In many countries, the state owns or manages forests in the national interests of economic development, ecosystem service provision or biodiversity conservation. A national approach to reducing deforestation and forest degradation and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) will thus most likely involve governmental entities at different governance levels from central to local. Sub-national governments that implement REDD+ activities will generate carbon ecosystem services and potentially other co-benefits, such as biodiversity conservation, and in the process incur implementation and opportunity costs for these actions. This occasional paper analyses the literature on ecological fiscal transfers (EFTs), with a focus on experiences in Brazil and Portugal, to draw lessons for how policy instruments for intergovernmental transfers can be designed in a national REDD+ benefit-sharing system. EFTs can be an effective policy instrument for improving revenue adequacy and fiscal equalization across a country. They facilitate financial allocations based on a sub-national government’s environmental performance, and could also partly compensate the costs of REDD+ implementation. We find that intergovernmental EFTs targeting sub-national public actors can be an important element of policy mix for REDD+ benefit sharing, particularly in a decentralized governance system, as decisions on forest and land use are being made at sub-national levels. Given the increasing focus and interest on jurisdictional REDD+, EFTs may have a role in filling the shortfall of revenues for REDD+ readiness and for implementing enabling actions related to forest governance. If EFTs are to have efficient and equitable outcomes, however, they will require strong information-sharing and transparency systems on environmental indicators and performance, and the disbursement and spending of EFT funds across all levels

This brief focuses on lessons from the extractive resource sectors (oil, gas and mining) for REDD+ benefit-sharing. Specifically, it examines the different ways that revenues accruing to the government are distributed to subnational levels and the outcomes of different arrangements for doing so. These lessons are particularly relevant for scenarios where REDD+ revenues might reach significant volumes. Two main sorts of revenue would need to be distributed in the case of REDD+: i) payments to central or sub-national governments from international sources for emissions reduced and ii) taxes and fees collected by central government from REDD+ activities (Irawan et al. 2014). In both cases, decisions are needed on how to redistribute revenue between central and sub-national levels. A key concern in decisions over public revenues is allocation across jurisdictions. In this paper, we look at the rationales behind the way revenues from the sector are shared both with sub-national governments and across extractive and non-extractive localities. This experience is relevant for key questions facing REDD+ such as how to link benefit to performance at the sub-national levels, how to compensate costs, how to distribute benefits across a nation and how to enhance development outcomes. In so doing, we address key concerns in the debate about REDD+ benefit-sharing. These include how REDD+ might act as an incentive for reducing deforestation and degradation, and how it might also be integrated into development planning to help achieve wider outcomes.

Subnational governments’ capacity to effectively fund and deliver public services are crucial for the realisation of the benefits of decentralisation. However, subnational capacities often suffer from significant weaknesses, ranging from inadequate assignments of own-revenues, through to flaws in tax administration, the design of intergovernmental transfers, spending assignments and various aspects of public financial management.

Constructive critique. This book provides a critical, evidence-based analysis of REDD+ implementation so far, without losing sight of the urgent need to reduce forest-based emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change. REDD+ as envisioned

REDD+ must be transformational. REDD+ requires broad institutional and governance reforms, such as tenure, decentralisation, and corruption control. These reforms will enable departures from business as usual, and involve communities and forest users in making and implementing policies that a ect them. Policies must go beyond forestry. REDD+ strategies must include policies outside the forestry sector narrowly de ned, such as agriculture and energy, and better coordinate across sectors to deal with non-forest drivers of deforestation and degradation. Performance-based payments are key, yet limited. Payments based on performance directly incentivise and compensate forest owners and users. But schemes such as payments for environmental services (PES) depend on conditions, such as secure tenure, solid carbon data and transparent governance, that are often lacking and take time to change. This constraint reinforces the need for broad institutional and policy reforms. We must learn from the past. Many approaches to REDD+ now being considered are similar to previous e orts to conserve and better manage forests, often with limited success. Taking on board lessons learned from past experience will improve the prospects of REDD+ e ectiveness. National circumstances and uncertainty must be factored in. Di erent country contexts will create a variety of REDD+ models with di erent institutional and policy mixes. Uncertainties about the shape of the future global REDD+ system, national readiness and political consensus require  exibility and a phased approach to REDD+ implementation.

Experiences from incentive-based forest management are examined for their effects on the livelihoods of local communities. In the second section, country case studies provide a snapshot of REDD developments to date and identify design features for REDD that would support benefits for forest communities.