CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+
Oslo REDD Exchange
29-30 October 2013
The
Project
Global Comparative Study on REDD+
GCS-REDD+
Objectives

• support REDD+ policy arenas and
practitioner communities with sciencebased

-

information
- analysis
- tools

• ensure 3E+ outcomes
-

effectiveness
efficiency
equity
co-benefits
GCS-REDD Structure
Where GCS-REDD+ works
Where GCS-REDD+ works
Policy analysis
12 countries since 2009
Laos added 2013
Ethiopia, Mexico 2014
Where GCS-REDD+ works
Project analysis
6 countries
23 REDD project sites
190 villages

4524 households
Module 1
REDD+ strategies,
policies and measures

new research
-

-

links of national &
international political
processes
benefits-sharing
Module 2
REDD+ Project Sites
“BACI” research design

Comparison
Control

Project site
Intervention

Control
before

Control
after

Intervention
before

Intervention
before

Before

After
Module 3
Monitoring and Reference Levels
Improve procedures &
practices for estimating
& managing carbon
stocks
Hallmark:
Stepwise approach to
RELs & MRV (considers
countries’ capacities)
Module 4
Carbon management at the landscape scale
Improve the design of
multilevel institutions
and processes
to overcome economic
and policy barriers to
REDD+ and other low
carbon land use policies
Module 5: Knowledge Sharing
disseminate knowledge, build capacity and strengthen networks of the
stakeholders involved in climate change mitigation and adaptation

Build and maintain
www.ForestsClimateChange.org as a
global hub for climate knowledge
Expand Forests News blog as a virtual
news service on forests and climate
change
260 stories published in 2011

Maintain involvement in high-profile
events e.g. Forest Day (now Global
Landscape Forum)
Explore new and innovative partnerships
with CSOs
Publications on REDD+ in several
languages
Thanks to
Results
GCS Output & Results
2012
2009
2008

+ country profiles
+ scientific publications
As an idea, REDD+ is a success story
Significant result-based funding to address an urgent need for climate change
mitigation
Sufficiently broad to serve as a canopy, under which a wide range of actors can grow
their own trees
REDD+ faces huge challenges
Powerful political and
economic interests
Coordination across various
government levels and
agencies
Benefits to balance
effectiveness and equity
Tenure insecurity and
safeguards must be
genuinely addressed
Transparent institutions,
reliable carbon monitoring
and realistic reference levels
to build result-based
systems
REDD+ requires - and can catalyse –
transformational change

New economic incentives, new information and
discourses, new actors & new policy coalitions:
all have the potential to move domestic policies
away from the BAU trajectory
Seeing REDD+ through the lens of 4 I’s
How the 4 I’s hinder or enable change (1)
• Institutions
– Formal power rests with ‘stickiest’ organisations – those with
enough influence to resist change
• e.g. colonial rules

– new institutions and actors are often ignored or remain isolated
• Ministries for natural resources

• Interests
– State’s interest in social and economic welfare can fall short if not
autonomous from interests that drive deforestation and
degradation
• rent seeking, fraud, collusion and corruption practices in the
bureaucratic system
How the 4 Is hinder or enable change (2)
• Ideas
– discourse affects policy making
– it frames the problem and presents limited choices of ‘reasonable’
or ‘possible’
• REDD+ benefits for those who contribute to efficiency and effectiveness,
versus benefits for those who have moral rights based on equity
considerations

• Information
– Facts are selected, interpreted, and put in context in ways that
reflect the interests of the information provider
• reference level setting
Conditions for REDD+ success (seven countries)
Autonomy of state from interests driving deforestation and degradation
Presence of strong coalitions for transformation
National ownership of REDD+ policy process

Multi-level coordination needed
•

Enhance and harmonise
information flow between local
and national levels

•

Incentives – establish benefit
sharing mechanisms that are
perceived as fair

•

Fundamental conflicts over REDD

•

National institutional structure
and policies

•

Iand tenure and carbon rights

Safeguards dialogue needs to
move to action on the ground
tenure is essential
property rights over forests, trees and
tree carbon must be clear
To allocate REDD+ incentives, it must be clear who has the right to benefit

If local people are secure in their rights,
they are motivated to manage the land
sustainably; if not:
They are less likely to make long-term investments

Some may even clear land to staking their claim
some may oppose REDD+ if they fear it means more outsiders taking their land

Clear tenure protects people’s rights and
livelihoods
can prevent a resource rush when the value of forests increases
tenure is often ambiguous and
contested
In an analysis of villages in five countries,
more than 50% of the respondents said
that some of their tenure was insecure
An analysis of sites in Indonesia found
existing tenure conditions to be
inadequate for effective REDD+
implementation
Even in Brazil, where tenure is well
defined, tenure insecurity was pervasive
among households
tenure needs reform
at national level

•

project proponents are trying to resolve tenure issues locally
–

•

But tenure problems are national in scope and origin
–

•

Conflict resolution, boundary mapping, spatial land use planning, identifying legal right holders and
registering property
National tenure reform, though necessary, has been limited

Obstacles that need to be removed
–
–

limited capacity for demarcation and titling, interests of those competing for land and resources, and
ideological barriers
integration of national and local tenure efforts, clarification of international and national REDD+ policies,
and development of conflict resolution mechanisms
for villagers,
livelihood comes first

villagers at REDD+ project sites hope for improved income and livelihood, but are worried
REDD could harm them or restrict their access to resources
interest in generating income is greater than in protecting forest for its own sake

REDD+ will be effective only if it can compete economically with other income- or rentproviding activities
REDD+ projects must balance forest protection with villagers’ welfare concerns and protect
agricultural livelihoods
villagers want to
be involved
•
•

Villagers want to engage and participate meaningfully in REDD+ projects
They want project proponents to communicate better, demonstrate greater transparency, and
respect and uphold their rights
–

•
•
•

these wishes reflect some UNFCCC safeguards

villagers’ knowledge of REDD+ or local REDD+ projects was low
Most projects have some activities to obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by the villagers,
but not all are successful and some proponents are delaying education
Project proponents must inform villagers better about REDD+ and involve them in project design and
implementation
international talks
affect local actions
Lack of clarity over where REDD+ is heading creates uncertainty and hampers
implementation
will payments for ecosystem services (PES) materialize?

Project combine PES with traditional conservation, to get started
but the old model has a history of problems

Some proponents are delaying efforts to avoid raising expectations in case REDD+ benefits
never arrive
social safeguards must be finalized at the international level to generate real action
Capacity building and technology
transfer are essential

lack of capacity hampers
countries’ efforts to fully engage in
REDD+
only 19 of 99 developing countries have good capacity to
implement a complete and accurate national monitoring system
using IPCC guidelines
A survey of 17 REDD+ sites found low capacity for measuring
carbon pools for using biomass equations

for efficient capacity building, the
top 19 countries should be
prioritized so they can get ready
on time for REDD Phase 3
longer-term investments will be needed for countries with poorer
a stepwise approach to setting reference levels reflects different country circumstances
countries have different technical capacities and different levels of information on forest area and carbon stocks
and emissions, and on drivers of deforestation

Starting at different levels facilitates broad participation of countries
the UNFCCC adopted this approach in 2011 as the reference emission level framework
Moving forward:
A “no regrets” agenda
• Build broad political support and
legitimacy for REDD+ framed as an
objective rather than a program
• Invest in foundations for REDD+
success, such as filling MRV
information and capacity gaps
• Focus on policy changes that would
be desirable irrespective of climate
objectives:
– Clarify land tenure
– Remove perverse agricultural
subsidies
– Strengthen rule of law, tenure
and forest governance
Theory of Change
Boundary partners
Knowledge uptake

CIFOR and research partners
Knowledge generation

national / NGO
MRV,
development
strategies

controllable indicators

Effective,
efficient and
equitable
REDD+

new climate
change
regimes

Internalization
and uptake by
boundary
partners

download
rates
trainings
conferences

stakeholder
workshops

Partnercentered
knowledge
dissemination

peer-reviewed
publications

Co-production
of science

Rigorous,
salient, ethical
science

non-controllable indicators
Non-controllable indicators
 national partners (Module 1) providing high quality
information for national REDD+ policy processes
 research used by
 Indonesia: development of national strategy (scientist seconded
to work on national REL), negotiations over the NOR-IND LoI
 Ethiopian REDD+ taskforce: developing national MRV roadmap
 Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)

 integration of “stepwise” idea into UNFCCC decisions
 our expertise called upon by national and sub-national
governments and roundtables (e.g. Mesa REDD Peru)
 solicitation to contribute to REDD+ efforts by other
international organizations (e.g. RECOFTC, JRC)
Global Comparative Study on REDD+ - The Project and Results

Global Comparative Study on REDD+ - The Project and Results

  • 1.
    CIFOR’s Global ComparativeStudy on REDD+ Oslo REDD Exchange 29-30 October 2013
  • 2.
  • 3.
    Global Comparative Studyon REDD+ GCS-REDD+ Objectives • support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with sciencebased - information - analysis - tools • ensure 3E+ outcomes - effectiveness efficiency equity co-benefits
  • 4.
  • 5.
  • 6.
    Where GCS-REDD+ works Policyanalysis 12 countries since 2009 Laos added 2013 Ethiopia, Mexico 2014
  • 7.
    Where GCS-REDD+ works Projectanalysis 6 countries 23 REDD project sites 190 villages 4524 households
  • 8.
    Module 1 REDD+ strategies, policiesand measures new research - - links of national & international political processes benefits-sharing
  • 9.
    Module 2 REDD+ ProjectSites “BACI” research design Comparison Control Project site Intervention Control before Control after Intervention before Intervention before Before After
  • 10.
    Module 3 Monitoring andReference Levels Improve procedures & practices for estimating & managing carbon stocks Hallmark: Stepwise approach to RELs & MRV (considers countries’ capacities)
  • 11.
    Module 4 Carbon managementat the landscape scale Improve the design of multilevel institutions and processes to overcome economic and policy barriers to REDD+ and other low carbon land use policies
  • 12.
    Module 5: KnowledgeSharing disseminate knowledge, build capacity and strengthen networks of the stakeholders involved in climate change mitigation and adaptation Build and maintain www.ForestsClimateChange.org as a global hub for climate knowledge Expand Forests News blog as a virtual news service on forests and climate change 260 stories published in 2011 Maintain involvement in high-profile events e.g. Forest Day (now Global Landscape Forum) Explore new and innovative partnerships with CSOs Publications on REDD+ in several languages
  • 13.
  • 14.
  • 15.
    GCS Output &Results 2012 2009 2008 + country profiles + scientific publications
  • 16.
    As an idea,REDD+ is a success story Significant result-based funding to address an urgent need for climate change mitigation Sufficiently broad to serve as a canopy, under which a wide range of actors can grow their own trees
  • 17.
    REDD+ faces hugechallenges Powerful political and economic interests Coordination across various government levels and agencies Benefits to balance effectiveness and equity Tenure insecurity and safeguards must be genuinely addressed Transparent institutions, reliable carbon monitoring and realistic reference levels to build result-based systems
  • 18.
    REDD+ requires -and can catalyse – transformational change New economic incentives, new information and discourses, new actors & new policy coalitions: all have the potential to move domestic policies away from the BAU trajectory
  • 19.
    Seeing REDD+ throughthe lens of 4 I’s
  • 20.
    How the 4I’s hinder or enable change (1) • Institutions – Formal power rests with ‘stickiest’ organisations – those with enough influence to resist change • e.g. colonial rules – new institutions and actors are often ignored or remain isolated • Ministries for natural resources • Interests – State’s interest in social and economic welfare can fall short if not autonomous from interests that drive deforestation and degradation • rent seeking, fraud, collusion and corruption practices in the bureaucratic system
  • 21.
    How the 4Is hinder or enable change (2) • Ideas – discourse affects policy making – it frames the problem and presents limited choices of ‘reasonable’ or ‘possible’ • REDD+ benefits for those who contribute to efficiency and effectiveness, versus benefits for those who have moral rights based on equity considerations • Information – Facts are selected, interpreted, and put in context in ways that reflect the interests of the information provider • reference level setting
  • 22.
    Conditions for REDD+success (seven countries) Autonomy of state from interests driving deforestation and degradation Presence of strong coalitions for transformation National ownership of REDD+ policy process Multi-level coordination needed • Enhance and harmonise information flow between local and national levels • Incentives – establish benefit sharing mechanisms that are perceived as fair • Fundamental conflicts over REDD • National institutional structure and policies • Iand tenure and carbon rights Safeguards dialogue needs to move to action on the ground
  • 23.
    tenure is essential propertyrights over forests, trees and tree carbon must be clear To allocate REDD+ incentives, it must be clear who has the right to benefit If local people are secure in their rights, they are motivated to manage the land sustainably; if not: They are less likely to make long-term investments Some may even clear land to staking their claim some may oppose REDD+ if they fear it means more outsiders taking their land Clear tenure protects people’s rights and livelihoods can prevent a resource rush when the value of forests increases
  • 24.
    tenure is oftenambiguous and contested In an analysis of villages in five countries, more than 50% of the respondents said that some of their tenure was insecure An analysis of sites in Indonesia found existing tenure conditions to be inadequate for effective REDD+ implementation Even in Brazil, where tenure is well defined, tenure insecurity was pervasive among households
  • 25.
    tenure needs reform atnational level • project proponents are trying to resolve tenure issues locally – • But tenure problems are national in scope and origin – • Conflict resolution, boundary mapping, spatial land use planning, identifying legal right holders and registering property National tenure reform, though necessary, has been limited Obstacles that need to be removed – – limited capacity for demarcation and titling, interests of those competing for land and resources, and ideological barriers integration of national and local tenure efforts, clarification of international and national REDD+ policies, and development of conflict resolution mechanisms
  • 26.
    for villagers, livelihood comesfirst villagers at REDD+ project sites hope for improved income and livelihood, but are worried REDD could harm them or restrict their access to resources interest in generating income is greater than in protecting forest for its own sake REDD+ will be effective only if it can compete economically with other income- or rentproviding activities REDD+ projects must balance forest protection with villagers’ welfare concerns and protect agricultural livelihoods
  • 27.
    villagers want to beinvolved • • Villagers want to engage and participate meaningfully in REDD+ projects They want project proponents to communicate better, demonstrate greater transparency, and respect and uphold their rights – • • • these wishes reflect some UNFCCC safeguards villagers’ knowledge of REDD+ or local REDD+ projects was low Most projects have some activities to obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) by the villagers, but not all are successful and some proponents are delaying education Project proponents must inform villagers better about REDD+ and involve them in project design and implementation
  • 28.
    international talks affect localactions Lack of clarity over where REDD+ is heading creates uncertainty and hampers implementation will payments for ecosystem services (PES) materialize? Project combine PES with traditional conservation, to get started but the old model has a history of problems Some proponents are delaying efforts to avoid raising expectations in case REDD+ benefits never arrive social safeguards must be finalized at the international level to generate real action
  • 29.
    Capacity building andtechnology transfer are essential lack of capacity hampers countries’ efforts to fully engage in REDD+ only 19 of 99 developing countries have good capacity to implement a complete and accurate national monitoring system using IPCC guidelines A survey of 17 REDD+ sites found low capacity for measuring carbon pools for using biomass equations for efficient capacity building, the top 19 countries should be prioritized so they can get ready on time for REDD Phase 3 longer-term investments will be needed for countries with poorer
  • 30.
    a stepwise approachto setting reference levels reflects different country circumstances countries have different technical capacities and different levels of information on forest area and carbon stocks and emissions, and on drivers of deforestation Starting at different levels facilitates broad participation of countries the UNFCCC adopted this approach in 2011 as the reference emission level framework
  • 31.
    Moving forward: A “noregrets” agenda • Build broad political support and legitimacy for REDD+ framed as an objective rather than a program • Invest in foundations for REDD+ success, such as filling MRV information and capacity gaps • Focus on policy changes that would be desirable irrespective of climate objectives: – Clarify land tenure – Remove perverse agricultural subsidies – Strengthen rule of law, tenure and forest governance
  • 32.
    Theory of Change Boundarypartners Knowledge uptake CIFOR and research partners Knowledge generation national / NGO MRV, development strategies controllable indicators Effective, efficient and equitable REDD+ new climate change regimes Internalization and uptake by boundary partners download rates trainings conferences stakeholder workshops Partnercentered knowledge dissemination peer-reviewed publications Co-production of science Rigorous, salient, ethical science non-controllable indicators
  • 33.
    Non-controllable indicators  nationalpartners (Module 1) providing high quality information for national REDD+ policy processes  research used by  Indonesia: development of national strategy (scientist seconded to work on national REL), negotiations over the NOR-IND LoI  Ethiopian REDD+ taskforce: developing national MRV roadmap  Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)  integration of “stepwise” idea into UNFCCC decisions  our expertise called upon by national and sub-national governments and roundtables (e.g. Mesa REDD Peru)  solicitation to contribute to REDD+ efforts by other international organizations (e.g. RECOFTC, JRC)

Editor's Notes

  • #4 In the face of numerous emerging first-generation REDD+ activities – both projects and national strategies – CIFOR has started in 2009, a global comparative study on REDD+.
  • #6 Where we are working : National policy analysis in 13countries REDD project analysis in 6 countries
  • #7 Where we are working : National policy analysis in 13 countries including Laos , which is not yet on the mapREDD project analysis in 6 countries
  • #8 Where we are working : National policy analysis in 13 countries including Laos , which is not yet on the mapREDD project analysis in 6 countries
  • #20 Maria: the 4 Is is not a method but it is a political economy lense on the underlying problem, or if you want to say so, a baseline study combined with a theory of change in REDD+ terms
  • #30 Layout: Content with Potrait Picture.Variation: alter the position and size of the picture
  • #31 Layout: Content with Horizontal PictureVariation: none