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