Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

De sassi c_20150708_1430_unesco_fontenoy_-_room_ii


Published on


Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

De sassi c_20150708_1430_unesco_fontenoy_-_room_ii

  1. 1. THINKING beyond the canopy Can REDD+ initiatives protect and improve local stakeholders’ income and wellbeing? Claudio de Sassi and William D. Sunderlin Presentation for the session “Politics and numbers: Political and technical challenges in reducing emissions from forests with REDD+ ” UNESCO – Our Common Future under Climate Change July 7-10, 2015, UNESCO, Paris, France
  2. 2. Outline • CIFOR’s Global Comparative study on REDD+ • Module 2 sample and objectives • Research question and data • Results: household income • Results: perception of wellbeing • Summary and conclusions
  3. 3. Global Comparative Study on REDD+
  4. 4. Module 2 on subnational initiatives • Aim: Know what works and does not in setting up REDD+ initiatives • Criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, wellbeing, rights, biodiversity (3E+)
  5. 5. Module 2 on subnational initiatives • Counterfactual approach: Before- After, Control-Intervention (BACI) • 6 countries, 23 initiatives (of which 16 are BACI) • Of these, 17 have household data • Surveys of 4,185 households, 150 villages and women’s groups (87 inside and 63 outside REDD+), 23 proponent organizations, other stakeholders • Forest cover change through remote sensing
  6. 6. BRAZILPERU TANZANIA CAMEROON INDONESIA VIETNAM 3 7 8 6 4 2 1 5 9 10 11 16 13 14 15 12 22 19 20 18 17 23 21 BRAZIL 1.Acre 2.BolsaFloresta 3.Cotriguaçu 4.Jari/Amapá 5. SFX 6.Transamazon PERU 7.MadredeDios 8.Ucayali CAMEROON 9.Mt.Cameroon 10.SECameroon REDD+ initiatives Legend TANZANIA 11.Kigoma 12.Zanzibar 13.Kilosa 14.Lindi 15.Mpingo 16.Shinyanga INDONESIA 17.KFCP 18.Katingan 19.KCCP 20.RimbaRaya 21.TNCwithin BFCP 22.UluMasen VIETNAM 23. Cat Tien Location of subnational initiatives included in the CIFOR GCS study
  7. 7. Are REDD+ initiatives protecting and enhancing the income and wellbeing of local stakeholders?
  8. 8. Are REDD+ initiatives protecting and enhancing income and wellbeing of local stakeholders? We examine the effects of REDD+ intervention on target households through: - Detailed household income data (12-month recall of agricultural, forest, business, wage, and other income) at two points in time (roughly 2010 and 2013-14) - Data on perception of wellbeing change collected at the household level at two points in time (roughly 2010 and 2013-14)
  9. 9. Household income: before-after Overall increase in income over time in most countries, but variable: Increase: Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam Stagnant: Tanzania, Cameroon Decrease: Peru Before After
  10. 10. Before - Control Before - Intervention After - Control After - Intervention Differences between REDD+ and control households, where any, are smaller than changes over time Household income: before-after/ control-intervention
  11. 11. Household income: Tanzania Before - Control Before - Intervention After - Control After - Intervention Country income trends over time can be masked by contrasting site results: • Stagnant results at country level • Opposite trend between sites
  12. 12. Household income: Indonesia Before - Control Before - Intervention After - Control After - Intervention • Country income changes over time can vary markedly among sites • Significant differences between intervention and control villages emerge in the after phase
  13. 13. Household income: Indonesia Before - Control Before - Intervention After - Control After - Intervention • Both positive effects (REDD+ intervention villages have higher increase in income)
  14. 14. Household income: country case IndonesiaBefore - Control Before - Intervention After - Control After - Intervention • and negative effects (REDD+ intervention villages have lower increase in income or overall decrease) • Is this the effect of REDD+?
  15. 15. Perceived wellbeing: before-after • “Better off” and “same” increase very slightly over time while “worse off” decreases in aggregate • High variation among countries 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam TOTAL Percentofhouseholds Answer to question: “Overall, what is the wellbeing of your household today compared with the situation two years ago?” Better off % Phase 1 Better off % Phase 2 Same % Phase 1 Same % Phase 2 Worse off % Phase 1 Worse off % Phase 2
  16. 16. Perceived wellbeing: before-after/control-intervention • Slightly higher in intervention than in control in aggregate, though declining over time in intervention and rising in control Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam Total Cont -0,6 -10,7 0,8 3,3 7,5 -0,1 1,5 Int -2,9 -14,9 4,5 5,2 5,4 -8,4 -0,4 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 %changebefore-after Percent of households answering "better off" in answer to: “Overall, what is the wellbeing of your household today compared with the situation two years ago?”
  17. 17. Results summary: • Increase in income variable at the initiative site level, but showing a significant overall increase • At most initiative sites (10), no apparent difference between control and intervention villages • But at six sites, significant difference emerging over time between control and intervention villages, both positive and negative • Subjective perception of wellbeing shows similarities (and dissimilarities) in comparison with “objective” income data, i.e.:  slight improvement on average over time at both intervention and control villages;  advantage tends to decline in intervention and rise in control
  18. 18. Conclusions: • We detect no clear evidence that REDD+ has yet had a significant role in protecting and enhancing income and wellbeing.  Both income and wellbeing show both positive and negative changes over time  However, where there are changes they tend to be small compared to background dynamics
  19. 19. Conclusions: At sites where we observe significant changes between control and intervention villages’ income and perceived wellbeing, it is unclear whether and to what extent positive changes are due to:  REDD+ conditional interventions, i.e. what is new and distinctive about REDD+  REDD+ non-conditional interventions since the beginning of REDD+, perhaps more properly called ICDP rather than REDD+  Interventions by REDD+ organizations that predate REDD+ and therefore have nothing to do with REDD+ properly defined  Other factors And whether negative changes are attributable to disincentives/restrictions
  20. 20. Conclusions: We are skeptical that the marginal benefit seen in some intervention villages can be attributed to REDD+ conditional incentives because our previous research has shown that: • Only 4 of 23 initiatives are selling forest carbon credits • Only 10 have piloted conditional incentives • 6 have ceased operating • REDD+ on the ground is “treading water” • Without adequate REDD+ financing, REDD+ by default relying mainly on ICDP approach Source: Sills et al. (2014)
  21. 21. Conclusions: • In our follow-up analysis, we plan to do the following to assure our findings are on a sure footing:  Refine our definition of “intervention household”, given the low incidence of direct payments and wide reliance of proponents on non-conditional incentives  Fine tune analyses at the household-level with regard to specific REDD+ and non-REDD+ interventions • Moreover we plan to assess socioeconomic impacts (or lack thereof) in relation to REDD+ carbon effectiveness • Stay tuned for in-depth results coming soon….
  22. 22. Sills, Erin O., Stibniati S. Atmadja, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Demetrius L. Kweka, Ida Aju Pradjna Resosudarmo, and William D. Sunderlin (eds.). 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research. References
  23. 23.
  24. 24. We thank our donors!