CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+

Oslo REDD Exchange29-30 October 2013

The Project

Global Comparative Study on REDD+GCS-REDD+

• support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with science-based

- information - analysis- tools

• ensure 3E+ outcomes- effectiveness- efficiency - equity - co-benefits

Objectives

GCS-REDD Structure

Where GCS-REDD+ works

Policy analysis

12 countries since 2009Laos added 2013Ethiopia, Mexico 2014

Where GCS-REDD+ works

Project analysis

6 countries23 REDD project sites190 villages4524 households

Where GCS-REDD+ works

Module 1REDD+ strategies, policies and measures

new research- links of national &

international political processes

- benefits-sharing

Module 2REDD+ Project Sites “BACI” research design

Comparison Control

Project siteIntervention

Before After

Controlbefore

Controlafter

Interventionbefore

Interventionbefore

Module 3Monitoring and Reference LevelsImprove procedures & practices for estimating & managing carbon stocks

Hallmark:Stepwise approach to RELs & MRV (considers countries’ capacities)

Module 4Carbon management at the landscape scaleImprove 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

2008

2012

2009

+ country profiles+ scientific publications

As an idea, REDD+ is a success story Significant result-based funding to address an urgent need for climate change mitigationSufficiently broad to serve as a canopy, under which a wide range of actors can grow their own trees

REDD+ faces huge challengesPowerful 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’sPolitical

Economy

lens

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 transformationNational 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 essentialproperty 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

• project proponents are trying to resolve tenure issues locally– Conflict resolution, boundary mapping, spatial land use planning, identifying legal right holders and

registering property

• But tenure problems are national in scope and origin– 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

tenure needs reform at national level

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 rent- providing activities

REDD+ projects must balance forest protection with villagers’ welfare concerns and protect agricultural livelihoods

for villagers, livelihood comes first

• 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

villagers want to be involved

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

international talks affect local actions

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 capacity

a stepwise approach that builds on existing strengths and fills key gaps can be a model for capacity development

Stepwise approach can get countries

started

a stepwise approach to setting reference levels reflects different country circumstancescountries 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

Co-productio

n of science

Rigorous, salient, ethical science

Partner-centered

knowledge disseminat

ion

Internalization and

uptake by boundary partners

Effective, efficient

and equitable

REDD+

CIFOR and research partnersKnowledge generation

Boundary partnersKnowledge uptake

download

ratestrainings

conferences

peer-reviewed

publications

new clim

ate change regim

es

national / NG

O

MRV,

development

strategies

stakeholder w

orkshops

controllable indicators 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)