REDD+ Across Transboundary Landscapes: A Look into the Opportunities and Challenges of Participatory Forest Management Systems in Receiving Results Based Payments in the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region

Abstract

The Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) covers the mountain ranges from Afghanistan in the West to Myanmar in the East, including regions of Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and China. The HKH is one of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world, with a large proportion of the population dependent on natural resources for basic sustenance. As a result of climate change, the HKH has been facing irregularities in climate and the ecology, which has adversely impacted the economic wellbeing of the population. Policy makers, to relieve the pressure from the natural resources as well as addressing the needs of the population that are heavily dependent on those resources, are developing appropriate measures at local, national and regional levels. REDD+ as a concept for payment for emission reductions has come a long way since its inception in 2007. The pace of REDD+ has been slow in the HKH, where a holistic approach towards financing emission reductions is lacking. A major development in the HKH has been the increase of community forest user groups in improving forest conditions. Coalescing the benefit sharing mechanisms of community forest management with REDD+ financing would help countries in HKH achieve various environmental and non-environmental benefits. Given the transboundary nature of the HKH, disparate policies among countries and lack of awareness about ongoing activities has created a gap in achieving regional cooperation and knowledge sharing. South-south learning and building effective policies that encourage coordination among countries would help to bridge the gap in the HKH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source Sharma et al. (2016)

Referencess

  1. Acharya S, Upreti BR (2015) Equity, inclusion and conflict in community based forest management: a case of Salghari community forest in Nepal. Dhaulagiri J Sociol Anthropol 9:209–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agrawal A, Angelsen A (2009) Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. Realis REDD+ Natl Strategy Policy Options 1:201–212

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amatya S, Yangden K, Wangdi D, Phuntsho Y, Dorji L (2018) National forest inventory of Bhutan: shift in role from traditional forestry to diverse contemporary global requirements. J For Livelihood 17(1):127–138

    Google Scholar 

  4. Angelsen A, Gierløff CW, Beltrán AM, and Den Elzen M (2014) REDD credits in a global carbon market: options and impacts. Nordic Council of Ministers

  5. Appanah S (ed) (2016) Forest landscape restoration in Asia-Pacific forests. FAO/RECOFTC, Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bandyopadhyay S and Shyamsundar P (2004) Fuelwood consumption and participation in community forestry in India

  7. Behera B (2009) Explaining the performance of state–community joint forest management in India. Ecol Econ 69(1):177–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Behera MK (2016) REDD+ in India: achievements and way forward. Clim Change Environ Sustain 4(1):85–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhattacharya P, Pradhan L, Yadav G (2010) Joint forest management in India: experiences of two decades. Res Conserv Recycl 54(8):469–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chettri N, Shakya B, Sharma E (2008) Biodiversity conservation in the Kangchenjunga landscape. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chhatre A (2018) Community forestry in India: evaluating roles of state and community in natural resource management. Retrieved 2 May 2018, from https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/a-chhatre-community-forestry-in-india-eng-pdf.pdf

  12. Climatefocus (2015) Results-based finance for REDD+: emerging approaches. Retrieved 21 Aug 2018, from https://climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/20151130 RBP Paper 1 Summary - Expertdialogue 8 final[1].pdf.pdf

  13. Costenbader J (2011) REDD+ benefit sharing: a comparative assessment of three national policy approaches

  14. Das K and Bandyopadhyay KR (2015) Climate change adaption in the framework of regional cooperation in South Asia. CCLR 40

  15. FAO (2004) Nfp process—Pakistan. Accessed on 19 Sep 2019, from https://www.fao.org/forestry/14875-038a3dd75ecae9faf9dccda155d70d75b.pdf

  16. FAO (2015) Global forest resources assessment. Desk reference; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy

  17. FAO (2017) Joint forest management in India. Retrieved 17 Aug 2018, from https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/rap/files/meetings/2017/49_Day9.pdf

  18. FCPF (2018) Emission reductions program document (ER-PD)—a sustainable forest management-based emission reduction program in the Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal (Proposal)

  19. Gill GZ (2017) A framework for community benefit sharing mechanisms: design and implementation of CBSM for forest conservation in Liberia. https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/08/IDH-Case-studies-on-Community-Benefit-Sharing-in-Liberiancommunities-.._.pdf. Accessed 22 Jun 2020

  20. Hassan Z and Kant P (2011) REDD+ in Afghanistan: empowering women and increasing access to energy. IGREC working paper. IGREC-20

  21. Hayes T, Persha L (2010) Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world. For Policy Econ 12(8):545–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hussain K (2013) Ensuring REDD+ Safeguards for socioeconomic sustainability of forest dependent mountain communities (a case study of private forests of Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan) (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia)

  23. ICIMOD (2013) The REDD+ project in Pakistan. Accessed on 19 Sep 2019, from https://lib.icimod.org/record/29197/files/REDD+%2520Project_Pakistan_Newsletter.pdf

  24. ICIMOD (2015) Building capacity for implementing community forestry in Afghanistan. Accessed on 18 Sep 2019, from https://www.icimod.org/?q=20952

  25. Iqbal KMJ, Ahmad M (2011) Mainstreaming Pakistan for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus (REDD+): the way forward to readiness phase. Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ingles AW (1995) Community forestry in Nepal. Conserving biodiversity outside protected areas pp 183–204

  27. Islam K, Sato N (2012) Deforestation, land conversion and illegal logging in Bangladesh: the case of the Sal (Shorea robusta) forests. iForest-Biogeosciences For 5(3):171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Karky BS, Skutsch M (2009) The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya. Ecol Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Korhonen-Kurki K, Brockhaus M, Duchelle AE, Atmadja S, Thuy PT (2012) Multiple levels and multiple challenges for REDD+. Analysing REDD+ challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar S (2002) Does “participation” in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost–benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand. India World Dev 30(5):763–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin H (2004) Community forestry initiatives in Myanmar: an analysis from a social perspective. Int For Rev 6(2):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  32. Logan-Hines E, Goers L, Evidente M, Cashore B (2012) REDD+ policy options: including forests in an international climate change agreement. In: Ashton MS, Tyrrell ML, Spalding D, Gentry B (eds) Managing forest carbon in a changing climate. Springer, Berlin, pp 357–376

    Google Scholar 

  33. Luttrell C, Loft L, Gebara MF, Kweka D, Brockhaus M, Angelsen A, Sunderlin WD (2013) Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecol Soc 18(4):52. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahanty S, Guernier J (2008) A fair share: sharing the benefits and costs of community-based forest management. Theme on understanding the benefits of the commons. University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  35. MoAF (2017) National community forestry conference. Retrieved 17 Aug 2018, from https://www.moaf.gov.bt/national-community-forestry-conference/

  36. Mukul SA, Biswas SR, Rashid AZMM, Miah MD, Kabir ME, Uddin MB, Alamgir M, Khan NA, Sohel MSI, Chowdhury MSH et al (2014) New estimate of carbon for bangladesh forest ecosystems with their spatial distribution and REDD+ implications. Int J Res Land Use Sustain 1:33–41

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nath TK, Jashimuddin M, Inoue M (2016) The CBFM in Bsangladesh: a historical background in community-based forest management (CBFM) in Bangladesh, vol 22. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–28

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nawir AA, Paudel NS, Wong G, Luttrell C (2015) Thinking about REDD+ benefit sharing mechanism (BSM): lessons from community forestry (CF) in Nepal and Indonesia, vol 112. CIFOR, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pagdee A, Kim YS, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Res 19(1):33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Phuntsho S (2011) Forests, community forestry and their significance in Bhutan. In Community forestry in Bhutan: putting people at the heart of poverty reduction, pp 1–3

  41. Phuntsho K and Chettri N (2008) A landscape approach to biodiversity conservation: an evolving scenario and policy perspective. In Biodiversity conservation in the Kangchenjunga landscape, p 159

  42. Rahman M, Miah MD (2017) Are protected forests of Bangladesh prepared for the implementation of REDD+? A forest governance analysis from Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary. Environments 4(2):43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Samdrup T (2011) Improving the contribution of community forestry to poverty reduction in Bhutan. In Community forestry in Bhutan: putting people at the heart of poverty reduction, pp 5–16

  44. Shakya B and Joshi RM (2008) Protected areas and biodiversity conservation in the Hindu Kush-himalayan region with special reference to the Kangchenjunga landscape. Biodivers Conserv Kangchenjunga Landscape p 13

  45. Sharma E, Molden D, Wester P, Shrestha R (2016) The Hindu Kush Himalayan monitoring and assessment programme: action to sustain a global asset. Mt Res Dev 36:236–239. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00061.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shuyong L, Mei H, Shenggong L (2014) REDD+ and China’s contribution. In IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, vol 17, no 1. IOP Publishing, p 012021

  47. Skutsch MM, Karky BS, Rana EB, Kotru R, Karki S, Joshi L, Pradhan N, Gilani H, Joshi G (2012) Options for payment mechanisms under national REDD+ programmes. ICIMOD working paper 2012/6. Kathmandu: ICIMOD

  48. Streck C, Parker C (2012) Financing REDD+: Analysing REDD+ challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, pp 111–128

    Google Scholar 

  49. Stumpf S, Kleymann H and Windhorst K (2018) Results-based finance for REDD+: approaches, perspectives and challenges. In REDD in Nepal: experiences from the REDD readiness phase, pp 3–17

  50. Tint K, Springate-Baginski O, Gyi MKK (2011) Community forestry in Myanmar: progress and potentials. ECCDI, Yangon

    Google Scholar 

  51. UNFCCC (2015a) India’s intended nationally determined contribution: working towards climate justice. Accessed on 20 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%2520Documents/India/1/INDIA%2520INDC%2520TO%2520UNFCCC.pdf

  52. UNFCCC (2015b) Kingdom of Bhutan intended nationally determined contribution. Accessed on 17 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Bhutan%2520First/Bhutan-INDC-20150930.pdf

  53. UNFCCC (2015c) Intended nationally determined contributions (INDC). Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Accessed on 18 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Bangladesh%2520First/INDC_2015_of_Bangladesh.pdf

  54. UNFCCC (2015d) Enhanced actions on climate change: China’s intended nationally determined contributions. Accessed on 18 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%2520Documents/China/1/China's%2520INDC%2520-%2520on%252030%2520June%25202015.pdf

  55. UNFCCC (2015e) Islamic Republic of Afghanistan intended nationally determined contribution. Accessed on 18 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%2520Documents/Afghanistan/1/INDC_AFG_Paper_En_20150927_.docx%2520FINAL.pdf

  56. UNFCCC (2015f) Myanmar’s intended nationally determined contribution-INDC. Accessed on 20 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%2520Documents/Myanmar/1/Myanmar's%2520INDC.pdf

  57. UNFCCC (2016a) Government of Nepal Ministry of Population and Environment, intended nationally determined contributions (INDC). Accessed on 20 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%2520Documents/Nepal/1/Nepal_INDC_08Feb_2016.pdf

  58. UNFCCC (2016b). Pakistan’s intended nationally determined contribution (PAK-INDC), Accessed on 19 Sep 2019, from https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/submissions/INDC/Published%2520Documents/Pakistan/1/Pak-INDC.pdf

  59. UNFCCC (2018a). Report of the technical assessment of the proposed forest reference level of Nepal submitted in 2017. Retrieved 27 May 2019, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2017/tar/npl.pdf

  60. UNFCCC (2018b) Report of the technical assessment of the proposed forest reference level of India submitted in 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2019, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tar2017_IND.pdf

  61. UNFCCC (2019). Report of the technical assessment of the proposed forest reference level of Myanmar submitted in 2018. Retrieved 23 May 2019, from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/tar2018_MMR.pdf

  62. Weichang L (2018). Community forestry in China: current status and perspectives. Retrieved 3 May 2018, from FAO website: https://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0004-C1.HTM

  63. Wong G, Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Carmenta R, Duchelle A, Leonard S, Wunder S (2016) Results-based payments for REDD+: Lessons on finance, performance, and non-carbon benefits, vol 138. CIFOR, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  64. World Bank (2018) Capacity development for natural resource management—rangelands and forests in Afghanistan: the foundation of sustainable rural development

  65. Xu J, Grumbine RE (2014) Building ecosystem resilience for climate change adaptation in the Asian highlands. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 5(6):709–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zahid J (2018) Deforestation to reforestation REDD+ in Pakistan. policy Brief No. 62. Sustainable Development Policy Institute

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to our colleagues at International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) working under the REDD+ Himalaya Initiative and our partners from Bhutan, India and Myanmar for lending support and for making this paper a reality.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shambhavi Basnet.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Disclaimer The views and interpretations in this publication are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those of ICIMOD and do not imply the expression of any opinion by ICIMOD concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or the endorsement of any product.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basnet, S., Karki, B.S. REDD+ Across Transboundary Landscapes: A Look into the Opportunities and Challenges of Participatory Forest Management Systems in Receiving Results Based Payments in the Hindu Kush Himalayan Region. Small-scale Forestry (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-020-09448-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • REDD+ 
  • Results-based payment
  • Participatory forest management
  • Benefit sharing
  • South–south learning
  • Transboundary