REDD+ benefit sharing in Ethiopia: policy and stakeholder perceptions analysis

Abstract

Current Ethiopian policies and laws recognize the importance of equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms for natural resource management. The question of 'what is fair' is often unclear in practice. We pursue this question in the context of benefit sharing for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in Ethiopia. We present findings from interviews conducted in 2017 with 33 national REDD+ actors, and a review of national policies and laws until 2020 to understand Ethiopia's policy and legal framework, and vision for a REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanism. Our findings show that Ethiopia is progressing in developing a benefit-sharing mechanism (BSM) for REDD+. Government policies on benefit sharing are pro-poor with an emphasis on legal rights. Among the various concepts of fairness, more stakeholders agreed that benefits should be shared according to efforts made to reduce deforestation and forest degradation rather than being based on poverty or legal rights. Left unattended, we believe this divergence of opinion on 'what is fair' opens the potential for questions regarding the legitimacy of the REDD+ BSM among stakeholders in general and can pose practical implementation challenges. We suggest that establishing open dialogue, learning mechanisms and inclusive processes can lead to regulations, policies and procedures that clarify and harmonize the different views on fairness over time.

Harnessing REDD+ for Community Involvement and Equitable Benefit Distribution: Insights from Dhankuta District, Nepal

“…The indispensable role of effective benefit sharing mechanisms in achieving successful REDD+ initiatives has been affirmed, as these mechanisms ensure that local communities, which rely heavily on forests, obtain direct benefits from conservation endeavors [7][8][9][10]. Notably, the context-specific nature of benefit sharing elicits a resistance against adopting a universal approach, since its implementation heavily depends on factors such as socioeconomic circumstances, triggers of deforestation, and institutional structures [11][12][13].…”

“…Direct payments serve as financial rewards, thereby incentivizing the involvement of local communities in forest preservation, whereas non-monetary benefits include the provision of access to essential services. Co-management agreements are characterized by the shared decision-making process between the communities and the governing authorities with regards to the management of forest resources [13][14][15].…”

“…Moreover, the REDD+ mechanism should identify suitable beneficiaries who currently collect fuelwood from the forest, as they play a role in both deforestation and forest conservation efforts. Effective conservation and management can be facilitated by incentivizing forest users through various means, including monetary rewards, non-monetary incentives, and capacity development opportunities [13,72,73].…”