04-13: Land rights regularization and common property resources
Identifying best practices for benefit sharing at the jurisdictional scale in relation to emission reduction programs
1Michigan State University, United States of America; 2Bioversity International / World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), France; 3University of Papua, Indonesia
Benefit sharing is an important incentive for many actors who would otherwise not reduce GHG emissions. However, sharing schemes must be transparent, legitimate, and fair, especially because payments are often based on avoided actions rather than tied to specific goods. Earlier thinking focused on financial returns, but new thinking encompasses a broader set of ‘monetary and non-monetary benefits’, including tenure reform, local climate regulation, and community resilience. However, there is a gap in understanding best practices for benefit sharing at the jurisdictional scale, reflected in the limited guidance for jurisdictions to develop such plans. This study aims to address this gap by assessing, compiling, and communicating best practices across the spectrum of data currently available in multiple programs with a case study approach in two focal countries using sound scientific methods including semi-structured interviews, surveys, Strengths Weakness Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis, Q-sorting, and statistical analysis.
How Does Scarcity Affect Extraction of Resources? A study about land use as a common-pool resource dilemma using survey and field-experimental data collected in northern Namibia
University of Marburg, Germany
The aim of this study is to analyze how scarcity of resources affects at what rate users decide to extract or appropriate resources. We investigate this by conducting a survey and an economic field experiment in northern Namibia. The participants in our study are small-scale farmers who regularly make decisions about either staying on their old fields or clearing forest areas for new ones. We compare environments where resources are abundant against environments where resources are scarce.
Results from both the survey and the experiment show that a scarce environment does not cause faster extraction, but under scarcity the rate of extraction is lower than in an abundant environment. Survey results also reveal that abundant stocks tend to attract additional users.
Impact of land certification on cash crop expansion in Southwest China
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany
We analyze the impacts of forest and farmland certification on cash crop cultivation in Xishuangbanna in Southwest China. Our analysis is based on the panel data from two socioeconomic surveys of 612 smallholder rubber farmers in XSBN covering the period of 2012 and 2014. We apply a multinomial endogenous switching model along with a counterfactual analysis to estimate “ratio of land allocated to other cash crops relative to rubber” under different land use certification.We divide households into 4 groups, namely, (1) households with only farmland tenure certificate, (2) households with only forestland tenure certificate, (3) households with both farmland and forestland tenure certificates and (4) households without any land certificates. Results show that expansion of other cash crop takes place in households with either (a) only farmland certificate or (b) only forestland certificate. Households with both land use certificates and those without certificate are less likely to expand cash crops.
Forest carbon supply in Nepal: Evidence from a choice experiment
1Portland State University, United States of America; 2Indian Statistical Institute, India; 3Smart Start Evaluation and Research, United States of America; 4Forest Action, Nepal
In this paper, we use a choice experiment conducted in 2013 to estimate household-level willingness to participate in a REDD+ program that requires reductions in fuelwood collections as a function of various CO2 prices. We find that robust participation occurs at prices that are higher than the early literature on developing country sequestration. Rather than prices of $1.00 to $5.00 incentivizing participation, we find that relatively little carbon would be supplied at such prices. This basic finding is in line with more recent literature focusing on Nepal REDD+ pilots, which suggests that the early optimism about low-cost carbon supply in community forestry settings may have been somewhat misplaced.
Formal community forests will almost certainly be the core institution within which REDD+ is implemented in Nepal and likely other countries.