Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction USAID LEAF Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)

Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module Development Team Acknowledgements Name Affiliation Surin Onprom; Co-Lead Kasetsart University, Thailand Tran Thi Thu Ha Vietnam Forestry University Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Nguyen Dinh Hai Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead RECOFTC Vo Mai Anh Claudia Radel; Co-Lead Utah State University Tran Tuan Viet Sarah Hines; Co-Lead US Forest Service Cao Tien Trung Vinh University, Vietnam Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn Chiang Mai University, Nguyen T. Trang Thanh Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria University Kebangsaan Malaysia Nguyen Thu Ha USAID Vietnam Forests & Deltas Mohd Rusli Yacob University Putra Malaysia Maeve Nightingale IUCN MFF Kaisone Phengspha National University of Laos Guada Lagrada PACT MPE Phansamai Phengspha Le Van Trung DARD Lam Dong Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh AIT Thailand Freddie Alei University of Papua New Guinea David Ganz USAID LEAF Bangkok Chay Kongkruy Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia Kalpana Giri Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy Royal University of Phnom Penh, Chi Pham Project Coordinator Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module Development Team Various individuals have participated in the development of the RECCCD SES Module.

Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1. Introduction to Climate Change 1.2. The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context 1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) 1.4. Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD 2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV 2.2. Governance 2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights 2.3. Stakeholder Participation 2.3.1. FPIC 2.4. Social Co-benefits 2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment 2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools 2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index 2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment 2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction 2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG 2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER 3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs 3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards 3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module The full module outline is on the slide, including subsections. Below are the number of possible teaching sessions associated with each section or topic (with subsections sessions included with the main section sessions). The estimation of possible teaching sessions is based on an assumption of 50 minutes or an hour per teaching session. Course material can be adapted to longer and shorter formats. Social & Environmental Soundness Module Outline 1.0. Introduction and Background: What is Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) and its Larger Climate Change Context? 1.1. Introduction to Climate Change (1 session) 1.2. The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context – An Introduction to REDD+ (3 sessions) 1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) (4 sessions) 1.4. Guiding Frameworks—Sustainable Development & Ethics (1 session) 2.0. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (5 sessions) 2.2. Governance (5 sessions) 2.3. Stakeholder Participation (4 sessions) 2.4. Social Co-benefits (1 session) 2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment (4 sessions) 2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment (1 sessions) 2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction (2 sessions) 2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing (2 sessions) 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability (3 sessions) 3.0. State of the Art in Action: Bringing the Pieces Together 3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs (1 session) 3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards (1 session) 3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards (1 sessions)

Learning Objectives At the end of this section, learners will be able to: Explain the livelihood concept and the sustainable livelihoods framework Assess and apply the asset pentagon approach Distinguish forest-dependent livelihoods from other types of livelihoods Consider how gender might be incorporated into the sustainable livelihoods framework Assess the link between REDD+, forest governance, and forest-dependent livelihoods

Outline What is a livelihood? Asset pentagons Forest - dependent livelihoods The sustainable livelihoods framework Gender incorporated in sustainable livelihood framework REDD+, forest governance and forest dependent livelihoods Photo source: http://shahudsf.blogspot.com/2011/04/vrutti-livelihood-resource-center_28.html

Methodology In-class presentation of conceptual material Plenary discussion Small group activity To be followed by PNG April Salumei Case Study (see 2.7.1) for further application

Pre-Class Preparation Students can be asked to read the following prior to attending this session: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

What is a Livelihood? “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living” (Chambers & Conway, 1992) For enhanced learning, ask students to provide examples for each of these three components (capabilities, assets, and activities) listed here in this definition. Reference: Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.

Asset Status Pentagon: the five assets / capitals The asset pentagon is usually applied at the household scale, but it could also be applied at an individual scale (the individual scale can allow for the comparison of individuals within the same households, like men and women). The following text is excerpted directly from INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS, David Harvey, (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF806/Intro.html#Framework): Assets, also known as resources, or capitals, include investments for the future (including surpluses, or retained earnings from previous periods, as well as training, education, networks etc.), stores or stocks of physical capital, and claims which can be exercised on others. "most of the anomalies between the lists of different researchers can be resolved through the classification as Natural, Physical, Social, Human and Financial." (Ellis, 2000, p 32). Natural Capital comprises land, water, biodiversity, environmental resources etc. - [which could be called the natural circumstance of the community or household], of varying agro-ecological potential, and differentiated between renewable and non-renewable (mostly mineral) resources. Social Capital includes the social institutions (rules and habits) and associated trust and networks [the history (context) and culture of the community] - "the reciprocity within communities and between households based on trust deriving from social ties" - see Harriss & De Renzio, 1997 - which can also be described as vertical linkages (authority relationships (parent/child) and social responsibilities of the better-off, with associated claims by the less well-off) as well as horizontal linkages in voluntary and kinship networks. Exclusion from these networks and reciprocal trust relationships clearly presents potentially serious problems for the excluded. The literature distinguishes three major types/forms: Bonding (horizontal associations such as family and kinship ties, and common language); Bridging (communications networks etc. which connect separate bonded groups); Linking (which generates and encourages respect, recognition of mutual dependence, inclusion, reciprocity etc., and exchange) Human Capital includes the skills, training and education of the people (as workers) as well as their health [the character of the community, as its potential for action] - typically the major asset of the poor. In the context of Structural Adjustment Programmes in developing countries, with an emphasis on government budgetary balance and liberalisation, may compromise this asset by cost-recovery edicts for health (drugs) and education, while in economies in transition, many of these 'services' which were supplied through the production cooperatives have not yet been adequately replaced by the state or public funds. Physical Capital is man-made, and includes the infrastructure (transport, housing, water, energy systems (mains electricity), sewage systems, communications networks etc.) as well as production equipment: factories, machines and tools, and also 'consumer' capital (fridges, deep-freezes, telephones, internet connections etc.) - [the physical circumstance of the community or household]. Financial Capital: household savings (if any) and access to loans and credit, which "owe their role in the asset portfolio of households to their convertibility into other forms of capital or, indeed, directly into consumption. Fungibility, meaning ease of switching between uses, is a fundamental characteristic of capital in the form of cash." (p.34). But savings are often held in less liquid forms, as stocks of livestock (goats, cattle), or as gold, food stocks etc. (especially when financial institutions and organisations (banks etc.) are missing or mistrusted. Reference: Harvey, D. “Introduction to Sustainable Livelihoods”, online resource. (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF806/Intro.html#Framework) Graphic source: Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, p. 49, reproduced on website in reference above.

Simplified definition of 5 capitals Social capital - The social resources (networks, membership, relationships of trust, access to wider institutions of society) upon which people draw in pursuit of livelihoods Other related categories of capital that some scholars also use: Cultural capital - The practices, traditions, and resources that are central to a people's identity and the means and processes to maintain these. Political capital - The policies and legislations, political supports, governance processes, and formalized institutions that facilitate or hinder the transformation of the other capital assets Note that various scholars choose to use different or additional categories of capital, so that they might designate more than five types. Cultural capital and political capital are used less frequently than the commonly used five: social, human, physical, natural, and financial. The instructor can choose to use a case study here to unpack the definition of the different types of capital. References: Bennetta, Nathan J. and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116. Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods. In Sustainable Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Edited by D. Carney, London, DFID. Scoones I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working paper. 1998, p. 72.

Simplified definition of 5 capitals Natural capital – The natural resource stocks from which resource flows useful for livelihoods are derived (e.g. land, water, wildlife, biodiversity, environmental resources) Physical capital - The basic infrastructure (transport, shelter, water, energy, and communications) and the production equipment and means that enable people to pursue their livelihoods. The instructor can choose to use a case study here to unpack the definition of the different types of capital. References: Bennetta, Nathan J. and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116. Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods. In Sustainable Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Edited by D. Carney, London, DFID. Scoones I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working paper. 1998, p. 72.

Simplified definition of 5 capitals Human capital - The skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health important to the ability to pursue different livelihood strategies Other related categories of capital that some scholars also use: Personal capital - The intangible inner resources of an individual, such as self-perception, self-confidence, self-esteem, commitment, motivation, hope, and emotional wellbeing Financial capital - The financial resources which are available to people (whether savings, supplies of credit or regular remittances or pensions) and which provide them with different livelihood options. The instructor can choose to use a case study here to unpack the definition of the different types of capital. References: Bennetta, Nathan J. and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116. Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods. In Sustainable Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Edited by D. Carney, London, DFID. Scoones I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working paper. 1998, p. 72.

Example of asset status differences Asset status differences, based on poverty levels, from an FAO case study in Mali: Key Message: The instructor should introduce the idea here of “forest-dependent” or “natural-resource-dependent” livelihoods. The three examples above, from a Mali case study, can be used to ask students to compare the different groups of households categorized based on their poverty levels. After exploring differences and similarities among the asset pentagons for the three groups, directly ask students which group or groups of households are “forest-dependent” or “natural-resource-dependent.” In this example, the poorest households are the most “forest-dependent” or “natural-resource-dependent”: the relative importance of natural capital is highest for these poorest households. The poor households (in the middle) are also very “forest-dependent” or “natural-resource-dependent.” Graphic source: FAO, http://www.fao.org/docrep/x7749e/x7749e08.htm Questions for Discussion: What is a forest-dependent, or NR-dependent livelihood? How might such a livelihood translate onto an asset pentagon?

Asset Pentagon Activity Purpose: To apply the Livelihoods Capital/Assets Pentagon to a fictional (but realistic) family and to apply the Pentagon to the student’s own family or individual context; to consider the role of natural capital in natural-resource-dependent rural livelihoods. Tasks: 1. Individually, each student should read through the provided scenario family profile. 2. In small groups (3-4 students per group suggested), draw an asset pentagon with the radiating arm lengths proportional to the asset pools described in the scenario family profile. 3. Convene as a full class to present and discuss each group’s drawn asset pentagon. 4. As individual students, now draw personal family (or individual) asset pentagons based on students’ own situations. 5. Convene as a full class and ask for volunteers to share the personal pentagons. Ask students to compare and contrast the different personal pentagons with each other and with the natural-resource-dependent scenario family. SES Module Section Handout “Asset Pentagon Activity Family Profile” is included in the module materials. This handout provides a scenario family profile from Mexico (for a rural, natural-resource-dependent family). Instructors are encouraged strongly to design a fictional family profile that makes sense for the students’ country context, but this Mexico family profile can be used if a locally relevant profile cannot be designed. This activity can also be modified to only do steps 4 and 5.

Livelihood activities and assets: embedded within a social context Social Context: e.g. Culture, Political Economy, Gender Capabilities A Living Stores and Resources Claims and Access Key Message: This diagram presents one way to visualize the “components and flows” in a livelihood (Chambers and Conway 1992). We have added the larger social context circle to the original figure. This can help us consider how the “components and flows” are embedded within a larger social context or structure. Culture includes gender norms, but we have highlighted gender here specifically to allow this aspect to be drawn out and discussed in class by the instructor or the students. Graphic source: Adapted from Chambers and Conway, 1992.

Sustainable Livelihoods The term ‘sustainable livelihoods’ relates to a wide set of issues which encompass much of the broader debate about the relationships between poverty and environment. (Scoones, 1998) “A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Chambers and Conway, 1992) “Note that establishing indicators of outcomes [for example, in a REDD+ project context] requires a precise answer to the question: what is a sustainable livelihood? The now burgeoning literature on this subject is not particularly clear on this question. As with the now well-established term ‘sustainable development’, there are often uneasy compromises between different objectives embedded in the same definition. The term ‘sustainable livelihoods’ relates to a wide set of issues which encompass much of the broader debate about the relationships between poverty and environment. Yet in the existing literature, there is often little clarity about how contradictions are addressed and trade-offs are assessed.” (Scoones, 1998) References: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) Key Message: This diagram, or a similar version, of the sustainable livelihoods framework is the one we most commonly see in use today. It was developed by DFID (the U.K. government's Department for International Development), based on the work done by scholars at IDS (Institute of Development Studies), also in the U.K. In the next slide, we will look at one of the original diagrams from the IDS scholars, with detailed explanation, but the instructor could take some time first to go through this diagram with students: It could be discussed at length either as a full class or in small groups, to try understand each of its components. Alternatively, it can be presented quickly, and then the instructor can return to it after first going through with student the next slide with its explanation. Reference: DFID. Graphic source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5083e/y5083e02.htm

IDS’s sustainable rural livelihoods framework The following is an excerpt from Scoones, 1998: “The IDS (Institute of Development Studies) sustainable rural livelihoods framework has a number of basic elements. The key question to be asked in any analysis of sustainable livelihoods is – 
Given a particular context (of policy setting, politics, history, agro-ecology and socio-economic conditions), what combination of livelihood resources (different types of ‘capital’) result in the ability to follow what combination of livelihood strategies (e.g. agricultural intensification/extensification, livelihood diversification and migration) with what outcomes? Of particular interest in this framework are the institutional processes (embedded in a matrix of formal and informal institutions and organisations) which mediate the ability to carry out such strategies and achieve (or not) such outcomes. The framework can be applied at a range of different scales – from individual, to household, to household cluster, to extended kin grouping, to village, region or even nation, with sustainable livelihood outcomes assessed at different levels. The specification of the scale of analysis is therefore critical, as is an analysis of the interactions between levels in terms of net livelihood effects, both positive and negative.” In the next slides, we will take each of the columns here in turn, to explore in more detail. We’ll begin on the right-hand side, with the sustainable livelihood outcomes. Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

SLF: sustainable livelihood outcomes Sustainability Working days/employment increased Poverty reduced/income generation Wellbeing and capability improved Sustainable NR management Adaptation, vulnerability reduced Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

Discussion: Sustainable livelihood outcomes “A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base” (Chambers & Conway, 1992) Questions (referring to Scoones’ 1998 framework): What could be other livelihood outcomes? Are there any livelihood outcome groups other than “Livelihood” and “Sustainability”? Are any of these outcomes in conflict with each other? References: Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

SLF: livelihood resources The ability to pursue different livelihood strategies is dependent on the basic material and social, tangible and intangible assets that people have in their possession. Now we turn from the outcomes, to the livelihood resources and strategies. We’ll first discuss the resources, as the strategies depend on the resource available. If not used earlier, it would be ideal to use a case study here to unpack the definitions of the different types of capital. Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

Discussion: Livelihood resources For Discussion: Sequencing – What is the starting point for successfully establishing a particular livelihood strategy? Substitution – Can one type of capital be substituted for others? Clustering – If you have access to one type of capital, do you usually have access to others? Access – Are different people clearly having different access to different livelihood resources? Trade-offs – What are the trade-offs faced by different people with different access to different types of livelihood resource? Trends – What are the trends in terms of availability of different types of livelihood resource? If a case study was used in conjunction with the previous slide, that same case study can be used here to shape the discussion of these questions. If not, students can be guided to use their own or their family’s livelihoods to think about and answer these questions. Make sure to particularly spend time on the question of the substitutability of capital types. Some scholars think this substitutability is particularly important in the context of thinking about sustainability, and the questions of weak versus strong sustainability. From Wikipedia: “Weak sustainability is the idea within environmental economics, which states that 'human capital' can be substituted by 'natural capital'. It is based upon the work of Nobel Laureate Robert Solow and John Hartwick. Contrary to weak sustainability, strong sustainability assumes that "human capital" and "natural capital" are complementary, but not interchangeable.” See here for more: http://www.ejolt.org/2012/11/weak-vs-strong-sustainability/ Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK

SLF: livelihood strategies Three clusters of livelihood strategies are identified: Agricultural intensification/ extensification – capital-led and/or labor-led intensification; or using more land/resources. Livelihood diversification – choices to invest for accumulation and reinvestment, and coping with temporary adversity; Migration – different migration causes, effects and movement patterns. Now that we have discussed the Livelihood Resources, we can talk about the Livelihood Strategies. These are three Livelihood Strategy clusters identified within the framework (especially relevant to rural agricultural livelihoods), but students should be asked to try think about other ways that people might work to achieve better livelihood outcomes—What other strategies might they employ? What about getting a local off-farm job?, or does this strategy fall under the livelihood diversification cluster? What about for forest-dependent livelihoods? Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK. For Discussion: Are there any other livelihood strategies?

SLF: institutions and organizations So far we have been looking at selected elements of the framework – the livelihood resources which combine to allow various strategies to pursued and different outcomes to be realized. But the questions are: How is this process bound together? What structures and processes mediate the complex and highly differentiated process of achieving a sustainable livelihood? Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK

SLF: institutions and organizations, cont. We must understand the social structures and processes through which sustainable livelihoods are achieved, a description of the relationships between variables and outcomes. “Institutions are the social cement which link stakeholders to access to capital of different kinds to the means of exercising power and so define the gateways through which they pass on the route to positive or negative [livelihood] adaptation” (Davies, 1997; in Scoones, 1998) Instructors may want to go further into defining institutions in particular. Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

SLF: integrating gender How gender can be integrated in the framework? One way is that we can think of gender as a cultural institution: Key Message: One way gender can be integrated into the sustainable livelihoods framework is to think of gender as a cultural institution that establishes norms for behavior and expectations for the allocation of assets within a society. Note that the authors of this diagram, have chosen to identify “Social Structures and Processes” in place of IDS’s “institutional processes and organizational structures.” According to these authors (Radel and Coppock, 2013), the text in blue stresses one of the processes they discuss in their article: Women’s collective action can be a strategy to improve livelihood outcomes, but it can also have a feedback impact on broader social processes and may begin to transform local gender norms.” Thus gender here is incorporated as an institution, but women’s collective action in producing livelihoods can potentially transform that gender institution by starting to change what is considered normal for women to do or to have. Reference and graphic source: Radel, C. and L Coppock. 2013. The world’s gender gap in agriculture and natural resources: Evidence and explanations. Rangelands. 35(6): 7-14.

SLF: the context, condition and trends A particular context of policy setting, politics, history, agro- ecology and socio-economic conditions… Contextual analysis of conditions, trends and policy setting. For Discussion: Should REDD+ be assessed as a context or as an institution within the sustainable livelihood framework? For the discussion question, the instructor can guide students to think about how REDD+ is a policy and therefore can be thought of in terms of context (national context, international context), but in addition, REDD+, especially at the local scale with projects, can act as a series of structures and processes, with rules governing resource and livelihood access (i.e., like an institution). Reference: Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK.

Activity: Gendered Livelihoods Identify how a gender approach could be integrated into a sustainable livelihoods framework, using the diagram below. How does gender play a role in livelihoods? Print copies of this slide for distribution to students, or use the SES Module Section 2.7 Handout “Activity-How does gender play a role in livelihoods”. Have students work together in small groups of 3-4 students each. Ask them to mark on the diagram all the “entry points” for a gender approach to livelihoods, with explanations. Remind students of the key characteristics of a gender approach (see SES Module Section 2.5). The key characteristics of a gender approach: Identifies key gender differences, their expression, and their outcomes, Focusses on both men and women—not just women, Considers differences among men and among women, Treats gender as non-static. The instructor may want to have these key characteristics on display as students work on this activity in small groups in class. A handout has been created (SES Module Section 2.7 Handout “Activity-How does gender play a role in livelihoods”), which lists these characteristics on the same page with the livelihoods diagram. Graphic source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5083e/y5083e02.htm

Forest-dependent livelihoods Using a local case study example, discuss the following question: How might livelihoods in the case study be reflected in the sustainable livelihoods framework? A case study has not been identified for this activity or discussion. Instructors can either find a local country case study, or simply describe a set of livelihood strategies for households in a forested area with which they are familiar. Photo source: A cinnamon farmer, Hadari, harvesting cinnamon in the forest near Lubuk Beringin village, Bungo district, Jambi province, Indonesia. Tri Saputro/CIFOR photo. A cinnamon farmer, Hadari, harvesting cinnamon in the forest near Lubuk Beringin village, Bungo district, Jambi province, Indonesia. Tri Saputro/CIFOR photo

REDD+, forest governance and forest-dependent livelihoods REDD+’s impacts on forest communities depend on two factors: the incentives offered to the different entities affecting deforestation and forest communities’ livelihoods; and the mix of benefits, rights and participation for forest communities associated with different incentives and the entities using them. Reference: Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010. REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Matrix for Analyzing REDD+’s Impact on Local Livelihoods and Governance The following text is excerpted from Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E. 2010: “This table provides a tool for examining how REDD+ incentives across different entities affect the livelihoods and governance of forest communities. The columns indicate different entities that can influence deforestation and local people’s well-being. The rows show the related incentives and implications for local livelihoods and governance. Analysis of the table indicates the distribution of responsibilities and impacts, as well as the link between incentives and desired outcomes. For example, REDD+ strategies can be analysed by looking at how they: Share the burden for forest management beyond forest communities; Provide pro-poor, locally adapted incentives that are linked to long-term development opportunities; Create safety nets and livelihood options for forest communities across multiple entities; and Do not conflict or create undesirable tradeoffs for other entities. The table can also be used to assess equity (e.g. across different kinds of forests, including high deforestation threat areas and conserved forests), the mix of private and public benefits, or other distributional attributes of interest.” Reference and graphic source: Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010. REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Assignment Option 1 Read: Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010. Chapter 3. Learning from experience: Forest community approaches to improving livelihoods and reducing deforestation. In REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Write a 2-3 page essay in which you address the following question: How do REDD+ and forest governance affect forest-dependent livelihoods? Instructors can assign this essay for take-home completion, with a future due date. Alternatively students can be organized into small groups at the end of class, ask to discuss the question after completing the reading, and asked to then prepare a group report (either written or oral for presentation). Alternatively, the instructor may want to use the April Salumei case study in SES Module Sub-section 2.7.1, and may choose to skip this assignment.

Assignment Option 2 This assignment option can be used in place of option 1, or can be combined with option 1 for a longer assignment. Fill in the sustainable livelihood framework for each element in case of REDD+ project implementation, to turn in.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE Livelihoods include both what people have (their assets and their capabilities) and what they do to make a living—both of which occur within a larger social context. The asset pentagon can facilitate assessment of what people have and can facilitate comparisons. The sustainable livelihoods framework places these assets, or capitals, into a larger conceptual framework in order to understand the livelihood outcomes. A gender analysis can be incorporated into this understanding. REDD’s impacts on forest communities depend on two factors: the incentives offered to the different entities; and the mix of benefits, rights and participation for forest communities.

References Bennetta, Nathan J. and P. Dearden. 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44: 107–116. Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods. In Sustainable Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Edited by D. Carney, London, DFID. Chambers, R. and G.R. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Ellis, Frank. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. “Introduction to Sustainable Livelihoods”, online resource. (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF806/Intro.html#Framework) Jagger, P., E. Sills, K. Lawlor, and W. Sunderlin. 2010. A Guide to Learning about Livelihood Impacts of REDD+ Projects. CIFOR Occasional Paper 56. Radel, C. 2012. Gendered livelihoods and the politics of socio-environmental identity: Women’s participation in conservation projects in Calakmul, Mexico. Gender, Place, and Culture 19(1): 61–82.

References Radel, C. and L Coppock. 2013. The world’s gender gap in agriculture and natural resources: Evidence and explanations. Rangelands. 35(6): 7-14. Rakodi, C. 1999. A capital assets framework for analyzing household livelihood strategies: Implications for policy. Development Policy Review 17: 315–42. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Working Paper 72, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK Scoones, I. 2009. Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1):171-196. Solebury, W. 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy. Working paper 217, Overseas Development Institutute, London, UK Springate-Baginski, O., Wollenberg, E., (eds.) 2010. REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.