Securing rights as a mitigation measure:The costs of recognizing tenure rights &

carbon benefits

Jeffrey Hatcher, Rights and Resources

Prepared for the conference “Rights, Forests and Climate Change”Convened by The Rainforest Foundation Norway and the Rights and Resources Initiative

Oslo, Norway | October 15-17, 2008

Presentation structure

Part 1 Community tenure central to mitigation What we do know about “who owns the carbon?” Calls on clarifying and recognizing rights What does recognition of rights mean?

Part 2 Costs of recognition of community rights Costs of measures proposed under REDD schemes

Part 3 Conclusions and ways forward

Secure community rights make better forest management possible

Insecure tenure a known, but difficult to quantify, driver of deforestation (Eliasch Review 2008)

Communities invest at least US$1.3 - 2.6 billion a year in forest conservation in developing countries (Molnar 2004)

Indigenous Peoples have proven that they promote permanence of carbon in forest (Nepstad et al. 2007)

Increased size of and greater authority in community forests leads to better outcomes for carbon, livelihoods and biodiversity (Agrawal 2008)

Insecure, unclear and unrecognized community tenure rights can lead to conflict (De Koning 2008)

Many mitigation options available with secure rights

What we know about forest carbon ownership

The issue is not clear & will require each country to reform law

We do know that: Communities legally own at least 350 million hectares (Mha) of forest land

(out of 4 billion). These forests contain approximately 70 to 140GtCO2e (Global emissions/year = 27GtCO2e.)

Communities invested time, energy and money in maintaining these stocksAnd they did this without the major incentives potentially offered by REDD

What incentive do they have to further maintain forests if they are not included in the process and in the incentive structures?

What incentive do those who live in the forests but with unrecognized rights have to manage their forests and their carbon?

We must take forest communities seriously to attain emissions reductions goals

Who is calling for the clarification and recognition of rights in the REDD context?

Wide recognition of the importance of “tenure rights”, “clear tenure” in the forest and climate debate – at least rhetorically: Civil society and NGOs (Accra, Congo Basin, TFD, etc) Indigenous Peoples (IIPFCC) Private Sector International organizations

For different reasons Moral/HR (recognizing the integrity of Indigenous Peoples’ and

communities territories) Economic (minimizing risk and transaction costs) Effectiveness (REDD won’t work without solid institutional base and

community engagement)

There is a recognition that we need to scale up clarification, recognition and securing of rights, but what do we mean by this and what do we know about what it might cost?

Recognizing rights: Lessons from history (1)

Some caveats and challenges Clarifying, recognizing and securing tenure rights and tenure

systems are contentious political processes with complications and complexities

Questions and intersections of customary law, politics and power

Who defines community, which rights and who defines them

Competing claims, overlapping rights, seasonal rights

Must be based on the local context and not an imposition

Recognizing rights is only one part of achieving tenure security:

It is a larger social transformation that needs changes to markets, judicial reform, strong political rights, voice, regulations, strong internal institutions

Recognizing community rights means a systematic process recognizing the historic and customary land rights and tenure systems of forest dwellers made possible because of mobilization and legislative reform

Different methods to use that all require negotiation: – mapping demarcation registration titling– (size of area and type of registration should reflect social realities of

territorial management)

There are positive examples of recognizing the land rights of communities:

– Bolivia (TCOs)– Brazil (TIs; RESEX)– Mozambique (Lei da terra secured rights with a stroke of the pen;

implementation of the law registered community territories issued in perpetuity – recent setbacks)

– Tanzania (Village Land Act; Forest Act) Since 2002, at least 60 million hectares of community forests have

been recognized/transferred from the state to communities – but this isn’t fast enough

There is a critical mass around the world, a solid knowledge base on forest tenure and methodologies and a clear need to scale up

Recognizing rights: Lessons from history (2)

Securing community forest tenure rights is a

fundamental step to mitigating climate change and it is a relatively cost-

effective one

Many social and political costs cannot be calculated

Costs will be higher in difficult to reach areas, where there is intractable political opposition, and in areas where large international expertise is needed initially

Varying degrees of accuracy and formality affect costs

Low-cost and context-adaptable methodologies exist

Direct costs can be calculated and can include: Awareness raising Dispute resolution Equipment and materials Staff time (govt and ngo) Training Administrative costs Recurring training, staff costs, etc

Cost data is difficult to ascertain, but clearly shows the range of costs

What are the costs of recognizing rights?

oWhat do the costs of recognizing historic community tenure look like?

These cases represent more than 8 million hectares of community territories

Costs of delimiting, demarcating and titling historically-occupied community lands

$0.05 $0.18$0.50

$6.94

$9.07

$3.35

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

Brazil demarcation ofIndigenous territory

(Instituto Socio-Ambiental, 2008)

Mozambiquedemarcation (ORAM -

CTC, 2003)

Brazil creation of socialreserves / protectedareas (Nepstad andSoares et al, 2007)

Mozambique full titling -DUAT (ORAM - CTC,

2003)

Bolivia full title (WorldBank, 2001)

Average community

Co

st

pe

r h

ec

tare

in d

olla

rs

World Bank costs for individual titling (per parcel):

Philippines $51 (as at Mar 2008)

Laos $18 (as at Dec 2007)

Indonesia $32 (as at Oct 2007)

Cambodia $8.50 (as at June 2007)

What are the costs associated with REDD

Many costs unknown and many not calculated

Types of costs that can be (and have been) estimated

– Capacity-building costs (includes land tenure and legal reform Eliasch review averages $20M/country)

– Implementation costs (management, monitoring, verification)

– Opportunity costs (replacing incomes)

Different costs estimates for REDD

Projected costs of elements of REDD per hectare per year

$806$938

$2,615

$3,076

$1,859

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Grieg-Gan, 2006 (8 countries tohalve deforestation)

Blaser and Robledo, 2007(opportunity costs to haltdeforestation by 2030)

Eliasch Review, 2008 (to halvedeforestation)

Boucher, 2008 (to halvedeforestation)

Average

Reference

Do

llars

pe

r h

ec

tare

Summary of findings

Recognizing community tenure rights and systems: from $0.05 - $9 per hectare (average $3.35)

The full costs of achieving REDD are unknown and impossible to calculate today. These estimates are the minimum the world will have to pay to achieve halving or stopping deforestation by 2030.

Elements of REDD scheme: $800 - $3000/ha per year until 2030.

Recognition of tenure rights – a low cost step to maintain and sequester carbon

Conclusions:

Let’s not be naïve, but let‘s not miss this climate opportunity

• Small cost can lead to a big climate and development payoff.– Investing in tenure rights will provide benefits even without a carbon market

• Recognizing community tenure rights is fundamental to mitigating climate change but not sufficient

• Recognizing and securing rights is complex but feasible– Methodologies and experiences exist – we can act– Can scale up now in many areas; and we can push with new urgency for reforms

Ways forward:• Take advantage of political attention paid to rights to scale up recognition

programs– Lobby funds (UN-REDD, FCIP, FIP) and donor governments to include community

tenure rights recognition in its criteria for funding REDD– Provide advice on methods and avoiding locking in dominant power structures

• Support civil society to push for tenure reform locally and nationally• Lobby governments to link forest and land tenure rights to carbon rights• Identify priority countries

Conclusions and ways forward

Thank you