Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries are recipients of monetary and/or non-monetary benefits and are generally a subset or group of the emission reductions program’s stakeholders. Beneficiaries may include, but are not limited to, communities, civil society, and the private sector, including any nested projects. Governments, as implementers, may also retain a certain amount of results-based finance to cover their costs for implementing and/or managing the emission reductions program.

Benefit sharing can incentivize stakeholders to contribute to reducing emissions and the overall performance of the emission reductions program.

The following are some questions to consider when identifying key beneficiaries:

Are they likely to contribute directly to the reduction of emissions, ultimately delivering results?
Are they likely to use benefits to sustain successful emission reductions program interventions?
Have they historically contributed to avoided emissions from deforestation, land degradation and other land-use practices (e.g., in some circumstances, indigenous peoples or land and resource tenure holders, including customary rights holders)?
Have they undertaken concrete actions to reduce emissions, but ultimately under-perform due to circumstances such as force majeure, and therefore, may – regardless of their ultimate performance – require a portion of benefits to recognize their efforts?

These groups of beneficiaries are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive and can be considered in combination to maximize support for the implementation of emission reductions programs.

The following good practices can be drawn upon for identifying beneficiaries:

Careful analysis:

Detailed research should be conducted to identify beneficiaries, based on those who require incentives for behavior change to achieve the objectives of the emission reductions program, and those who should be rewarded because of their rights and their contributions to generating the goods and services linked to results-based finance.

Inclusion:

Although land and resource tenure can provide a clear and legitimate basis for determining the eligibility criteria for beneficiaries, care should be taken to include key actors with overlapping rights and to recognize customary rights.

Eligibility requirements:

Requirements should not result in barriers to participation that exclude target groups, especially vulnerable and marginalized groups.

Accessibility:

It's important to consider requirements for channeling monetary and/or non-monetary benefits to identified beneficiaries. For example, it may be necessary for beneficiaries to be formally organized with financial and governance structures in place to access monetary benefits, which could exclude some stakeholders. Programs should consider ways to overcome exclusion of key stakeholders and document and clearly communicate eligibility criteria for access to benefits.

Case Studies

Addressing land tenure barriers and opportunities for participation in benefit sharing

Peru’s Alto Mayo Protected Forest (AMPF)

In Peru’s Alto Mayo Protected Forest, conservation agreements provide a model for addressing the absence of land tenure through the security of a contract.

The conservation agreements approach is thought to be a fundamental driver of success in the Alto Mayo landscape, where illegal settlement has driven deforestation and conflict between settlers and park authorities. It provides a mechanism for the participation of illegal settlers in the AMPF through the establishment of legally binding conservation commitments. Signatories co-design their own benefits packages by discussing their assets, priorities, and opportunities with government and implementation partners. Land title was not a legal option in this scenario, but land security was achievable if settlers complied with the regulations of the protected area.

Madagascar’s Makira Project

Legally-established associations and forest management contracts under Madagascar’s Makira Project are helping establish collective rights and responsibilities as a basis for benefit sharing.

Since 2004, 75 communities around Makira Natural Park have each formally established a community management association (VOI) that has signed a contract with the government to manage forests in the buffer zone surrounding the park. These associations provide a formal structure to represent each community with respect to benefit sharing from carbon revenues. The management plans annexed to the forest management contracts include community responsibilities for forest protection—such as patrols and reports of any illegal activities—and identify the community’s priorities for development projects. The establishment of a VOI and a forest management contract are the eligibility criteria for participation in benefit sharing, and communities know that they will become ineligible for participation if their contract is revoked because they do not implement their forest protection responsibilities.

Guatemala’s National Forestry Incentive Program (PINFOR) and Small Landowner Incentive Program (PINPEP)

Adjustments to eligibility requirements broadens inclusion in benefit sharing to small landowners in Guatemala.

PINFOR was a National Forestry Incentive Program in Guatemala that was operational from 1998 to 2016 and largely focused on increasing the country’s forestry stocks. Eligibility was restricted to landowners able to demonstrate proof of title to at least two hectares of land. This resulted in the majority of incentives going to larger private landowners. PINPEP is a Small Landowner Incentive Program that was initiated in 2007 in response to demands for broader participation. It allows access to forestry and agroforestry incentives for people without formal land tenure but who can prove that they have a legal right of possession. The minimum land size requirement is only 0.1 hectares, which allows poorer families who do not have much land to also participate.

Case Studies

Measures to ensure inclusion of indigenous peoples, women, and marginalized and/or vulnerable groups

Brazil’s ISA Carbono Program

Brazil’s indigenous land management program is tailored to the needs of indigenous communities to increase the effectiveness of incentives for environmental services.

The ISA Carbono Program in Acre, Brazil, includes an Indigenous Land Management Program that is designed specifically for indigenous peoples; it includes an Indigenous Agroforestry Agents program, which is a platform for participation, communication, and capacity-building focused on implementing agroforestry activities with indigenous peoples. An indigenous working group, which represents 12 indigenous peoples’ community associations, and a working group comprised entirely of women provide input based on their perspectives under the Commission of Validation and Monitoring (CEVA).

Costa Rica’s Payments for Environmental Services Program (PSA)

Contractual eligibility requirements are tailored to the needs of indigenous peoples to increase their access to Costa Rica’s Payment for Environmental Services Program (PSA).

Costa Rica’s Payments for Environmental Services Program (PSA) has made special contractual arrangements to encourage the participation of indigenous peoples, successfully including 21 of the country’s 24 indigenous peoples’ territories in the program. This increased accessibility to submit proposals for contracts has led to growing annual demand to include indigenous lands under PSA contracts supported by Costa Rica’s National Forestry Financing Fund (FONAFIFO) point system for prioritizing areas of low development indices and high conservation importance. This active inclusion of indigenous peoples’ territories is further enforced by quotas, which are set for both indigenous peoples’ community groups and women, in addition to a more generous size allowance of 800 hectares per indigenous peoples’ community contract (as opposed to a maximum 300 hectares for individual landowners).