Download as PDF, PPTX
![1. Forest carbon/ land use outcomes: 12 studies (!)
Other outcomes (welfare, tenure…): 26 studies
2. Positive carbon/ LUC impacts, but large range
3. Mostly small/ insignificant impacts on income &
perceived wellbeing….
es that focused on participation in REDD
ocused on Free Prior Informed Consent
al engagement in project activities. Nine
ase reports, three were systematic reviews,
land grabbing [16 !!
]. Similarly, low partic
ARR project in Mozambique (30%) was re
charcoal extraction, as well as low trust, ed
cash income levels [32]. In Cameroon, part
enhanced by positive local perceptions of a n
area associated with the REDD+ project [33
project in Mexico, participation was positive
0 5 10 15 20
case report
case-control study: no confounders
considered
case-control study: some confounders
considered
case-control study: pre-matched
controls
randomized control trial
systematic review
# studies
carbon
non-carbon
participation
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
udy components assessing carbon and non-carbon outcomes, and local participation in REDD+.
n Environmental Sustainability 2018, 32:134–140 www.sc
REDD+ impacts
Duchelle et al. (2018)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-210719102817/75/Policy-panel-REDD-11-2048.jpg)
![Wunder, Schulz, Montoya
Börner (unpublished)
REDD+ envir. impacts
Mean REDD+ effect: 0.27; [95% Conf Int: 0.11-0.43]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-210719102817/75/Policy-panel-REDD-16-2048.jpg)
![1. Forest carbon/ land use outcomes: 12 studies (!)
Other outcomes (welfare, tenure…): 26 studies
2. Positive carbon/ LUC impacts, but large range
3. Mostly small/ insignificant impacts on income &
perceived wellbeing….
es that focused on participation in REDD
ocused on Free Prior Informed Consent
al engagement in project activities. Nine
ase reports, three were systematic reviews,
land grabbing [16 !!
]. Similarly, low partic
ARR project in Mozambique (30%) was re
charcoal extraction, as well as low trust, ed
cash income levels [32]. In Cameroon, part
enhanced by positive local perceptions of a n
area associated with the REDD+ project [33
project in Mexico, participation was positive
0 5 10 15 20
case report
case-control study: no confounders
considered
case-control study: some confounders
considered
case-control study: pre-matched
controls
randomized control trial
systematic review
# studies
carbon
non-carbon
participation
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
udy components assessing carbon and non-carbon outcomes, and local participation in REDD+.
n Environmental Sustainability 2018, 32:134–140 www.sc
REDD+ impacts
Duchelle et al. (2018)](https://crownmelresort.com/image.slidesharecdn.com/2-210719102817/75/Policy-panel-REDD-11-2048.jpg)
![Wunder, Schulz, Montoya
Börner (unpublished)
REDD+ envir. impacts
Mean REDD+ effect: 0.27; [95% Conf Int: 0.11-0.43]](https://crownmelresort.com/image.slidesharecdn.com/2-210719102817/75/Policy-panel-REDD-16-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byCIFOR-ICRAF
Policy panel: REDD+
This document discusses REDD+, a global program aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. It provides background on REDD+, noting it was established at the UN climate conference in 2007. The document then summarizes research on REDD+, including findings that REDD+ initiatives have had some success in reducing deforestation but have shown mostly neutral impacts on livelihoods. It also notes that REDD+ funding has remained relatively small compared to emissions from deforestation. In conclusion, the document argues REDD+ still holds promise if given more funding and with improved program design.
More Related Content
Similar to Policy panel: REDD+
![REDD+ Dynamics: [not] A one size fit all solution](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/efrianmuharromdinamikaredd6sept20163-161129081132-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Policy panel: REDD+
- 1. THINKING beyond thecanopy Policy panel: REDD+ Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist
- 2. Bali 2007: Umbrellastrategy for on-the-ground implemention REDD=Global PES REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and conservation, sustainable management and enhancement of carbon stocks Scales: Pilot projects + juris- dictional (national, subnational) REDD+ =goal; but also a model: Carbon-focused conditional “PES between countries”? Rationale: buying out forest loss in marginal hinterlands Global S.
- 3. REDD+ multi-level PESmodel (2008)
- 4. REDD+ financing hasremained small Norman & Nakhooda (2014) Donor country pledges for REDD+ for the period 2006-2014 => high donor concentration, low volumes pledged => But post-Paris, funding flows from Green Climate Fund (GCF), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)/ (World Bank)
- 5. Densityof REDD+initiatives Low Medium High Veryhigh NoREDD+project Forest areaunder REDD+ Simonet et al. (2018) 347 subnational initiatives (in 2014) National REDD+: NICFI, REM, UN-REDD…
- 6. Wunder et al.(2020) REDD+ PCA snapshot
- 7. Wunder et al.(2020) Carbon sales & certification
- 8. CIFOR Global ComparativeStudy on REDD+ • Field research in 6 countries, 23 sites, 150 villages, 4,000+ households • “Before-after/control-intervention” (2010-11 / 2013- 14/ 2018) • Land use mapping, socioeconomic questionnaire 2016-07-06_GCS_sites_pantropicalTOTALexclBF_LowRes.pdf
- 9. REDD+ as bundleof interventions Restrictions on forest access and conversion Tenure clarification, registries Non-conditional liv. enhancement Conditional liv. enhancement Environ. education Forest enhancement § Characterized all interventions in study villages § Created “treatment intensity” score (share households per village exposed to specific intervention types)
- 10. Average country-level treatment intensity 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 IntCon Int Con Int Con Int Con Int Con Int Con Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam CLE NCLE RFAC TC FE EE
- 11. 1. Forest carbon/land use outcomes: 12 studies (!) Other outcomes (welfare, tenure…): 26 studies 2. Positive carbon/ LUC impacts, but large range 3. Mostly small/ insignificant impacts on income & perceived wellbeing…. es that focused on participation in REDD ocused on Free Prior Informed Consent al engagement in project activities. Nine ase reports, three were systematic reviews, land grabbing [16 !! ]. Similarly, low partic ARR project in Mozambique (30%) was re charcoal extraction, as well as low trust, ed cash income levels [32]. In Cameroon, part enhanced by positive local perceptions of a n area associated with the REDD+ project [33 project in Mexico, participation was positive 0 5 10 15 20 case report case-control study: no confounders considered case-control study: some confounders considered case-control study: pre-matched controls randomized control trial systematic review # studies carbon non-carbon participation Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability udy components assessing carbon and non-carbon outcomes, and local participation in REDD+. n Environmental Sustainability 2018, 32:134–140 www.sc REDD+ impacts Duchelle et al. (2018)
- 12. Subnational: TransamazonSimonet etal. (2018) 80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 75.7 71.0 65.9 60.5 67.3 62.3 52.6 2008 Participants Counterfactual Comparisoncommunities Forest covers as share of land (%) 2010 2012 2014 Causaleffectof the REDD+project:-50%in therateof deforestation Figure 10.4 Impact of REDD+ on deforestation in Transamazon project
- 13. 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 2001 2002 20032004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Gross annual deforestation rate (%) Synthetic Guyana Guyana Norway-Guyana REDD+ Project Payments begin to decline above 0.056% Payments stop at 0.100% (b) (c) National: NICFI Guyana Roopsind et al. (2019)
- 14. Börner et al.(2018) National conservation policies
- 15. # Dimension Filteringfactor Observation/ justification 1 REDD+ label Self-labelled and ‘REDD+ like’ Incl. multipurpose C-focused national PES (separate category) 2 Actions Forest carbon conservation element Excl. pure A/R projects 3 Scale National and subnational REDD+ No filter: projects and programmes alike 4 Starting time Implementation start not before 2007 COP13 initiated REDD process in 2007 A Literature Peer-reviewed + Grey Filtering instead on evaluation quality B Impacts Forest carbon + human wellbeing Incl., as main bottom lines for REDD+ C Outcomes Forest cover/loss + socio-economic Incl., as shorter-term bottom lines. D Outputs Excluded Excl. all middle-part ToC (intermediary) E Objectivity Subjective wellbeing included Incl., as welfare impact F Evaluation (Quasi-)experimental methods Counterfactual approach always needed Wunder, Schulz, Montoya Börner (unpublished) New REDD+ impact meta- study: delimitations
- 16. Wunder, Schulz, Montoya Börner(unpublished) REDD+ envir. impacts Mean REDD+ effect: 0.27; [95% Conf Int: 0.11-0.43]
- 17. Sources: 1) Wunder,Schulz, Montoya-Zumaeta & Börner (unpublished) 2) Börner et al. (2020) REDD+ environmental impacts – vis-à-vis other conservation tools
- 18. Wunder, et al. (unpublished) REDD+socioecon. impacts Mean REDD+ impact of 0.00 (95% Conf. Int: -0.06-0.06)
- 19. REDD+: a (sofar) unfulfilled promise, in Chinese boxes – REDD+ has remained under-financed, especially national REDD+ (the original target) – Project scope (PDD): avoid 84 mtCO2/yr (~33 yr) ~1% of land-based tropical emissions – but sold just 5% (Simonet et al. 2018): a drop in the sea… – REDD+ is to carbon, what ICDP is to biodiversity: a heterogenous mix of on-the-ground interventions – Land-use (and carbon) impacts of implemented policy mixes have been little evaluated – REDD+ projects tend to be welfare-neutral
- 20. But don’t justgive up on REDD+ yet! – Post-Paris big new funding flows – GCF, FCPF – Upscaling/ new jurisdictional approaches – national, states & provinces (likely lower leakage) – Policy mixes: combining area- and product- based, and ‘produce & protect’ interventions – Even project environmental impacts so far have not been too bad, cf. other conservation tools (but: cost efficiency, permanence issues). => Social innovation cycles & fads: are we too quick to reject & move on to the next ‘big thing’?
- 21.