4 research outputs found
Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future
Attention to tenure is a fundamental step in preparation for REDD+ implementation. Unclear and conflicting tenure has been the main challenge faced by the proponents of subnational REDD+ initiatives, and accordingly, they have expended much effort to remedy the problem. This article assesses how well REDD+ has performed in laying an appropriate tenure foundation. Field research was carried out in two phases (2010-2012 and 2013-2014) in five countries (Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia) at 21 subnational initiatives, 141 villages (half targeted for REDD+ interventions), and 3,754 households. Three questions are posed: 1) What was the effect of REDD+ on perceived tenure insecurity of village residents?; 2) What are the main reasons for change in the level of tenure insecurity and security from Phase 1 to Phase 2 perceived by village residents in control and intervention villages?; and 3) How do intervention village residents evaluate the impact of tenure-related interventions on community well-being? Among the notable findings are that: 1) tenure insecurity decreases slightly across the whole sample of villages, but we only find that REDD+ significantly reduces tenure insecurity in Cameroon, while actually increasing insecurity of smallholder agricultural land tenure in Brazil at the household level; 2) among the main reported reasons for increasing tenure insecurity (where it occurs) are problems with outside companies, lack of title, and competition from neighboring villagers; and 3) views on the effect of REDD+ tenure-related interventions on community well-being lean towards the positive, including for interventions that restrain access to forest. Thus, while there is little evidence that REDD+ interventions have worsened smallholder tenure insecurity (as feared by critics), there is also little evidence that the proponents' efforts to address tenure insecurity have produced results. Work on tenure remains an urgent priority for safeguarding local livelihoods as well as for reducing deforestation. This will require increased attention to participatory engagement, improved reward systems, tenure policy reform, integration of national and local efforts, and "business-as-usual" interestsThis research is part of CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (www.cifor.org/gcs). The funding partners that have supported this research include the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) [grant numbers QZA-10/0468, QZA-12/0882, QZA-16/0110], the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) [grant numbers 46167, 63560], the European Commission (EC) [grant number DCI-ENV/2011/269-520], the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry
for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) [grant number KI II 7 - 42206-6/75], the United Kingdom Department for International Development (UKAID) [grant number TF069018], and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA) [grant number TF No. 069018], with financial support from the donors contributing
to the CGIAR Fund. David Solis provided a valuable service in reviewing our methods for taking into account attrition of households over time
REDD+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: a qualitative comparative analysis
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) has emerged as a promising climate change mitigation mechanism in developing countries. This paper examines the national political context in 13 REDD+ countries in order to identify the enabling conditions for achieving progress with the implementation of countries REDD+ policies and measures. The analysis builds on a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of various countries' progress with REDD+, conducted in 12 REDD+ countries in 2012, which highlighted the importance of factors such as already initiated policy change, and the presence of coalitions calling for broader policy change A follow-up survey in 2014 was considered timely because the REDD+ policy arena, at international and at country levels, is highly dynamic and undergoes constant evolution, which affects progress with REDD+ policy making and implementation. Furthermore, we will now examine whether the 'promise' of performance-based funds has played a role in enabling the establishment of REDD+. The results show a set of enabling conditions and characteristics of the policy process under which REDD+ policies can be established. The study finds that the existence of broader policy change, and availability of performance-based funding in combination with strong national ownership of the REDD+ policy process may help guide other countries seeking to formulate REDD+ policies that are likely to deliver efficient, effective, and equitable outcomes
REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe
As one of the leading near-term options for global climate change mitigation,
REDD+ has been piloted in over 300 subnational initiatives across the tropics.
This book describes 23 of those initiatives in six countries: Brazil, Peru, Cameroon,
Tanzania, Indonesia and Vietnam. These initiatives were selected in large part
because they had defined their specific intervention areas but not yet offered
conditional incentives to reduce forest carbon emissions when CIFOR collected
baseline data in 2010. By 2014, they had implemented a broad range of actions
both to develop enabling conditions and to reduce forest emissions. Thus, it is
now timely to report on their experiences and assess early lessons about REDD+,
including finance, tenure, scale, MRV and safeguards.
For each of these initiatives, we state the basic facts (where, who, why and
when); explain their strategies; describe smallholders living in and around
the intervention areas; and highlight key challenges and lessons learned. This
information was collected through a household survey at 17 sites, and interviews
with key informants and village meetings at all 23 sites.
Basic facts: Where, who, why and when
Most of the initiatives include between 650 and 6500 km2 of tropical rainforest.
There are exceptions in Tanzania and Vietnam, where initiatives are located in dry
forest and moist deciduous forest, which have lower carbon stocks and thus lower
potential carbon revenues.
Fourteen of the initiatives are led by private nonprofit organizations, while the
remaining initiatives are led either by for-profit companies or by the public sector,
sometimes in collaboration with nonprofit organizations. To date, the most
important funding source for these initiatives has been the public sector, followed
by philanthropic organizations and private companies.
Many of the nonprofit proponents were already engaged in conservation work
at their sites, which REDD+ has enabled them to continue or expand. In
contrast, proponents from the private sector were more often motivated by the
carbon market, and proponents from the public sector were generally seeking to
demonstrate the feasibility of REDD+ both for climate change mitigation and for
co-benefits. While all of the initiatives led by for-profit companies are continuing,
six of the initiatives led by nonprofit or public sector proponents have ended and
two have re-characterized themselves as low-carbon development efforts.
Strategies
While all initiatives shared the goal of reducing deforestation and degradation,
they pursued a broad range of strategies to accomplish this. Most proponents
initially planned to access the forest carbon market to pay for performance-based
incentives (direct payments or livelihood enhancements) to reduce deforestation.
However, to date, only four of the initiatives have sold carbon credits, and only 10 have made direct payments conditional on actions to reduce deforestation
or degradation. Many more have obtained bilateral or other public funding to
support unconditional livelihood enhancements. Some initiatives are seeking to
bundle carbon revenues with other incentives for sustainable management and
conservation, such as sales of certified timber. Thus, many initiatives are continuing
to follow their previous integrated conservation and development strategies.
At the same time, proponents have sought to clarify and secure tenure for local
stakeholders in order to identify who bears responsibility for protecting forests in
exchange for REDD+ benefits, to protect forests from deforestation agents and to
promote equity. Select proponents have encouraged local involvement in MRV.
Smallholders in the initiatives
At most of the sites, smallholders – whether indigenous to the area or recent
migrants – are largely dependent on agriculture. Specifically, at 14 of the 17 sites
where household surveys were conducted, smallholders derive their largest share
of income from crops and livestock, and hence their livelihoods are potentially
at risk from REDD+ interventions that restrict forest conversion. At each site,
about 40% of the interviewed households had cleared forest within the previous
two years, primarily for crop cultivation. The importance of forest clearing by
smallholders varies across regions, partly as a function of the size of a typical
smallholding (substantially larger in Brazil than in other countries) and partly in
comparison with other deforestation drivers (with typically greater external threats
in Indonesia). Forest products are the primary income source for smallholders at
only three sites, located in Indonesia and Peru.
Challenges and lessons
The experiences of the individual initiatives reveal huge challenges associated
with implementing REDD+ on the ground. Many of these challenges can only
be overcome with an international agreement that generates the level of support
originally envisioned for REDD+. Rather than waiting for such an agreement, the
proponents of subnational initiatives have been adapting and innovating. Here, we
summarize the challenges experienced and some lessons learned, especially in the
following five areas:
Finance. Of the 23 initiatives, 14 are still functioning under the REDD+ label, and
only four have sold carbon credits, which was initially envisioned as the primary
way REDD+ would be financed. Another six are still in the process of obtaining
third-party certification and/or marketing their credits. With the exception of three
initiatives led by for-profit proponents that have sold credits, all of the initiatives
that are seeking to continue as REDD+ are dependent on public and philanthropic
funding, neither of which promises a stable long-term budget. The challenges of
accessing carbon funding have also encouraged proponents to halt, transform or
at least relabel nine initiatives by the end of 2014, demonstrating the difficulty of
sustaining REDD+ interventions in the face of political and financial uncertainty.
Tenure. In addition to a secure source of funding, conditional incentives require
a way to identify who holds rights to forest carbon and who bears responsibility
for reducing emissions. Thus, pervasive tenure insecurity in tropical forests poses
a challenge for implementing performance-based systems; it also potentially encourages more deforestation and undermines local livelihoods. At 11 of the
sites, proponents consider tenure to be among their most important challenges.
Most of the proponents have therefore given significant, dedicated attention to
tenure clarification, but much remains to be done to assure an appropriate tenure
foundation for REDD+.
Scale. REDD+ is an inherently multilevel process, requiring coordination between
activities on the ground and policies at higher levels. The 23 initiatives in this
book include six that are jurisdictional, in the sense that they plan to monitor
carbon emissions and removals over an entire political administrative region.
Jurisdictional initiatives are enabled by the power of government to work across
sectors and scales, but can be hindered by interests counter to REDD+ that are
embedded in some sectors of government; initiatives may also be vulnerable to
changes in political leadership resulting from electoral outcomes.
MRV. MRV capabilities are highly uneven across countries, initiatives and
emission sources. In contrast to the remote sensing capabilities for monitoring
large-scale deforestation and the advance of deforestation frontiers that pre-dated
REDD+, there has been slow progress on monitoring the small-scale mosaic
deforestation and degradation that are ubiquitous throughout tropical forests. The
diversity of emission sources across the 23 sites clearly points to the importance
of locally tailored MRV systems, e.g. to capture the role of fire in Indonesian
peatlands and Tanzanian dry forests.
Safeguards. REDD+ initiatives could place local livelihoods at risk unless they
offer alternatives to forest conversion for agriculture – which is the primary
income source for many smallholders in our sample. Our survey indicates that
smallholders are concerned about whether they will receive tangible (incomerelated)
benefits and whether their incomes could be negatively impacted by
REDD+ interventions. Many of the proponents do plan to offer support for
sustainable agricultural practices in compensation for restrictions on traditional
shifting cultivation. However, survey results from the 23 sites clearly demonstrate
the challenges of promoting social co-benefits in a way that is efficient and
equitable given the heterogeneity of livelihood portfolios and varying patterns of
forest use and dependence among local stakeholders.
In sum, early expectations of large funding flows induced experimentation with
subnational REDD+. The resulting experiences – including the 23 initiatives
described in this book – could provide the building blocks for implementing REDD+
as part of a future climate change agreement. Meanwhile, REDD+ can be advanced
through strong efforts to: mobilize funding both for carbon and complementary
forest benefits; ensure that local stakeholders are not just motivated to conserve
forests but also protected against external threats to their resource rights; embed
REDD+ in state institutions without leaving it vulnerable to electoral politics;
increase capacity for MRV adapted to local conditions; and develop social safeguards
grounded in a detailed understanding of local livelihoods.This book is available at http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/books/BCIFOR1403.pdfFor a list of Fund donors please see: https://www.cgiarfund.org/FundDonor