOs (MoFSC, 2011). of the project illustrate how CFM and REDD + can interact, and high- The projects are all located in community-managed forests and were ini- light some of the institutional adjustments needed for compatibility tiated between 2009 and 2011. Table 1 describes the six pilot projects, between the two interventions. First, payments are made to local and we elaborate on the most advanced project below. communities through a nested payment system, combining national Terai forests have a higher deforestation rate than those in the and sub-national institutions. Seed grants from the Norwegian Agency middle hills in Nepal, in part because of the higher value of their timber for Development Cooperation (Norad) have been distributed to CFUGs (Bampton et al., 2007). It is particularly important, therefore, to under- annually since 2011: for example, CFUGs in the Chanawati (Dolakha stand the impact that REDD + will have on Terai forests and on the district), Kayarkola (Chitwan district) and Ludikhola (Gorkha district) communities that depend on them (West, 2012). The Terai forests watersheds received USD 45,535, USD 21,905, and USD 27,560, respec- represent 62.4% of Nepal's total above ground carbon stock, and all six tively, in 2011 (West, 2012). Payments are initially made from the pilot projects have part of their activities and focus in the Terai region national Trust Fund to watershed-level REDD + Networks, each (Baral et al., 2009) (Fig. 1). However, community forestry engages made up of representatives from participating CFUGs (West, 2012). only 16% of the Terai population (Bampton et al., 2007). This suggests The REDD + Networks distribute received payments to individual that the national distribution of REDD+ pilot pilots in Nepal has a great- CFUGs, which in turn pass benefits on to individual households. This er spatial congruence with high carbon forests than with community mechanism connects the community and the national levels, satisfying forestry. Five of the pilot projects do focus on community forests in both the need to administer payments centrally, and the need to make the Terai, but since CFM is unlikely to expand in that landscape, the payments to households that reflect local heterogeneity in participation initial focus of REDD + pilot projects on community forests in this and costs (Newton et al., 2012). Second, the payments are at least partly region may not be a scalable implementation strategy for REDD + performance-based: while there is no penalty for deforestation, in Nepal. deforested areas do not qualify for payments (ICIMOD et al., 2011). Table 1 REDD+ pilot projects and community forest management in Nepal. No. Project name Leading Location Association with Principal aims Principal impacts to date Reference(s) organization(s) community forest management 1 Forest Carbon Trust Fund ICIMOD, In community Includes 10,266 To pilot a REDD+ payment Payments have been made to FCPF (2014), (Design and ANSAB, managed forests in ha of community mechanism: a national forest-dependent communities, ICIMOD et al. establishment of a FECOFUN three watersheds, forest, 105 CFUGs, demonstration payment via three watershed-level (2011),MoFSC governance and payment in three different and 18,000 mechanism for carbon credits ‘REDD+ Networks’, with an (2011), West system for community districts in the households. in the community forestry equitable benefit-sharing (2012) forest management Middle Hills and sector. mechanism. under REDD+) Terai. 2 REDD — reducing poverty WWF Nepal, In 14 districts in The project area To prepare for REDD+ by Established a forest carbon Joshi and in Nepal Winrock the Terai Arc includes national, establishing an equitable baseline, inc. assessment of Bhatta International Landscape (TAL). community, carbon financing mechanism. potential carbon sequestration, (2010), leasehold, additionality, and leakage. MoFSC (2011) collaborative, Built technical capacity among private and local staff for carbon religious forests. measurement. Devised methods for estimating forest carbon. 3 Plan Vivo LFP, In four districts in Involves eight To assist rural communities in The project has submitted an MoFSC Rupantaran the Middle Hills, VDCs. More than accessing financial resources application to Plan Vivo and is (2011), LFP Nepal Shiwaliks, and 80% of from PES in the form of Plan awaiting validation so that and Terai. households in the Vivo credits. project areas may begin Rupantaran project area are generating credits. Nepal (2011) members of CFUGs. 4 Grassroots level capacity RECOFTC, In 16 districts in Implemented To build local-level capacity The project has developed a MoFSC building on REDD+ in FECOFUN the Middle Hills, through and to educate communities on training manual (in Nepali and (2011), Asia and the Pacific Terai and East FECOFUN. CFUGs REDD+ issues. English) to prepare national and RECOFTC Nepal. are the focal district level instructors on is- (2012) target of the sues related to REDD+ and cli- training. mate change, and has trained N350 trainers in climate change and REDD+. 5 Climate Change and NEFIN, IWGIA, Nationwide: in 58 Principally targets To contribute to the Advocacy & lobbying: MoFSC (2011) REDD Partnership AIPP, IPICPRE districts, with an indigenous development and distribution of information to Program initial focus on communities. implementation of approaches government agencies; meetings Lamjung District. in national REDD+ strategies and dialogue; research. that take into account both Awareness raising & capacity long-term forest conservation building: educational materials, and the rights and concerns of training, information indigenous people. dissemination by public media. 6 Hariyo Ban Program WWF Nepal, Terai Arc Inclusive of To build the structures, capacity Training; REDD and climate WWF (2012) FECOFUN, Landscape. community and operations necessary for change sensitization CARE Nepal, managed forests effective sustainable landscape workshops. NTNC and CFUGs. management and REDD+. 30 P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 Fig. 1. The spatial configuration of key biomes (gray shading) and REDD+ pilot projects within two case countries: a) Nepal, and b) Tanzania. Pilot projects in Nepal are indicated by points in the center of each focal district, and labeled with the project name. Pilot projects in Tanzania are indicated by black polygons, and labeled with the name of the lead organization. Finally, payments from the REDD+ Networks to communities are based (ICIMOD et al., 2011). This mechanism may help ensure that REDD+ on a system that recognizes both the carbon sequestered and benefits reach marginalized groups. socioeconomic variables. Only 40% of payment values are based on In sum, the Forest Carbon Trust Fund's nested, differentiated forest carbon enhancement, with the remaining value weighted to payments are intended to foster equity and provide social benefits, favor households in poverty (20%) and those with a greater number of while introducing performance-based incentives. Of all the REDD + indigenous and Dalit members (25%) and female members (15%) pilot projects, it comes closest to providing a functioning model that P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 31 could work for REDD + nationally. The watershed-level REDD + 2012b). Second, the project is one of only two REDD + pilot projects Networks could be the basis of a payment distribution mechanism in Tanzania to have actually made individuated payments, totaling that effectively transfers funds from a national to a local level should more than USD 335,000 to date. Third, these payments have been REDD+ be implemented more widely (ICIMOD et al., 2011). based on projected carbon market values, and have consequently been of relatively low value (~ USD 10–15 per person) (Deloitte, 2012b). 3.2. Forest management in Tanzania The payments thus present project participants with a realistic ex- pectation of REDD + as a future income-generating opportunity, Approximately 34.6 million ha of forests cover nearly 40% of allowing them to evaluate the gains against the opportunity costs. Fi- Tanzania's area, with five main forest types (Mwakalobo et al., 2011). nally, communities have been granted considerable autonomy in de- In total, 18.8 million ha of forest are designated as reserves, including signing payment-distribution systems (Deloitte, 2012b). Villages 16.8 million ha of gazetted and proposed Forest Reserves (Blomley have in many cases accounted for variables such as opportunity et al., 2008). A similar area (15.8 million ha) of forest is not protected costs and extent of community engagement, and have chosen differ- within the reserve network and is classified as either Village Land or ent combinations of direct payments and community development General Land (Blomley et al., 2008). Tanzania's 1998 National Forest projects. Policy legislation created two forms of Participatory Forest Management (PFM): Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Community Based Forest 4. Discussion Management (CBFM) (Blomley and Iddi, 2009). Under JFM, a communi- ty jointly manages a Forest Reserve, and shares the benefits from it, with A close articulation between REDD+ and CFM can help ensure that the central or local government. The communities' resource access REDD+ benefits reach forest-dependent communities, and that CFM is rights depend on the specific benefit-sharing mechanism established aligned with national and global interests in conserving forests to for each JFM forest. Under CBFM, a community assumes full rights and reduce carbon emissions (The REDD Desk, 2013). Here, we discuss the responsibilities for the management of an area of forest on Village emergence of CFM-based REDD + initiatives, as indicated through Land. The forest is then legally established as a Village Land Forest the development of policy and practice in Nepal and Tanzania, and the Reserve (VLFR) or Community Forest Reserve, bringing areas of unpro- institutional arrangements needed to support these interactions. tected forest under village management and empowering communities to establish de jure access and use rights over their forests (Blomley 4.1. REDD+ in community forest management sites et al., 2008). As of 2008, 2328 villages were formally engaged in PFM (22% of all villages in mainland Tanzania), with 1.8 million ha of forest CFM has been associated with improved environmental out- under JFM and 2.3 million ha under CBFM, together representing comes, including reduced rates of deforestation and forest degrada- 12.8% of all forested land in Tanzania (URT, 2013). tion (Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009). For example, PFM in Tanzania appears to be more effective at preserving forested lands than 3.2.1. REDD+ in Tanzania when the national government maintains sole management author- Tanzania is one of twenty-one countries with a UN-REDD National ity over forests (Blomley et al., 2008). CFM in the middle hills of Program. It approved a National Strategy for REDD + in March 2013, Nepal is associated with higher rates of forest cover increase following its development by the interim National REDD+ Task Force (Gautam et al., 2002). CFM may also be a socially and politically (URT, 2013). The strategy explicitly aims to promote PFM approaches more favorable proposition than forest management with a focus to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and the on carbon or forest conservation objectives alone because of its REDD+ readiness activities accordingly emphasize the involvement of greater contributions to livelihoods. As a tool to ensure low defores- local communities in design, implementation, and monitoring tation rates nationally, CFM may therefore be an effective mecha- (Zahabu et al., 2008; Mwakalobo et al., 2011). More than USD 92 million nism to achieve both carbon and livelihoods benefits for REDD + has been contributed by donors, including significant contributions objectives. However, the evidence base for whether and to what ex- from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the form of a series tent CFM contributes to sustainable forest management is of varying of bilateral agreements with Tanzania (Burgess et al., 2010). quality (Lund et al., 2009). Further, CFM practices do not always lead Eight REDD+ pilot projects have been developed and implemented to improved forest conditions, and do not necessarily optimize by national and international CSOs in collaboration with local communi- carbon sequestration and storage, since communities extract forest ties and governmental agencies (Deloitte, 2012a). Various other CSOs resources (including timber, firewood, and charcoal) for subsistence and private companies also began implementing REDD+ and afforesta- and to generate incomes (Benneker and McCall, 2009). tion/reforestation activities prior to the national REDD+ pilot initiative. However, we focus on the REDD + pilot projects because they are 4.2. Using REDD+ funding to expand the area of forest managed particularly relevant to the possible future expansion of REDD + by communities throughout the country. All of the pilot projects have been designed to integrate with, and to support, existing national level Participatory Formalized and secure land tenure is frequently a minimum require- Forest Management structures (TNRF, 2012a) (Fig. 1, Table 2). Table 2 ment for participation in REDD + initiatives. CFM has demonstrable describes the eight pilot projects, and we elaborate on the most success in achieving sustainable forest outcomes, and has been afforded advanced project here, implemented by the Tanzania Forest Conserva- a central theoretical role in the national REDD+ strategies of both case tion Group (TFCG). countries. Formal expansion of the area of forest managed by communi- The TFCG project Making REDD work for communities and forest ties is therefore a logical step toward furthering REDD+ objectives in conservation in Tanzania (hereafter, TFCG project) has made trial Nepal and Tanzania. This strategy is in greatest evidence in Tanzania payments to 19 villages and its experiences may be indicative of how where five of the REDD+ pilot projects are establishing new JFM agree- a full national REDD + program might roll out (Deloitte, 2012b) ments and new VLFRs under CBFM. For example, the Jane Goodall (Table 2). The project aims to develop a voluntary market REDD + Institute (JGI) project area is situated on General Land, and is supporting project under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) in communities communities to form and register a Community Based Organization as within CBFM landscapes (TNRF, 2012a). Four features of the project the first step toward gaining legal recognition for a new CBFM site are particularly noteworthy. First, 16 VLFRs and 15 Village Natural (Deloitte, 2012c). Likewise, the TFCG project has facilitated the estab- Resource Committees (VNRCs) have been established, securing land lishment of 16 VLFRs (Deloitte, 2012b) and the AWF project has facili- titles through the acquisition of Village Land Certificates (Deloitte, tated the establishment of a JFM association and supported its 32 P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 Table 2 REDD+ pilot projects and community forest management in Tanzania. No. Project name Leading Location Association with Principal aims Principal impacts to date Reference(s) organization(s) community forest management 1 Making REDD TFCG, Lindi District, on the The project has facilitated To demonstrate a pro-poor 16 Village Land Forest TNRF (2012b), work for MJUMITA southern coast, and creation of new VLFRs that approach to REDD+ by Reserves and 15 Village Deloitte communities and Kilosa District, in the cover 1) 53,200 ha of generating direct and Natural Resource (2012b), The forest Eastern Arc forest, with 17 equitable financial Committees were REDD Desk conservation in Mountains. participating villages in incentives from the global established. (2013) Tanzania Lindi; and 2) 27,389 ha of carbon market for rural Trial payments in 19 forest, with 16 communities that are villages. Payment values participating communities sustainably managing estimated from projected in Kilosa. Tanzanian forests at a REDD+ revenues. Benefit sub-national level. distribution mechanisms determined by communities. Support for community forest governance, including training, developing forest management plans, and assisting acquisition of Village Land Certificates to obtain land titles. 2 Building REDD Jane Goodall In the Masito Ugalla Incorporates 90,989 ha of To conserve one of the last Trial payments in seven TNRF (2012b), readiness in the Institute Ecosystem, in the forest: mostly General large expanses of intact villages. Deloitte Masito Ugalla Kigoma and Mpanda Land, but the project aims forest in Tanzania, enhanc- Created an inter-village (2012c), The Ecosystem pilot Districts of western to establish CBFM within ing biodiversity and ecosys- forest management REDD Desk area in support Tanzania. the site. tem functions, by giving organization, which has (2013) of Tanzania's local communities and developed a forest National REDD governments the tools and management plan and has strategy training to manage and obtained management monitor forests and to sell rights for the Masito Ugala carbon credits in the global forest area from the district market through REDD. government. Promoted beekeeping as an income-generating activity, through training and equipment. 3 Advancing REDD AWF Kondoa District, in The project is in PFM To improve forest 13 villages formed a JFM Matilya (2012), in the Kolo Hills north-central forests, incorporating 21 management by enforcing association and drafted a TNRF Forests (ARKFor) Tanzania villages and 71,632 ha of PFM plans. JFM plan for two (2012b),Deloitte land, including 19,924 ha To diversify livelihoods. government forest reserves. (2012d), The of forests, of which 10,114 To market and sell carbon Forest monitoring has REDD Desk is in VLFRs and three credits. successfully stopped illegal (2013) government reserves. wood harvesting and has managed grazing in JFM forests. Creation of Village Land Use Plans and Forest Management Plans, which have slowed agricultural expansion and created sustainable harvesting practices in forests, respectively. 4 Hifadhi ya Misitu CARE Tanzania On the islands of Initially in 27,650 ha of To promote community Four new CoFMAs TNRF, 2012a, ya Asili (HIMA): Unguja and Pemba community upland forest forest management. developed (project target 2012b; Deloitte Piloting REDD in (Zanzibar). and mangrove forest, To generate carbon income is 12, covering 10,650 ha (2012e), The Zanzibar through eventually targeting which will provide direct, of forest). Progress made REDD Desk community forest 60,000 ha of forest and equitable incentives to toward reviewing 24 (2013) management 16,000 rural households. communities for forest existing CoFMAs (covering conservation. 17,000 ha of forest). Changes to land-tenure legislation: new CoFMAs will be valid for 25 years. 37 new VCCs are signatories on the CoFMAs. 5 Combining MCDI Kilwa District, in Promotes PFM in seven To use REDD revenues to Carbon stock assessment MCDI (2010), REDD+, PFM and south-eastern communities, covering help communities to expand conducted. TNRF (2012b), FSC certification in Tanzania. 25,000 ha of forest. Assists PFM by creating VLFRs to be Socio-economic baseline Deloitte (2012f). south-eastern the establishment of VLFRs. managed for a) timber study conducted. The REDD Desk Tanzania under FSC certification, and MCDI obtained FSC (2013) b) VCS and CCBS verified certification in 2009, and so carbon credits. communities have To use fire management experience with forest control to reduce forest management plans, carbon loss. sustainable timber P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 33 Table 2 (continued) No. Project name Leading Location Association with Principal aims Principal impacts to date Reference(s) organization(s) community forest management harvesting, fire prevention and monitoring. 6 Hifadhi Mapafu ya WCST In the Pugu and Promotes community To facilitate the The project has been TNRF (2012a, Dar es Salaam Kazimzumbwi Forest engagement in the establishment of a clear JFM cancelled, in part because 2012b), Deloitte (HIMADA): Reserves, in a management of these two agreement between central the deforestation pressures (2012a), The Piloting REDD in peri-urban area 40 government-owned forest and local government and could not be effectively REDD Desk the Pugu and miles from Dar Es reserves, through JFM. the eight villages mitigated by the project (2013) Kazimzumbwi Salaam. surrounding the forest activities. Forests reserve, to foster sustainable forest management and equitable benefit sharing. 7 Community-based TaTEDO Shinyanga and Focuses on Ngitili forest To support communities to Formation of Ngitili carbon TNRF (2012a, REDD Kahama Districts, in (privately owned natural sustainably manage the associations, and 2012b), Deloitte mechanisms for the Shinyanga Region forest, managed by Ngitili forest, using REDD+ formalization of customary (2012a), The sustainable forest of northwestern communities). Assisting carbon payments as an rights of Ngitili owners, and REDD Desk management in Tanzania 250 Ngitili owners in 10 incentive. promotion of forest (2013) semi-arid areas villages, but total monitoring. beneficiaries may total Training of 341 villagers in 6000. association management, which has allowed 11 Ngitili groups to be registered. 8 REDD readiness WCS In and around Focuses on 52,680 ha of To conserve and sustainably Quantification of forest TNRF (2012a, in southwest protected areas threatened montane manage the target forest condition (vegetation 2012b), WCS Tanzania (Forest Reserves and forests, but the sites have areas. sampling in two sites), (2012), Deloitte National Parks) in been deemed To establish sustainable and of carbon usage by (2012a), The four forests in the inappropriate for JFM, and alternatives to forest communities (conducted REDD Desk Southern Highlands local communities are not resource use. by local, trained monitors). (2013) in south-western the land owners. 40 Environmental education Tanzania. villages are participating. (climate change and REDD+), and establishment of tree nurseries and woodlots. application for JFM agreements in two government forest reserves 4.3. Interactions between community forest management and REDD+ (Deloitte, 2012d). Finally, the Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative project is also promoting PFM in target communities, assisting 4.3.1. National REDD+ strategies them in establishing VLFRs (Deloitte, 2012f). The implicit rationale is CFM plays a central role in both the long-term national REDD + that PFM is a likely route to sustainable forest management and that strategies and the short-term pilot projects and readiness activities the associated governance arrangements lend themselves to equitable in both Nepal and Tanzania. The central REDD + planning docu- benefit-sharing. Formalization of forest management governance and ments of both countries (Nepal: R-PP; Tanzania: National Strategy clarification of tenure rights for villagers, who in many cases have for REDD +) emphasize the mechanisms by which community forest customary rights and are using the forests already, are likely to better sites and institutions can contribute to, and be adapted for, the real- position villages to benefit from the country's entry into REDD+ carbon ization of REDD + goals (MoFSC, 2010; URT, 2013). There may be markets (Sunderlin et al., 2009). two motivations for this formal, state-level linkage. First, govern- In contrast, there is little evidence in Nepal of additional CFM sites ments can have confidence in the demonstrable success of being created through REDD + mechanisms. Rather, the focus of decentralized forest management in achieving sustainable forest REDD + pilot projects is on strengthening existing CFM by building outcomes (Acharya, 2002). Second, the legal frameworks that have the capacity of CFUGs and FECOFUN. This may be because of the greater enabled CFM has in practice been historically constrained by limited age of community forestry implementation in Nepal, whereas in financial resources. Adoption of REDD + provides an opportunity for Tanzania a substantial proportion of forest land has yet to be formally governments to access a financial mechanism to support this legisla- titled (MCDI, 2010). tion (URT, 2013). Strong community forest management laws and institutions were in place in Nepal and Tanzania prior to the initiation of REDD+ readiness activities. In this regard, the two countries represent rather extreme 4.3.2. Pilot projects cases. This enables us to more clearly demonstrate the potential interac- All REDD + pilot projects in both Nepal and Tanzania are located tions between the two sets of interventions, REDD+ and CFM. Howev- in and around existing or new community forest sites (Tables 1 and er, many other forested developing countries also have extensive 2). Each of Nepal's six pilot projects were implemented in sites experience of community forest management, whether through de with pre-existing CFM arrangements, while in Tanzania, the majority jure or de facto arrangements. Some examples include Bolivia, Brazil, of REDD + pilot projects led to the expansion of CFM in forests where Colombia, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Mexico, Thailand, and Uganda. it had not existed previously. Community-managed forests are There are relevant lessons to be learned from the experiences of com- attractive for REDD + projects because they are characterized by: munity forest management in these countries, in the context of relatively intact forest landscapes; communities that have experi- REDD + (Hagen, 2014), and many of these lessons transfer between ence working with government agencies, CSOs, and projects; countries and contexts. forest-users who are accustomed to sustainable forest management 34 P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 practices; and some institutional capacity to facilitate implementa- 4.3.4. Modifying community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals tion. These characteristics constitute infrastructure on which The development and implementation of REDD+ in both case coun- REDD + interventions can be developed further. REDD + pilot pro- tries is harnessing existing human, institutional, natural, and social jects can build community-level capacity—particularly for monitor- capital associated with CFM. However, existing CFM institutional ing forest and livelihood outcomes—for engagement with future arrangements do not satisfy all criteria for REDD+. Additional elements national REDD + programs. The pilot projects in Nepal build directly needed in all countries include coordinated REDD + institutions, upon this pre-existing natural, social and institutional capital, while national-to-local payment mechanisms for distributing benefits, and the Tanzanian pilot projects have to a larger degree chosen to devel- increased capacity for monitoring, reporting, and verification of changes op this capital through the introduction of PFM into forest sites in forest carbon. which had not been formally managed by communities prior to the projects. 4.3.4.1. Coordinated REDD+ institutions. The ability of REDD+ to deliver effective, efficient, and equitable emission reductions in the context of CFM in Nepal and Tanzania depends on the coordination and cooper- 4.3.3. Additionality ation of national and local state and civil society actors. There is a critical Critically, REDD + requires that programmatic forest manage- role for existing CFM institutions and civil society organizations, which ment practices generate additionality in carbon sequestration and are uniquely equipped to bridge the gap between national policy and storage, over and above a baseline scenario. There are several rea- local implementation and which are experienced in working with gov- sons for which CFM arrangements may not be considered by all ernment agencies, and national and international CSOs (Nhantumbo, parties to be delivering maximum possible additionality, in terms 2012). of climate change mitigation. First, if existing CFM sites are already In Nepal, community forest user-groups are well-placed to have a independently achieving REDD + objectives (e.g. carbon seques- voice in the development of REDD + strategies. Nepal's MoFSC tration and storage), simply incorporating them into REDD + pro- acknowledges the importance of non-state actors through the R-PP's grams would not necessarily achieve any additional gains. For emphasis on multi-stakeholder engagement, and through the central REDD + activities to be considered additional they must either en- role that Nepal's planned REDD + strategy affords to community- hance the net carbon stock or rate of sequestration in existing CFM forest groups such as FECOFUN and the Association of Collaborative sites, or bring additional forest areas under community manage- Forest Users (MoFSC, 2010). Likewise, CSO-led pilot projects have ment at a faster rate. Governments and CSOs can support efforts established roles for all stakeholders. For example, the Forest Carbon to harness and enhance the capacity of existing community forest Trust Fund advisory committee includes representatives from govern- managers to achieve these carbon sequestration goals (the princi- ment agencies, CSOs, and community groups (ICIMOD et al., 2011). pal manner in which REDD + is currently interacting with CFM in In Tanzania, existing PFM institutional structures provide a founda- Nepal) or to bring new forest areas under CFM arrangements (the tion for horizontal and vertical coordination between communities, principal manner in Tanzania). However, rigorous, quantitative as- local government, and national government for effective REDD+ imple- sessments of the net carbon impacts of CFM are needed to establish mentation. All five technical working groups under the REDD + Task baseline emission estimates prior to REDD + project implementa- Force include representatives of CSOs. REDD + pilot projects in tion (Benneker and McCall, 2009). Second, CFM balances conserva- Tanzania have also been effective in supporting institutions at a sub- tion with socioeconomic and development objectives, and so may national level and in creating local governance arrangements to foster achieve lower carbon sequestration and storage than a forest ten- effective forest management (Deloitte, 2012a). For example, the JGI ure arrangement that has the sole objective of climate change mit- project created an inter-village forest management organization igation. Third, the carbon gain from reduced deforestation depends (Deloitte, 2012c); the AWF project helped communities to draft a JFM in part on the volume of carbon stored within a forest. Community plan with input from the district and local government (Deloitte, forests tend to be small: often less than 300 ha in Nepal (Varughese 2012d); and the CARE Tanzania project facilitated a change in land and Ostrom, 2001). Small forest sites may result in high adminis- tenure legislation, extending the validity of Community Forestry trative transaction costs, unless these costs can be spread across Management Agreements to 25 years, affording community members bundled forest sites. In all three of these respects, and relative the opportunity for longer-term planning (Deloitte, 2012e). to other areas with higher deforestation pressure, CFM sites incor- porated into REDD + may be an inefficient means to achieve additionality. 4.3.4.2. Benefit-sharing mechanism. A critical requirement of all REDD+ On the other hand, CFM may be a socially and politically more favor- architectures that connect with CFM is a mechanism to distribute able proposition than forests managed with a focus on carbon objectives benefits to local groups involved in community-managed forests (e.g. alone. If CFM achieves better carbon outcomes than the next-most- CFUGs in Nepal, and VNRCs in Tanzania). Nepal's R-PP envisions that likely alternative, such as land conversion to agriculture, then it is international payments will be made into a national-level carbon trust achieving additionality toward REDD+ goals. In this context, viewed fund, from which benefits will be distributed to districts through as a tool by which to ensure low deforestation rates nationally, CFM is existing District Forest Coordination Committees (MoFSC, 2010). The an attractive mechanism to employ. Tanzanian government is also planning to centralize the management Further, while CFM has been more successful at conserving forests of carbon payments, by creating a National REDD+ Fund (URT, 2013). than alternative arrangements in many areas, there is often room for The fund would distribute benefits to different stakeholders at the improvement in individual sites. For example, the creation of village national and sub-national level, distributing them either through the land use plans and forest management plans by the African Wildlife regional and local government system, as is done in PFM, or directly to Foundation (AWF) pilot project has slowed agricultural expansion forest users (TNRF, 2012b). Tanzanian CSOs have advocated for a nested into Tanzania's JFM forests (Deloitte, 2012b). approach that allows REDD + project developers and participants to Finally, additionality (broadly conceived) can also be considered to engage in direct financial transactions with international buyers and include gains in co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation and donors (TFCG, 2009). This approach partially bypasses the central improved livelihoods. Because CFM often improves social and environ- government, perhaps avoiding problems that have historically plagued mental outcomes, in addition to carbon maximization, it may give great- the country's PFM benefit distribution system, but would still require er visibility to co-benefits and may attract an additional set of interested accurate and reliable carbon accounting at the national level (TNRF, buyers and donors. 2012b). The Tanzanian government has not yet finalized the REDD + P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 35 benefit-distribution mechanism, but appears to be planning for the charcoal, and construction timber (Karky and Skutsch, 2010). Sec- nationally centralized approach. ond, there are concerns that the financial opportunities associated The experiences of REDD+ pilot projects demonstrate some innova- with REDD + may promote a recentralization of forest governance tive mechanisms for benefit distribution at a local level. Some projects and a weakening of CFM structures in countries where CFM has distribute benefits through community-based development projects, been widely established (Phelps et al., 2010). That is, an injection delivering non-cash benefits ranging from technical training in conser- of REDD + funding may act as an incentive for governments to revert vation agriculture and beekeeping, to the construction of water taps and toward a centralized forest governance system in order to reap re- village government office buildings. Others projects distribute financial wards more centrally (Sandbrook et al., 2010). Given the high finan- payments. The Forest Carbon Trust Fund project in Nepal weights cial values at stake, there is a real possibility that governments could payments to favor marginalized groups (women, indigenous people, justify recentralization by “portraying themselves as more capable poor households) (ICIMOD et al., 2011) and the TFCG project in and reliable than local communities at protecting national interests” Tanzania enables individual communities to determine an equitable (Phelps et al., 2010). Emerging conflicts in both Nepal and Tanzania payment system on a case-by-case basis (Deloitte, 2012b). Some demonstrate this concern. Third, establishing a system of equitable projects have used estimated carbon prices or expected REDD+ reve- benefit sharing is a challenging task, further complicated in situa- nues to calculate payment values (e.g. the TFCG project) (Deloitte, tions where communities and governments share forest rights. This 2012b), and payments made by REDD + pilot projects are useful in is the case with JFM in Tanzania, and with CFM in Nepal where the preparing communities for carbon-based benefit flows. However, few government may claim its rights for revenues from soil carbon. payments have been based on precise carbon accounting. Rather, they Even when decision-making processes remain at, or are devolved are participation-based (contingent upon demonstrated adherence to, the community level, increased cash flows in communities could and commitment to sustainable forest management activities). incite local elite capture of project benefits, and marginalized groups could remain peripheral (Toni, 2011). Fourth, REDD + pilot project 4.3.4.3. Monitoring, reporting, and verification. A monitoring, reporting, payments may be incongruous with eventual national REDD + and verification (MRV) mechanism is also a central part of all REDD+ program funding in one or more ways. Pilot project structures may architectures (Angelsen, 2009). Many CFUGs in Nepal have engaged in not be representative of permanent national REDD + architectures, some monitoring and recording of forest condition, but few yet have or there may be a temporary discontinuity between REDD + pilot the capacity for systematic quantification of carbon and ecological project payments and longer-term funding, or a national REDD + outcomes required by REDD+ (Palmer Fry, 2011). program may never be agreed on. In any of these cases, communities Involvement of communities in monitoring forest carbon is likely may have been presented with false promises. This could damage to be most effective if integrated into a mixed-level approach that community relations with government agencies or CSOs, or even combines local and national level systems (Palmer Fry, 2011). National cause loss of income if resource-use behaviors have changed because and international level initiatives, such as Nepal's Forest Resource of the pilot project—such as with the Forest Carbon Trust Fund tree- Assessment (Kandel, 2010) and Tanzania's National Forest Resources planting program in Nepal. Embedding REDD + in the existing legal Monitoring and Assessment (URT, 2013), are likely to be better- framework may increase the likelihood of continuity beyond donor positioned to determine national baselines, to calculate reference emis- commitment. Finally, attaching direct financial values to forests sion levels, and to conduct large-scale monitoring of forest cover using that have been managed principally for extractive resource benefits satellite imagery and other technical, high-cost options (Grainger and could alter community perspectives about the underlying philoso- Obersteiner, 2011). Local communities will likely play a crucial role in phy of forest management. CFM sites are currently being managed monitoring variations in forests locally, accounting particularly for by communities for local benefits, whereas a REDD + focus would forest degradation (Burgess et al., 2010). imply that communities are managing the forests at least in part Conducting forest monitoring at a community level can be effective, for exogenous benefits derived by donor countries. efficient, and equitable. Data collected by communities in the Forest These risks are real and non-trivial, and there is thus an intense Carbon Trust Fund pilot project in Nepal were of comparable quality global debate on how best to develop and implement REDD+ standards to the data collected by professionals (Puliti, 2012); participatory and safeguards, which aim to mitigate these risks. However, the major- monitoring can reduce the costs of technology and experts (Skutsch ity of these concerns pertain to the mechanisms by which REDD + is et al., 2009); and it can engage and empower communities of forest- developed and implemented, and the details of how that process is users (Dangi, 2012) while alleviating fears of negative impacts from governed. These risks do not diminish the theoretical opportunities for top-down REDD + implementation (Burgess et al., 2010). Indeed, REDD+ to attach to, and benefit from, CFM. For this reason, our more several pilot projects and readiness initiatives are developing communi- positive conclusions about the theoretical opportunities for REDD+ to ty capacity for MRV in CFM contexts in both Nepal and Tanzania (Joshi benefit from CFM contrast somewhat with the more cautious conclu- and Bhatta, 2010). sions of the body of scholarship that discusses the practical implications of how REDD+ may actually affect communities. 4.3.5. How might REDD+ affect community forest management in Nepal and Tanzania? 5. Conclusions The development and implementation of REDD + can bring both opportunities and challenges to CFM, by reshaping forest management There is significant potential for accomplishing REDD+ objectives in practices and community forest landscapes. On the one hand, REDD+ CFM sites, and REDD + can benefit from the established successes of can increase the financial, administrative, and technical resources avail- CFM in one or more ways. First, REDD+ can make use of the natural, able to CFM institutions and forest-users, making forest conservation human, social, and institutional capital associated with existing commu- more financially viable and further improving the chances of successful nity forest sites to achieve REDD+ goals. REDD+ funding can help to CFM (RECOFTC et al., 2011; TFCG, 2009). overcome the historical financial barrier to effective CFM, by increasing On the other hand, the resources and attention that REDD+ could the capacity for management activities such as rule-enforcement. bring to forests could also pose a new suite of difficulties and even Second, REDD+ funding can also be used to expand the area of forests threaten the integrity of CFM. First, there is widespread concern that, managed by communities. But in both cases, existing CFM practices do in a REDD + landscape that aims to enhance carbon maximization, not present solutions to all REDD + implementation challenges. Pilot the rules of forest use could change, reducing community access to sub- projects and readiness activities are therefore also augmenting existing sistence and income-generating forest resources such as firewood, community forest capacity by investing in the development of new 36 P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 institutions, benefit-distribution mechanisms, and mechanisms to (continued) monitor, report, and verify carbon objectives. Our case countries of Country Interviewee role Interviewee Interview Interview Nepal and Tanzania demonstrate the significant extent to which organization location date REDD+ pilot projects are utilizing and strengthening CFM institutions Programme in both new and existing community-managed forests. All REDD + National NEFIN Kathmandu Jun-12 pilot projects in Nepal and Tanzania have either been implemented in Coordinator of existing CFM sites, or have established CFM arrangements as a core Climate Change and REDD Partnership component of the project activity. Program Many uncertainties about the future of REDD + remain. Future Member Nepal Chepang Shaktikhor Jun-12 research could usefully quantify the nature of interactions between Association CFM and REDD +, for example by measuring the effects of REDD + Joint Secretary, RFCCC, Ministry of Kathmandu Jun-12 projects on environmental and socio-economic outcomes within and Chief Forests Members Shaktikhor CFUGs Shaktikhor Jun-12 outside community-managed forests, as Poudel et al. (2014) have Value Chain SNV Lalitpur Jun-12 done in Nepal. Additionally, it would be useful to further examine the Development trade-offs between additionality, leakage, and livelihood impacts of Advisor REDD+ in CFM sites, as Robinson et al. (2013) have done in Tanzania. Coordinator WOCAN Kathmandu Jun-12 Tanzania (10 Wildlife Department of Dar es May-13 Despite these uncertainties, the urgency of forest-based mitigation interviews) Conservation Forestry and Salaam and the vast experience and significant successes of CFM means that it Officer* Non-Renewable is probable that CFM will play a significant role in achieving REDD + Natural Resources: objectives in less-industrialized, forested countries. Zanzibar REDD+ Program Institute of Dar es May-13 Officer Resource Salaam Acknowledgments Assessment, University of Dar This research was supported by The Program on Forests (PROFOR) es Salaam and the Social Development Department (SDV) at the World Bank (pro- Director; Institute of Dar es May-13 Coordinator Resource Salaam ject number: P129184). We are grateful to Krister Andersson, Birendra Assessment, Karna, William Magrath, Charles Meshack, Baruani Mshale, Simon University of Dar Rietbergen, Klas Sander, Julius Thaler and two anonymous reviewers es Salaam; Nation- for their comments on an earlier draft. al REDD Secretariat Chairperson; National REDD+ Dar es May-13 Director of Task Force; Vice Salaam Appendix 1. List of interviewees and their organizations, with Environment President's Office, corresponding locations and dates Division⁎ United Republic of Tanzania Consultant Royal Norwegian Dar es Jun-13 Embassy in Salaam Tanzania Country Interviewee role Interviewee Interview Interview Executive Director Tanzania Forest Dar es Jun-13 organization location date of TFCG; CSO repre- Conservation Salaam sentative to the Na- Group (TFCG) Nepal (22 Researcher Anonymous Kathmandu Jul-12 tional REDD+ Task interviews) Executive Director ANSAB Kathmandu Jun-12 Force⁎ Research Officer Department of Kathmandu Jun-12 REDD Project Tanzania Forest Dar es Jun-13 Forest Resources Manager Conservation Salaam and Survey Group (TFCG) Community Department of Kathmandu Jun-12 REDD Coordinator; Tanzania Forest Dar es May-13 Forestry Officer Forests Focal Point for the Services Agency: Salaam District Forest Department of Chitwan Jun-12 UN-REDD and FCPF Ministry of Natural Officer, Chitwan Forests Programs in Resources and District Forest Department of Lalitpur Jun-12 Tanzania⁎ Tourism Officer, Lalitpur Forests Executive Director Tanzanian Dar es Jun-13 Program Embassy of Finland Kathmandu Jun-12 Community Forest Salaam Coordinator Conservation Chairperson FECOFUN Kathmandu Jun-12 Network Policy Facilitator FECOFUN Kathmandu Jun-12 (MJUMITA) Programme FECOFUN Kathmandu Jun-12 Principal Planning Tanzanian Dar es May-13 Manager for Officer⁎ Ministry of Lands, Salaam REDD+ Pilot Housing and Project Human Settlement Ecosystem ICIMOD Lalitpur Jun-12 Development Adaptation Analyst Project ICIMOD Lalitpur Jun-12 * indicates that the individual is a member of the National REDD+ Task Force (as of the Coordinator, REDD interview date). Pilot Project Resource ICIMOD Lalitpur Jun-12 Economist Watershed ICIMOD Lalitpur Jun-12 Management Specialist References Outcome Manager Multi Stakeholder Kathmandu Jun-12 Forestry Acharya, K.P., 2002. Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 4, Programme 149–156. Team Leader Multi Stakeholder Kathmandu Jun-12 Agrawal, A., Angelson, A., 2009. Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ Forestry goals. In: Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M. (Eds.), Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor. P. Newton et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 56 (2015) 27–37 37 Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., Hardin, R., 2008. Changing governance of the world's forests. Matilya, G.J., 2012. Advancing REDD in the Kolo Hills Forests (ARKFor): Progress, Science 320, 1460–1462. Challenges, Lessons and Opportunities. Climate Change Impacts, Mitigation and Angelsen, A., 2009. Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor. Adaptation Programme Scientific Conference, Dar es Salaam. Arnold, J.E.M., 2001. Forests and People: 25 Years of Community Forestry. FAO, Rome. MCDI, 2010. Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative: REDD Project Scheme Bampton, J.F.R., Ebregt, A., Bangade, M.R., 2007. Collaborative forest management in Outline “Combining REDD, PFM and FSC certification in SE Tanzania”. Fauna and Nepal's Terai: policy, practice and contestation. J. For. Livelihood 6, 30–43. Flora International, Cambridge. Baral, S., Malla, R., Ranabhat, S., 2009. Above-ground carbon stock assessment in different Miles, L., Kapos, V., 2008. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest types of Nepal. Banko Janakari 19, 10–14. forest degradation: global land-use implications. Science 320, 1454–1455. Benneker, C., McCall, M., 2009. REDD strategies: a case study from Mexico. In: Bodegom, MoFSC, 2010. Nepal's Readiness Preparation Proposal REDD 2010–2013. Ministry of V., Jan, A., Savenije, H., Wit, M. (Eds.), Forests and Climate Change: Adaptation and Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. Mitigation. Tropenbos International, Wageningen. MoFSC, 2011. Study on REDD Plus Piloting in Nepal. Ministry of Forests and Soil Blomley, T., Iddi, S., 2009. Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania: 1993–2009: Conservation, Kathmandu. Lessons Learned and Experiences to Date. URT: Ministry of Natural Resources and Mwakalobo, A., Kajembe, G.C., Silayo, D.S., Nzunda, E., Zahabu, E., Maliondo, S., Kimaro, D., Tourism, Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Dar es Salaam. 2011. REDD Working Papers: REDD and Sustainable Development-Perspective from Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu, E., Ahrends, A., Burgess, N., 2008. Seeing the Tanzania. IIED, London. wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management Newton, P., Nichols, E.S., Endo, W., Peres, C.A., 2012. Consequences of actor level on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42, 380–391. livelihood heterogeneity for additionality in a tropical forest payment for Burgess, N.D., Bahane, B., Clairs, T., Danielsen, F., Dalsgaard, S., Funder, M., Hagelberg, N., environmental services programme with an undifferentiated reward structure. Harrison, P., Haule, C., Kabalimu, K., Kilahama, F., Kilawe, E., Lewis, S.L., Lovett, J.C., Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 127–136. Lyatuu, G., Marshall, A.R., Meshack, C., Miles, L., Milledge, S.A.H., Munishi, P.K.T., Nhantumbo, I., 2012. Getting REDD-Ready: Two Models of Coordination and Engagement Nashanda, E., Shirima, D., Swetnam, R.D., Willcock, S., Williams, A., Zahabu, E., 2010. From Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Getting ready for REDD plus in Tanzania: a case study of progress and challenges. Palmer Fry, B., 2011. Community forest monitoring in REDD+: the “M” in MRV? Environ. Oryx 44, 339–351. Sci. Pol. 14, 181–187. Bushley, B.R., Khatri, D.B., 2011. REDD +: reversing, reinforcing or reconfiguring Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., Agrawal, A., 2010. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest decentralized forest governance in Nepal. Discussion Paper Series. ForestAction governance? Science 328, 312–313. Nepal, Kathmandu. Poudel, M., Thwaites, R., Race, D., Ram Dahal, G., 2014. REDD+ and community forestry: Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and implications for local communities and forest management- a case study from Nepal. livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 17667–17670. Int. For. Rev. 16, 39–54. Dangi, R., 2012. REDD+: issues and challenges from a Nepalese perspective. In: Devkota, Puliti, S., 2012. Analyses of the Feasibility of Participatory REDD+ MRV Approaches to D.C., Uprety, B.K., Bhattarai, T.N. (Eds.), Climate Change and UNFCC Negotiation Lidar Assisted Carbon Inventories in Nepal. Swedish University of Agricultural Process. MoEST Publications, Kathmandu. Science, Uppsala. Deloitte, 2012a. Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD+ Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Putz, F., Redford, K., 2009. Dangers of carbon-based conservation. Glob. Environ. Chang. Higher-Level Overview of NGO REDD+ Portfolio. Deloitte, London. 19, 400–401. Deloitte, 2012b. Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD+ Pilot Projects in Tanzania: RECOFTC, 2012. A Training of Trainers Manual for REDD+: for National and Subnational Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG)—“Making REDD Work for Communities Level Facilitators. RECOFTC-The Center for People and Forests, Bangkok. and Forest Conservation in Tanzania”. Deloitte, London. RECOFTC, IIED, REDD-NET, 2011. REDD +, Governance, and Community Forestry: Deloitte, 2012c. Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD+ Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Highlights from the Forest Governance Learning Group Asia Experts' Meeting. Jane Goodall Institute (JGI)—“Building REDD readiness in the Masito Ugalla ecosys- RECOFTC, IIED, REDD-Net, Bangkok. tem pilot area in support of Tanzania's national REDD strategy”. Deloitte, London. Ribot, J.C., Agrawal, A., Larson, A.M., 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how Deloitte, 2012d. Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD+ Pilot Projects in Tanzania: national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev. 34, 1864–1886. African Wildlife Foundation (AWF)—“Advancing REDD in Kolo Hills Forests”. Deloitte, Robinson, E.J., Albers, H.J., Meshack, C., Lokina, R.B., 2013. Implementing REDD through London. community-based forest management: lessons from Tanzania. Nat. Res. Forum 37, Deloitte, 2012e. Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD+ Pilot Projects in Tanzania: 141–152. CARE International in Tanzania—“HIMA Piloting REDD in Zanzibar Through Commu- RRI, 2014. Forest tenure data. Rights and resources initiative. Available from:. http:// nity Forest Management”. Deloitte, London. www.rightsandresources.org/resources/tenure-data/. Deloitte, 2012f. Mid-Term Review Report of Nine NGO REDD+ Pilot Projects in Tanzania: Sandbrook, C., Nelson, F., Adams, W.M., Agrawal, A., 2010. Carbon, forests and the REDD Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI)—“Combining Reduced paradox. Oryx 44 (03), 330–334. Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD), Participatory Forest Skutsch, M.M., van Laake, P.E., Zahabu, E.M., Karky, B.S., Phartiyal, P., 2009. Community Management (PFM) and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification in South monitoring in REDD +. In: Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M. (Eds.), Realising REDD +: Eastern Tanzania”. Deloitte, London. National Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor. FCPF, 2012. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility 2012 Annual Report. Forest Carbon Sunderlin, W.D., Larson, A.M., Cronkleton, P., 2009. Forest tenure rights and REDD+. In: Partnership Facility, Washington, D.C. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M. (Eds.), Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy FCPF, 2014. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Emission Reductions Program Idea Note. Options. CIFOR, Bogor. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington D.C. TFCG, 2009. Making REDD Work for People and Forest in Tanzania: Lessons Learnt From Gautam, A.P., Webb, E.L., Eiumnoh, A., 2002. GIS assessment of land use/land cover Participatory Forest Management in Tanzania. Tanzania Forest Conservation Group, changes associated with community forestry implementation in the Middle Hills of Dar es Salaam. Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 22, 63–69. The REDD Desk, 2013. The REDD Desk. http://theredddesk.org/. Grainger, A., Obersteiner, M., 2011. A framework for structuring the global forest monitor- TNRF, 2012a. Working Together for Learning and Action: Shared Experiences of the ing landscape in the REDD+ era. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14, 127–139. Tanzania REDD+ Pilot Projects. Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Dar es Salaam. Hagen, R., 2014. Lessons Learned From Community Forestry and Their Relevance for TNRF, 2012b. Equitable Benefit Sharing: Exploring Experiences and Lessons for REDD+ in REDD +. USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Tanzania. Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Dar es Salaam. Program, Washington D.C. Toni, F., 2011. Decentralization and REDD+ in Brazil. Forests 1, 66–85. ICIMOD, ANSAB, FECOFUN, 2011. Operating Guidelines of Forest Carbon Trust Fund 2011. UN-REDD, 2010. The UN-REDD Programme Strategy 2011–2015. UN-REDD Programme, ICIMOD, Kathmandu. Geneva. Joshi, G.R., Bhatta, N., 2010. Early Action Forest Carbon Project to Prepare for REDD+ and URT, 2013. National Strategy for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Have an Equitable Carbon Financing Mechanism in Place: Climate, Community and Degradation (REDD+). United Republic of Tanzania: Vice President's Office, Dar es Biodiversity Benefits. WWF Nepal, Kathmandu. Salaam. Kandel, P., 2010. Forest Resource Assessment in Nepal: an Assessment of Data Needs. Varughese, G., Ostrom, E., 2001. The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu. some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Dev. 29, 747–765. Karky, B.S., Skutsch, M., 2010. The cost of carbon abatement through community forest WCS, 2012. REDD Readiness in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: Progress Report management in Nepal Himalaya. Ecol. Econ. 69, 666–672. January 2012–July 2012. Wildlife Conservation Society, Dar es Salaam. Klooster, D., Masera, O., 2000. Community forest management in Mexico: carbon West, S., 2012. REDD+ and Adaptation in Nepal. Overseas Development Institute, mitigation and biodiversity conservation through rural development. Glob. Environ. London. Chang. 10, 259–272. WWF, 2012. The Hariyo Ban program: newsletter No. 1. WWF Nepal Programme, LFP, Rupantaran Nepal, 2011. Plan Vivo Project Idea Note: a Landscape Approach for Kathmandu. Enhancing Sustainable Livelihoods and Payment for Environmental Services Under Zahabu, E., Skutsch, M., Malimbwi, R., Nordholt, N.G.S., 2008. The Likely Mechanism for the Plan Vivo Standard. Livelihoods and Forestry Programme, Kathmandu. Implementing REDD Policy in Tanzania. Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro. Lund, J.F., Balooni, K., Casse, T., 2009. Change we can believe in? Reviewing studies on the conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. Conserv. Soc. 7, 71.