private sector engagement in redd+ of the democratic republic of congo (drc)

Norwegian University of Life SciencesPrivate sector engagement in REDD+ 1

Private sector engagement in REDD+ of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

The case of ERA/WWC Mai Ndombe REDD+ project

Engaging men and women in REDD+ businesses:

IIED COP 21 side event

Paris, 3rd-4th December 2015

Raymond Achu Samndong

Outline of the presentation

1. Forest governance and REDD+ in the DRC

2. Research hypothesis and questions

3. Conceptual framework for effective REDD+ delivery

4. ERA Project area and methods

5. ERA actions to address D&D in the project area

6. Community perception about the project

7. Discussion and conclusion



The state hold ownership to land and forest but communities’ claims customary rights in practice

REDD+ projects operate within this dual legal environment

All REDD+ projects are operating in a vacuum of uncertainty over the legal status of carbon rights.

The government has introduced carbon rights agreements to contract private sector investment in REDD+.

This revealed a new tendency of the government to use existing legislation of tangible resources to frame legal arrangements to capture the new carbon commodity.

3. Forest governance and REDD+ in the DRC

4. Research hypothesis and questionshypothesisThe implementation of REDD+ by private sector needs integrated interventions as well as commitment and resources (finance, capacity) from each of the key agents in deforestation and forest degradation to address the drivers and derive equitable benefits. The involvement of a carbon selling company and communities (often meaning smallholder farmers and biomass energy producers) are not sufficient to mobilize the collective and integrated actions required to avoid leakage from REDD+ pilots involving private sector.

QuestionsWhat actions and actors drive deforestation and forest degradation in the project areaWhat costs and actions do ERA endures to protect forest to generate carbon creditsWhat mechanisms are employed by ERA to involve local rights holders and channeling benefits


5. Conceptual framework for effective REDD+ delivery


Actions to RE

Activities being undertaken in the landscape, scale and benefits derived The underlying causes of land use and land use change (governance, land tenure and law enforcement) Who are the actors

Economic rationale for the current activitiesPractices that contribute to deforestation and forest degradationWillingness to change practicesIncentives needed for the change to happen

Alternative and sustainable land uses changes Cost of such actions sources of financingCapacity to implement such activities

Policy environment – determine choices by land usersPolicy environment – determine choices by land users

Drivers

Actors

Source: Samndong and Nhantumbo, 2016 forthcoming

6. ERA project area and methods The project is located in Inongo Territory of

the Mai Ndombe Province The project area covers about 299,645

hectares of dense humid forests, swamp forest and savannah

The project is situated about 395km from Kinshasa along the western shore of Lake Mai Ndombe

The project area covers 3 districts of the territory and 11 tribal chiefdoms and 2 main ethnic groups (Bantu-Bolia, Selenge and Ntomba, and the Pygmies)

The project area is also home to 50,000 people living in 26 villages, who make a living from fishing, shifting cultivation, hunting and charcoal production.

Our field research was conducted in Nselenge and Kesenge villages in the project area


ERA Project area and methods con’t


ERA Project area and methods con’t

Norwegian University of Life SciencesTittel på presentasjon 8

7. ERA actions to address deforestation in the project area

Participatory mapping and land use planningNo land use planning conducted in the villages.BUA practices still continues and local people cultivate traditional crops in the forest.No demarcation of village land for agriculture and other uses and the forest area to be protected.The local population very anxious about the land use planning.


Agroforestry activities

Agroforestry demonstration plots and nursery established to promote agricultural diversification

New crops have been introduced because of their rapid and high yield and potential for market exchange to generate income

The demonstration fields are managed by ERA field staffs

Many women are excluded due to financial requirements and lack sufficient training

The agroforestry process is still at it early stage to produce seedlings that adapt to local condition before distribution.

Production practices and new technologies being transferred are not clear to the majority of the stakeholders

No strategy to address biomass energy – charcoal production in the project area


Community participation and capacity buildingLocal development committees (CLD)CLD established by ERA to function as Interlocutor between communities and company The CLD created is gender and ethnic bias—very few women as members and leadership nominated by landownersCLD created lacks the institutional arrangements (bylaws and rules) to function. CLD members are still very confused about which activities to implement and still waiting training from ERA.According to ERA, the CLDs will coordinate village activities and serve as communication channel between the communities and ERA CLD is representing the interests of the ERA and seem to be accountable to ERA.


Information and benefits sharing High information gap and

misunderstanding about the project and community benefits

The FPIC process was more of local consultation than seeking for local consent to the project

The local people lacks information about project activities, timeframe and delivery mechanisms

Local animators and CLD members provide continuous communication but information gaps persist

Community benefits signed in the social agreement contract is not known to majority of the local people

The local elites signed the social agreement but the content and delivery mechanisms are not known to majority of the local people


Community perception about the project Mixed perception and inadequate understanding

of the ERA project and objectives. Forest protection is important for climate and

biodiversity but we cannot protect forest and die of hunger

Insufficient information sharing/access, lack of awareness and local capacity building in the communities

Local people are anxious and worried that the project may be just promised than real action.

The logging company made immediate impact and created opportunities but ERA still promises.

REDD+ concepts, carbon, carbon credits and voluntary markets are new and difficult for communities to understand

We heard about protecting forest for carbon and oxygen but where is carbon and oxygen in the forest?


Community perception about the project con’t

Landowners received 500$ from ERA as access rights to the forest but don’t understand what they do in the forest.

We see logging companies extracting timber from our forest but we do not understand how the carbon will be extracted and how it will be sole.

Local people do not understand how the social agreement contract was designed, negotiated, the contents and delivery mechanisms.

The local agronomists and animators lack sufficient training, skills and understanding of the project objectives to translate into action.

Agroforestry activities moving very slowly and we cannot practice them in our farm fields.


Discussion and conclusionCarbon rights agreementNo legal framework for carbon storage and right holders.REDD+ operates under a system of legal pluralism and contested rights to land and forests in the DRC.

InformationERA has made deliberate efforts to demonstrate dialogue with local land users.Limited investment in appropriate communication tools to enable communities to capture the key information being transmitted.

Participation Community participation has been more instrumental than empowering—less involved in project design but somehow involved during implementationLocal elites representing communities’ interests are not accountable to communities The CLD is still very weak to make decisions on communities’ interests and less accountable to the communities

Benefits sharingMany communities members feel their interests and needs are not fully considered in the social agreement contracts.High uncertainty of community benefits—the timeframe and delivery mechanisms of the benefits in social contract is poorly understood by communities

The production practices and new technologies being transferred to communities are not clear and limited employment opportunities


Thanks for listening I will appreciate comments and questions


private sector engagement in redd+ of the democratic republic of congo (drc)

Environment