Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Global Comparative Study on REDD+ - The Project and Results
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Global Comparative Study on REDD+ - The Project and Results

486
views

Published on

This presentation focuses on the description of the actual project and the results found so far.

This presentation focuses on the description of the actual project and the results found so far.

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
486
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 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+.
  • Where we are working : National policy analysis in 13countries REDD project analysis in 6 countries
  • Where we are working : National policy analysis in 13 countries including Laos , which is not yet on the mapREDD project analysis in 6 countries
  • Where we are working : National policy analysis in 13 countries including Laos , which is not yet on the mapREDD project analysis in 6 countries
  • 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
  • Layout: Content with Potrait Picture.Variation: alter the position and size of the picture
  • Layout: Content with Horizontal PictureVariation: none
  • Transcript

    • 1. CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ Oslo REDD Exchange 29-30 October 2013
    • 2. The Project
    • 3. 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
    • 4. GCS-REDD Structure
    • 5. Where GCS-REDD+ works
    • 6. Where GCS-REDD+ works Policy analysis 12 countries since 2009 Laos added 2013 Ethiopia, Mexico 2014
    • 7. Where GCS-REDD+ works Project analysis 6 countries 23 REDD project sites 190 villages 4524 households
    • 8. Module 1 REDD+ strategies, policies and measures new research - - links of national & international political processes benefits-sharing
    • 9. Module 2 REDD+ Project Sites “BACI” research design Comparison Control Project site Intervention Control before Control after Intervention before Intervention before Before After
    • 10. Module 3 Monitoring and Reference Levels Improve procedures & practices for estimating & managing carbon stocks Hallmark: Stepwise approach to RELs & MRV (considers countries’ capacities)
    • 11. 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
    • 12. 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
    • 13. Thanks to
    • 14. Results
    • 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 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
    • 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+ through the lens of 4 I’s
    • 20. 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
    • 21. 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
    • 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 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
    • 24. 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
    • 25. 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
    • 26. 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
    • 27. 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
    • 28. 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
    • 29. 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
    • 30. 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
    • 31. 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
    • 32. 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
    • 33. 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)