Estado de Mato Grosso datos

Area: 903,000 km
Amazon 51%, Cerrado 43%, Pantanal 6%

2.9 millones de personas

Urbanization 76%

El estado brasilieo con la mas alta produccin de cereales

Soja: 17 MT en 2008 (8% de produccion global), Algodon 2 MT Ganado: 26 M animales en 2008

2nd productor de madera en Amazonia

4.0 Mm de troncos/maderos procesados in 2009

ganado en Brasil/Amazonia (numero de animales) y precio de res

 Enfoque a noroeste de Mato Grosso, a un municipio (Cotriguau) y a distinto actores y instituciones/ instrumentos para la conservacin de bosques y REDD+ Mato Grosso est siendo estudiado por el proyecto PolicyMix

Areas deforestadas en Mato Grosso

Areas deforestadas: 37% del terrritorio del estado
55% fue deforestado despues de 1990

Augmento en la demanda para tierra de uso agricola Costo de oportunidad medio estimado $ 1,500 / ha Costo de oportunidad es previsto a augmentar

Remaining forests Remaining savannas Main roads Deforested areas

Estructura de la tenencia de tierra en Mato Grosso

Number of areas
# 68 73 386 ~ 100,000 10,700

Area
km 000 134 33 43 694 206 488 903 % 15 4 5 77 23 54 100

Category
Indigenous Lands Conservation Units Smallholders settlements Private properties Registered in SLAPR

Not yet registered

Total

~ 90,000

Instituciones principales existentes en Mato Grosso para la conservacion

ZSEE - Ecological Economic Zoning (regla de % de bosque en tierras privadas)
SIMLAM (Sistema Integrado de Monitoramento e Licenciamento Ambiental) Land use planning Monitoring and control Incentive to sustainable activities (sustainable criteria) Legal Mato Grosso program

Ecological Value Added Tax

Instituciones NUEVAS en Mato Grosso para la conservacion:

REDD y crditos de carbon Governors Climate and Task Force - ya est legalizado en California (cap and trade system)

REDD Mato Grosso incluye:

Legal, Regulatory technical and institutional framework REDD law and regulations Principles criteria and procedures for the registration and/or certification of REDD projects State-wide sector specific programs: (private forests, family farming, indigenous peoples) Defining the state baselines Designing the institution for the issuance of REDD credits Designing the functions to manage the REDD system

 Proyecto GEF/UNDP/Mato Grosso:

Promoted alternative land use systems and territorial environmental management 11 local partner organizations:
5 municipal governments 2 indigenous associations 3 associations of colonists / agrarian reform settlements

1.78 million for mosaic of protected areas Non timber forest production investements (Brazil nuts, latex) Attracted 1.5 million in public investment through the Mato Grosso Legal program Pioneer FSC management certificate for 29,000 ha of certified forest management

REDD General approach and targets

Deforestation reduction target in Mato Grossos forest area, 2006-2020

Reference scenario based on historical emissions

Estimate future deforestation? crediting baseline? Baseline and target for cerrado and for degradation? Estimate of emissions?

reduction

Additionality: deforestation reduction Generate REDD Certificates (Credits)

Problemas conceputales con el modelo de REDD+/PES

Mucho analisis y planes para REDD+ enfatizan la cuantificacion del servicio de carbon como una moneda (ton CO2-eq), y el sistema del monitoreo, y el mecanismo de pagos correlacionados con los costos de oportunidad (p.e. Banco Mundial FCPF). Tendencia de organizacines globales mencionar los aspectos institucionales, los derechos, y la legitimidad, pero no los enfatizan ni enfatizan motivaciones sociales o culturales en la conservacin. Enfasis en el mercado.

Problemas conceputales con el modelo de REDD+/PES

Requiere un mercado perfecto para funcionar bien - lo cual tiene poca relevancia socio-ecologica (Muradian et al. 2010) No se puede compensar para todos los costos de oporunidad ($1,500/ha) ! La commodificacin tiende a limitar nuestra percepciones al mundo natural y al las relacines socio-ecologicas: aisla propiedades de los ecosistemas, no toma en cuenta valores sociales o culturales, ni las relaciones de poder entre diferentes grupos sociales. (Kosoy y Corbera 2010).

Problemas conceputales con el modelo de REDD+/RED

Mas all de un mercado, hay las estructuras de gobernanza, las instituciones o las reglas de juego, y las dinmicas sociales, culturales e economica-politicas
1. 2. 3. los derechos y obligaciones de distintos actores y como estan afectados los costos de transaccion (que incluye el tiempo y el costo de informacion) perspectivas, intereses, valores de los distintos grupos

REDD+ tiene un enfoque limitado - todo lo siguiente esta implicada en el crisis global de la tierra:
Seguridad (o Soberania) Alimentaria Pobreza rural Agua Perdida de biodiversidad Emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI)

REDD/REDD+ se dirige a las emissiones de GEI solamente!

Propuesta de tesis
Objectivo prinicpal: Identificar las condiciones contextuales (institucional) que serian necesarios para que la conservacin de bosques puede funcionar frente a distintos grupos agrarios. Pregunta central: cuales instituciones/instrumentos son vistos como legitimos (o no legitimos) desde su punta de vista social y cultural? Hipotesis central: estrategias multiples son necesarios para la legitimidad social de una politica de conservacin

Aportes del tesis

Una propuesta para un mezcla mix de instituciones que lograria legitimidad social (y de alli, politica eficaz). Una metodologia para probar para la legitimidad y coherencia de las instituciones/instrumentos ya validada en el campo.

Aporte investigativo a PolicyMix

Conceptos / definiciones claves

Legitimidad (Legitimacy): everyone involved accepts the processes and outcomes (Corbera et al. 2007) todos estan de acuerdo con el procedimiento y las consecuencias/resultados

Conceptos / definiciones claves

Costos de transaccin:
Costos no-monetarios y monetarios para participar, o estar de acuerdo con, una institucion El tesis enfoque a los costos percebidos (tiempo, esfuerzo) de los actores

 Enfoque a un proyecto piloto REDD+ en Cotriguau:

1 -- Mejoramienteo de la gobernanza de bosques

2 -- Incentivos para la conservacion de bosques en tierras con tenencia privada 89% de la deforestacin esta ocurriendo en propiedades privadas Propiedades privadas tienen 56% del bosque remanente Incluye incentivos para La conservacion de bosque remanente Manejo sostenible de bosques naturales La intensificacion de la ganaderia
3 -- Una garantia para compensacion para grupos indigenos y tradicionales y para agricultores colonistas Los pagos sern realizados por via de los mercados de carbon (voluntarios? California?)

Metodologia
Como probar que hay/no hay legitimidad., y en que consisten estas percepciones? Metodos cualitativos e etnogrficos Mas que la informacion y beneficios/no beneficios; involucra interfaces entre grupos y instituciones

POLICYMIX WP 5 Guidelines for Assessing Social Impacts and Legitimacy in Conservation

POLICYMIX WP 6.1 Guidelines for the analysis of institutions shaping biodiversity policy instrument applicability

Metodos cualitativos organizados por subobjectivo

Qualitative methods and sample sizes Key informant Interviews unstructured (n=10) Focus groups (total n=13) Surveys Land-based stakeholders Semi-structured individual interviews (n=40) Land-based stakeholders
Subobje ctive 1 Identification of stakeholder actors Subobje ctive 2 Identification/ characteristics/ interdependencies of institutions Subobje ctive 3 Stakeholder perceptions on T ransaction costs Procedures Distributional outcomes Subobje ctive 4 Stakeholder perceptions on Institutional legitimacy; Institutional influence on conservation attitudes/culture/ subje ctivity

(n=10)

(n=5)

(n=8)

(n=60)

(n=40)

Subobjectivo 1 - mapeo de los actores sociales (stakeholders)

Determinar cuales son los grupos de actores que estn implicados (como agente o sujeto) el proyecto piloto de REDD+ en Cotriguau, y, para cada grupo, sus perspectivas sobre el uso de recursos naturales o su sprioridades sobre el diseo de programas y politicas
SUBOBJECTIVE 1 QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES

Number and type of actors involved in design of various Determine stakeholder actor How do local land-based actors perceiv e institutions/instruments in the REDD+ context groups involved in /affected by their land and natural resource rights and the pilot REDD+ project in e.g. Cotrigua and, for each group, responsibilities? u, Cattle ranchers their perspective natural resources Land settler colonists and small farmers rights/responsibili ties or on policy What are the past and current policy design Agrindustrial f armers (soy, cotton) design priorties. and impl ementation priorities for policy Indigenous/traditional communities (Rikbaksta ,

Ex post. All scales (local to global). Qualitative. Based on key informant interviews and focus groups.

implementing stakeholder s in the REDD+ context? ( e.g. PES, protected ar eas, MRV, agriculture)

quilombos) Loggers NGOs (ICV, TNC) Municipal and Mato Grosso state functionaries Brazilian federal functionaries Carbon market intermediaries Activist/agrarian reform organizations?

Subobjectivo 1 - mapeo de los actores sociales (stakeholders)

Scale Stakeholders/ Organizations Possible perspectives, interests, motivations, values
Livelihood Business income Culture

Community or individual level

Cattle ranchers Land settler colonists Indigenous communities T imber extractors

Municipal / St ate

Municipal government St ate government St ate environmental ministry ICV Agricultural lobbies

Electo ral Revenues Monitoring Enforcement Education Project Management Sovereignty Electo ral Development

National

Amazon Fund Brazil federal ministries IBAMA INCRA FUNAI Agricultural national lobbies

Global

PolicyMix UNFCCC Government of Norway Carbon project intermediaries (e.g. finance/consulting companies e.g. Terra) Carbon verifiers (VCS) World Bank UN-REDD T NC Globa l NGO s with alternative positions (FOE) Oil/gas/coal lobbies

Cost e ffective Cost e fficient Environmentally effective

Actores en el paisaje

Subobjetivo 2 - mapeo de instituciones

Determinar las instituciones/instrumentos (formales y informales) que estn implicadas en el proyecto piloto REDD+, los criterios/valores en su
diseo/implmentacin, y interdependencias entre ellas
SUBOBJECTIVE 2 Institutional design (rules) QUESTIONS INDICATORS/VARIABLES

Which institutions/in struments does REDD+ (in Cotrigua incorp orate: u) Determine the economic/incentives (e.g. PES/EFT) institutions/instruments (formal and legal/regulatory/enforc ement (e. g. EEZ) informal) relevant to the pilot information mechani sms (e.g. Simlam) REDD+ project, the criteria/values customary/infor mal (e..g Rikbakt a self applied in their design, and governance) interdependencies/interplay between them.

Formal legal and policy framework (historical and present) Number and type of institutions comprising or relate d to REDD+ Types of rules that each institution/instrument establishes? (e. g. rules of exclusion, entitlemen t rules, monitoring rules, d ecision -making rules)

Ex post. Local to national scale (not global). Based on review of secondary literature on formal legal/policy environment, and key informant interviews.

What values/criteri a (e.g. additionality, common goods) are used in the design, implementation and adaptation of Purpose of the institution/instrument in natural resource these institutions/in struments? governanc e (i.e. collective choic e, conflict resolution, enforcement, provisioning and recovery of its costs) What rights and responsibili ties are involved with these institutions / instruments ? e.g: 1. land tenure rights 2. representation/ac cess to institutions 3. entitlements 4. access t o grievan ce mec hanisms Which institutional synergies and conflicts exist as a result of REDD+ institutional interactions? How are REDD + institutional criteria interdependent with other biodiversity conservation and rural development institutional criteria? Functional levels for each institution/instrument (i.e. constitutional, operational, collective choice) and the spatial di stribu tion of these functions (e.g. state, municipal , rural, courts, online) Scale s (structural tiers ) at which each institution/instrument operates (e.g. local , state, national, global) Reasons for rule changes (e.g. changes in procedure and changes in th e distribution of benefits/costs) INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS / RULE S ?

Determinar las instituciones/instrumentos (formales y informales) que estn implicadas en el proyecto piloto REDD+, los criterios/valores en su diseo/implmentacin, y interdependencias entre ellas
Institution (rights- Type responsibili ties
Payments to land users/manag ers (PES) based on carbon markets Economic

Subobjetivo 2 - mapeo de instituciones

Scale

Possible institutional rule criteria / values (cf. Pascual et al. 2010)

Additionality vs. C arbon stock Compensation Common goods Egalitarian Actual provision

Local/ State

Ecological fiscal transfer to municipalities (EFT) Guareented market price for NTFP Land tenure rights and territorial manag ement Zoning (f orest reserve) (EEZ ) SIG land use system (SIMLAM) Timber/wood Certification Agriculture/ Agrifo restry

Economic

State

Economic Legal (+informal) Legal Information

National/ Global? National

National/ State State

Information Information

Global National/ State

Egalitarian ? (but favoring larg er landowner s with facility to access intermediarie s, technology (transaction costs)) Common goods? Common goods

Subobjetivo 3 - percepciones sobre las consecuencias de procedimiento y de distribucion

Determinar las percepciones de los actores en la regin sobre distintos procedimientos, beneficios/costos (consecuencias), y costos de transaccin, que tiene que ver con REDD+ o la conservacin (p.e. programas ya implementadas por el GEF)
SUBOBJECTIVE 3 Stakeholder perceptions on institutional design and performance
Number of participants and hectares in REDD+

QUESTIONS

INDICATORS/VARIABLES

Determine the perceptions of stakeholder in the What institutional/economic instrument procedu res Number of participants who fail to comply with municipality/region (not actors at all scales!), are known? one or more institutional rules on procedures, distributional outcomes Why do beneficiaries decide to participate in x (incurred benefits and costs), and transaction institutions/instruments related to REDD+ ? Actorsinterests, socio -cultural values and land costs, involving REDD+ in Cotrigua u (i.e. the various institutions that comprise or are implicated in the pilot REDD+ project) Ex post. Local scale. Informal / qualitative / ethnographic analysis.
What are actors investments in time, learning to participate or be in complianc e (perceive d transaction costs)? Are institutional procedures deemed to be fair? based on recognition of stakeholde r identity

use practices taken into account or exclude d in the design, impl ementation and adaptation of REDD+ institutional context? Perceived time required to assess institutions / gather info rmation Perceived time required for participation and fulfillment of n ew responsibili ties

How are distributional outcomes (incu rred benefits Perceptions of procedural justice and costs) deemed to be fair? (being recogni zed, having a say, having influence/pow er) Are existing or new rights secure and enforced? Perceptions of distribution al justice (money , training)

Determinar si la legitimidad o la autoridad de distinta instituciones/instrumentos (conservacin o REDD+) son reconocidas, y si valores/intereses/motivaciones para la conservacin y el uso sostenible de bosques y la tierra, son apoyados o generados
SUBOBJECTIVE 4 Recognition of legitimacy/authority and subjectivity
Discours e of different stakeholders surrounding the The local stakeholder s perceive institutions/instruments legitmacy an d authority of different institutions as fair, just and legitimate? Qualitative extent of interaction between local stakeholders How do local stakeholders defin e problems and and managing institions information gathering processes , and ma ke decisions in relation to/with these institutions? Qualitative extent t o which local stakeholders define problems an d information gathering -processes How do local stakeholders perceive that the institutions/instruments have affected AND will aff ect Characteristics of stakeholder group influe nce on their land use and conservation practices? institutional design, implementation and adaptiveness Which actors shape the forest conservation and RED D+ institutional landscapeand how are their perspectives, , interests and motivations represented in the final rules ?

Subobjetivo 4 - percepcion de la legitimidad y la influyencia de las instituciones REDD+

QUESTIONS

INDICATORS/VARIABLES

Determine if/how the legitimacy or authority of different institutions/instruments (REDD+ related) are recognized, and if/how attitudes/culture/subjectivity involving conservation/the environment are supported, generated, or transformed. Ex post and ex ante. Local scale. Informal / qualitative / ethnographic analysis.

Metodos etnogrficos

ANNEX I: questionaire survey Sample questionaire surveys for local land user stakeholders. The survey is organized by reference to different insitutions (see table 2 for institutions involved in REDD+).

Institution Payments for forest carbon credits (PES) : 1. are you aware of programs for payments for environmental services for forest carbon? 2. how do you access the program ? in other words, do you show identification, provide your name? do you need specific documents? official title to land? 3. what is your understanding of how this program functions? what is forest carbon? 4. what is the objective of the program, in your own words? 5. In general, how do you view this program? (scale of 1-10: 1- very negatively 10- very positively) 6. can you weight the following in terms of how it influences your positive or negative perception of this program (on a scale of 1 not at all to 10 tremendously): effort / time needed to participate financial benefits or costs access to training or information access to services access to tools, in kind goods, or technology philosophy or values informing the design and implementation the program how it affects rights and responsibili ties involving forests and land social/community value or importance for natural resource practices the program ability / non-abili ty to adapt to local needs s 7. how much time / effort / money does it take to participate? (scale of 1-10: 1minimally difficult 10- impossibly difficult) 8. have you stopped participating or have you decided not to follow the recommendations? why?

9. do you feel that your voice is heard in decisionmaking around this program? Do you have a say in how the program is designed, operates or changes? (sca of 1-10: 1le negatively 10- tremendoustly) 10. how do you feel that PES has contributed to your material well being (scale of 1-10: 1negatively 10- tremendoustly) (economic) 11. how do you feel that PES has provided good information, or has helped you to access or participate in other programs? (information) how much on a scale of 1-10? 12. do you feel that PES has contributed to your being able to have a say or an influence in how decisions are made? (sociopolitical) how much on a scale of 1-10? 13. how do you feel PES contributes to your rights, participation in collective management of natural resources (scale of 1-10 : 1 not at all 10-tremendously) 14. Has this institution affected your perspective on other programs/institutions? to engage with or stop engaging with other programs/institutions? If so, how? 15. how do you feel this instituion has contributed to your sense of responsibili ty about the environment? 16. can you characterize in your own words this sense of responsibilty?