REDD+ on the ground is progressing slowly yet yields ... · THINKING beyond the canopy REDD+ on the ground is progressing slowly – yet yields important lessons by W.D. Sunderlin,

THINKING beyond the canopy

REDD+ on the ground is progressing slowly –

yet yields important lessons by W.D. Sunderlin, S. Atmadja, A.B. Bos, C. de Sassi, A.E. Duchelle,

A. Ickowitz, A.M. Larson, C. Luttrell, J. Murray, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, E.O. Sills, and

S. Wunder

2nd Annual FLARE Meeting, Edinburgh, Scotland

December 2-5, 2017

What REDD+ aimed to do

• Be a pioneering approach to climate change mitigation

• Make forest protection more profitable than forest conversion by paying the cost of foregone forest conversion

• Create a reward system for protecting/enhancing forests in measurable way

• Mix of positive & negative incentives (as in ICDP)

• Policies and Measures (PAM)to support effort

Source: Wikimedia Commons

• 347 initiatives in 57 countries (Simonet et al. 2015)

• Original aim: funding through sale of forest carbon offsets

• Funding still dominantly from the public sector, and considerable slow-down in public sector funding and in establishment of new initiatives (Norman & Nakhooda 2014)

• A substantial portion of initiatives ceasing to exist or switching out of REDD+ at global level (Simonet et al. 2015) and also within our sample (Sills et al. 2014)

• This notwithstanding REDD+ is far from dead (Angelsen et al. forthcoming)

How REDD+ has evolved

CIFOR GCS research 2009-2015

• Field research in six countries, 23 sites, 150 villages, 4,000+ households

• “Before-after/control-intervention” (2010-2011 / 2013-2014)• Evaluation of REDD+ initiatives on basis of “3E+” criteria

2016-07-06_GCS_sites_pantropicalTOTALexclBF_LowRes.pdf

Effectiveness• Limited good performance

• Better performance at village compared to site level

• Better performance when including control areas

• Possible bias in before period; low absolute deforestation; and peak year influenced scores

• Careful selection of control areas vital for correct attribute to REDD+ Bos et al. in prep.

Efficiency (perceived costs)

• Many institutions are subsidizing REDD+

• More than half (56%) of government institutions

• 84% of subnational government institutions

Luttrell et al. 2016

Equity (women)

• Higher levels of participation in REDD+ (decision to implement, design and implementation) reported from (male-dominated) village focus groups compared to women’s focus groups

• Women’s participation improved notably in Phase 2

• Almost half of the women’s focus groups said having their own source of income was important for women’s wellbeing

• Preliminary evidence shows REDD+ initiatives are not reducing – and in some cases appear to be widening – gender gaps

Larson et al. forthcoming

Co-benefits: income

**

• REDD+ impact on household income small compared to other causes

• Differences between REDD+ and control households remain constant in time, with exception of Cameroon

De Sassi et al. 2016 in prep.

**

Co-benefits: social safeguards

Across global sample: decrease in overall perceived well-being over time for households exposed to regulations alone; addition of incentives into the mix helped alleviate negative effects.

Duchelle et al. in review

In Brazil:

• Regulations most effective in reducing household forest clearing, yet considered intervention type most prejudicial to household well-being

• Clear trade-off between carbon and non-carbon benefits … who decides?

• Proponents have little to show for their efforts

• Tenure insecurity decreases only slightly across sample

• Being in a REDD+ intervention area decreased smallholder tenure insecurity only in Cameroon, and has increased insecurity of smallholder agricultural land tenure in Brazil

• Among the main reported reasons for worsening tenure security: outside companies, lack of title, and competition from neighboring villagers

• Views of villagers on the effect of tenure interventions lean towards positive, including for interventions that restrain access to forest

Co-benefit: tenure

Sunderlin et al. under review

Co-benefit 3: biodiversity

• Biodiversity is a minority concern for most initiatives because co-benefits are ‘expected’ via implementation of REDD+

• Safeguards are necessary but not sufficient to slow global biodiversity loss (Murray & Jones 2014)

• In Indonesia we found it was not possible to place REDD+ initiatives in areas “good for all measures” because there was little congruence between carbon and biodiversity (Murray et al. 2015)

Conclusions

• REDD+ has experienced some major weaknesses in contributing to climate change mitigation:– Lack of funding

– Has barely moved beyond ICDP model (Wunder et al. in prep)

– Some challenges in meeting goals (e.g. as explained above)

• Yet there are promising aspects of its performance:– Agile innovation in spite of obstacles (Sills et al. 2014)

– Subnational governments in leadership role (Governors’ Climate and Forest Task Force)

• To make a breakthrough there needs to be (at least) committed follow-through on Paris Agreement

We thank our donors!

Angelsen, Arild, Maria Brockhaus, Amy E. Duchelle, Anne Larson, Christopher Martius, William Sunderlin, Louis Verchot, Grace Wong and Sven Wunder. Forthcoming. REDD+ is struggling but far from dead. Conservation Biology.

Bos, Astrid B., Amy E. Duchelle, Arild Angelsen, Valerio Avitabile, Veronique De Sy, Martin Herold, Shijo Joseph, Claudio de Sassi, Erin O. Sills, William D. Sunderlin, and Sven Wunder. In preparation. Comparing methods for effectiveness assessment of subnational REDD+ initiatives

De Sassi C, Sills E.O, Wunder S, Duchelle A.E, Ickowitz A, Kweka D, Andina A.D.P, Pratama D.K and Sunderlin W.D. Impacts of REDD+ on smallholder households income and inequality. In prep.

Duchelle, A.E., C. de Sassi, P. Jagger, M. Cromberg, A.M. Larson, W.D. Sunderlin, S.S. Atmadja, I.A.P. Resosudarmo, C.D Pratama. (Under review). Carrots and sticks in REDD+ implementation: Implications for social safeguards. Ecology & Society.

Larson, A.M, A.E. Duchelle, A.A.D Putri and D. Solis. Forthcoming. Gendered Outcomes of REDD+ Implementation: Preliminary results from the field. In: Roth et al. Gender and REDD+. IUCN.

References

Luttrell, Cecilia, Erin Sills, Riza Aryani, Andini Desita Ekaputri, and Maria Febe Evnike. 2016. Who will bear the cost of REDD+? Evidence from subnational REDD+ initiatives. Working Paper 204. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.

Murray, Josil P. and Julia P.G. Jones. 2014. Safeguarding Biodiversity in REDD+. REDD+ Safeguards Brief No. 5. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.

Murray, Josil P., Richard Grenyer, Sven Wunder, Niels Raes, and Julia P.G. Jones. 2015. Spatial patterns of carbon, biodiversity, deforestation threat, and REDD+ projects in Indonesia. Conservation Biology. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12500

Norman, Marigold and Smita Nakhooda. 2014. The State of REDD+ Finance. CGD Working Paper 378 . Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Sills, Erin O., Stibniati S. Atmadja, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Demetrius L. Kweka, Ida AjuPradjna Resosudarmo, and William D. Sunderlin (eds.). 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.

References

Simonet, Gabriela, Alain Karsenty, Pete Newton, Christian de Perthuis, Brian Schaap, and ColineSeyller. 2015. REDD+ projects in 2014: an overview based on a new database and typology. Information and Debate Series No. 32. Paris, France: Paris-Dauphine University, Climate Economics Chai

Sunderlin, William D., Abdon Awono, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Thu Ba Huynh, Demetrius Kweka, Anne Larson, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, and Erin O. Sills. Under review. Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future. World Development.

Wunder, Sven, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Erin O. Sills, Gabriela Simonet, William D. Sunderlin. In prep. REDD+ in theory and practice: an analysis of subnational projects.

References