Rights to Land, Forests and Carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica

Abstract

Land tenure and carbon rights constitute critical issues to take into account in achieving emission reductions, ensuring transparent benefit sharing and determining non-permanence (or non-compliance) liabilities in the context of REDD+ strategies and projects. This is so because tenure systems influence who becomes involved in efforts to avoid deforestation and improve forest management, and that land tenure, carbon rights and liabilities may be linked or divorced with implications for rural development. This paper explores these issues by looking at tenure regimes and carbon rights issues in Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. It is effectively shown that complex bundles of rights over forest resources have distinct implications for REDD+ design and implementation, and that REDD+ strategies in selected countries have to date failed in procedurally addressing land-use conflicts and carbon rights entitlements and liabilities. OPEN ACCESSForests 2011, 2 302

Taking Stock of Carbon Rights in REDD+ Candidate Countries: Concept Meets Reality

“…Similarly, carbon rights allocation could also be considered a "resource tenure", comparable to the civil law notion of the right of usufruct [17]. This is the right of reaping the fruits (fructus), i.e., income or benefit from someone else's property, without destroying or wasting the subject over which such a right is extended [12,37]. Usufruct is usually conferred for a limited time period, although long-term use rights, as for example for indigenous people on public lands in Brazil, do exist.…”

“…It "contains an explicit reference to the state's legitimate entitlement to forest carbon from concessionaires and it is thus likely that the state will also claim the carbon rights from government-administered areas" [12] (p. 332). These findings are in line with an analysis of the Brazilian readiness strategy by Larson et al [42] concluding that Brazil leans towards linking formal land ownership with carbon rights.…”

“…However, in many countries the rights to resources such as timber or NTFPs are separated from the right to land through the definition of use rights, such as timber or mining concessions in Peru or Cameroon. Following this logic, carbon ownership may belong to holders of the rights to the resource [12,24].…”

“…The question of liability in REDD+ has not been discussed in depth for the national or sub-national levels. However, a prominent opinion is that whoever claims ownership over carbon as a property or rights to benefit should be held responsible in case of failure to meet emissions reductions commitments [12,42].…”

“…17). To link these mechanisms with national systems, different approaches to REDD+ benefit sharing within participating countries are being discussed: (I) national accounting and implementation; (II) national accounting with sub-national or project implementation; (III) project-based accounting and implementation [2,7,8,12]. Depending on the type of benefit sharing mechanism and governance levels involved, regulatory systems are needed at the international, national and sub-national levels that define and allocate the ownership of carbon in light of national or local conditions [8,11,13] (Figure 1).…”