This document summarizes research by CIFOR on REDD+ initiatives in Indonesia. CIFOR has conducted a Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ across multiple countries since 2009. In Indonesia, GCS research was conducted at two REDD+ sites: the Katingan-Mentaya Project and Berau Forest Carbon Program. Household surveys were administered to 450 households across three phases (2010, 2014, 2018) to analyze the impact of REDD+ on forest and agricultural revenues using propensity score matching and difference-in-differences analyses. Preliminary results found forest revenues increased in REDD+ villages compared to control villages from 2010-2014, while agricultural revenues decreased from 2010-2018 in RED

1. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR REDD+ Datasets & Preliminary Result
on Indonesia Sites
Research of Sub-National Initiatives
By Mella Komalasari and Sandy Nofyanza
VNUF, 19 Dec 2022

2. THINKING beyond the canopy
Background
▪ CIFOR stands for Center for International Forestry Research. CIFOR's head office has been in Bogor,
Indonesia since 1993, based on an agreement with the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. CIFOR
is a non-profit scientific research organization that conducts research on the use and management
of forests with a focus on tropical forests in developing countries
▪ GCS REDD+ stands for Global Comparative Study on REDD+ was launched in 2009 by CIFOR and being
implemented to provide knowledge and expertise so that REDD+ can be implemented successfully.
What is CIFOR? What is GCS REDD+?
Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options - CIFOR Knowledge
▪ REDD stands for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
▪ In the CIFOR book “Realising REDD+,” REDD+ is defined as follows: “We use REDD+ as an umbrella
term for local, national and global actions that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, and enhance forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+)
What is REDD+?

3. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR’s Global Comparative
Study: GCS-REDD+
• To support REDD+ policy arenas
and practitioner communities with:
- information
- analysis
- tools
• To promote 3E+ outcomes:
- effectiveness
- efficiency
- equity and co-benefits

4. THINKING beyond the canopy
GCS REDD+ Datasets
ID-RECCO: International Database on REDD+ Projects
linking Economic, Carbon and Communities data’
Longitudinal Database: Household, Village, and Women
Datasets for Phase 1 (2009/10), Phase 2 (2013/14) and
Phase 3 (2018/19)

5. THINKING beyond the canopy
GCS M2 Research sites
CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ www.cifor-icraf.org/gcs/
▪ Module 2 of GCS REDD+ is conducting research at 23 REDD+ subnational
initiatives in six countries: Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru, Tanzania and
Vietnam
▪ 18 subnational initiatives are called ‘intensive’ sites, and 5 out of 23 initiatives
are ‘extensive’ sites – with less-detailed data-gathering
We invite you to use the data!

6. Data Collection (Phase 1, Phase 2 & Phase 3)
Household interviews
Community meeting (FGD)
Women meeting (FGD)

7. THINKING beyond the canopy
Comparison
(Control)
REDD+ site
(Intervention)
Before After
IMPACT
Intervention
After
Control
After
Intervention
Before
Control
Before
Methods: BACI approach
▪ Sampled 150 communities and ~4,000 households in P1 and P2
▪ Sampled 64 communities and ~2000 in Phase 3 (Brazil, Peru and Indonesia)
▪ Socio-economic variables (collected through field surveys in 2010, 2014 and
2018) using BACI approach

8. THINKING beyond the canopy
Household Survey
▪ There are 8 villages for each sites (4 intervention
villages and 4 control villages)
• n = 30 HH/village
▪ Objective:
• Measure the potential effect of REDD+ on HH well-
being on the basis of objective metrics (livelihood,
assets and income in the course of 12 months) and
subjective metrics (perceived well-being status and
the reasons for change for those who experience
change);
• Measure the potential effect of REDD+ on land and
resource use at the level of the household;
• Measure household knowledge of and involvement
in the process of establishing and implementing
REDD+.
▪ HH Questionnaire is divided into 5 main sections:
• Basic information on household members;
• Household assets;
• Household income;
• Perceptions of wellbeing and wellbeing change in
last two years;
• Involvement in and assessment of forest
conservation interventions.
▪ Two additional sections added in Phase 3:
• Risk, time, social, environmental and trust
preferences of the household
• Experimental game to assess social preferences

9. THINKING beyond the canopy
Village survey
▪ Village Questionnaire is divided into 10 main sections:
1. Basic information on demography, settlement, and infrastructure;
2. Village institutions and forest use regulations and rules;
3. Wages and prices;
4. Development projects/income to village (Phase 1 only);
5. Village land tenure and use;
6. Basic information on livelihoods in the village and change over time;
7. Change in forest area, quality, and use;
8. Views on tenure security over agricultural and forest resources;
9. Perceptions on changes in wellbeing; and
10. Involvement in and assessment of forest interventions.
▪ Information sources for this questionnaire are secondary data, own observations, interviews with key
informants (sections 1 to 5), and village meetings/focus groups that consist of 10–15 adults (>16 years
of age) (sections 5 to 10)

10. THINKING beyond the canopy
Women Survey
▪ Women’s Questionnaire has three main goals.
• An instrument that enables women to have a voice as respondents in GCS REDD+
• A way to obtain data that are specific to the experience and knowledge of women
in the study villages
• Supplies information that compares the livelihood activities and outlooks of
women and men in the study villages
▪ The Women’s Questionnaire is composed of four main sections:
1. Women’s livelihoods in the village and change over time; and tenure;
2. women’s participation in village and household decisions;
3. perception of changes in women’s well-being;
4. women’s involvement in and assessment of forest interventions.

11. THINKING beyond the canopy
ID-RECCO
▪ ID-RECCO: International Database on REDD+ Projects linking Economic, Carbon and
Communities data’
• Established in 2015, updated in May 2018, last update 2020, Currently, 2022 update.
• Developed by Gabriela Simonet for her PhD. Collaboration of CIFOR, Climate
Economics Chair (Paris-Dauphine university, France), CIRAD (Montpellier, France) and
IFRI (University of Michigan, United States).
• 110+ variables: REDD+ project description, carbon certification, carbon credit, sources
of financing, community level interventions, project proponents, project developers
• Objective: provide uniform, global, systematic, updated data on REDD+ projects in a
format useful for research
• Data extracted from the REDD+ literature (project maps, research, Certification
reports, datasets by others, research on projects, news articles, carbon registries)

12. THINKING beyond the canopy
Type of Information
1. Country: range of indicators about the country hosting the project, some of them
being specifically on national forests, other on demographic and economic aspects.
2. Project Proponent: information about the project proponent(s).
3. Contact: information about the contacts listed for each project proponent. This table
will not be displayed for privacy reasons.
4. Project: general data about the project, including its geographic area and extent, the
deforestation drivers affecting the project area, the objectives of the project,
information on land tenure and community participation, etc.
5. Carbon General: general information about the carbon component of the project,
mainly certification aspects (standard, carbon credits data, crediting period, etc.).

13. THINKING beyond the canopy
Types of Information
6. Carbon Credits: details of carbon credit transactions, including buyers’ names and
motivations, quantity of credits sold and date of the transaction.
7. Financing: data about the different sources of financing of the project.
8. Communities Aspects: indicators focusing on the expected socio-economic impacts
of the project on communities living near the project, including direct payments,
employment, economic activities, etc.

14. THINKING beyond the canopy
How data relate to each other

15. THINKING beyond the canopy
ID-RECCO Website
▪ http://www.reddprojectsdatabase.org/index.html
▪ Contact person: Stibniati Atmadja and Martin Susilo (CIFOR)
▪ Public data repository
• Project data displayed in map and table forms by country
▪ Country data linked to the country tables
▪ Project data linked to various tables (Project, carbon credit, etc)
• Database (sub set of ID-RECCO variables) downloadable after people register
• Project search function, by keywords of project name or proponent

16. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR DATAVERSE
▪ A guideline to use as a methodological reference for users of the data; a key
reference document for members of the research team and a means for
outside experts to understand the study
• Technical guidelines for research on REDD+ subnational initiatives -
CIFOR Knowledge
▪ Metadata
• Village dataset of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+)
Module 2 - Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (cifor.org)
• Women’s dataset of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS
REDD+) Module 2 - Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (cifor.org)
• Household dataset of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS
REDD+) Module 2 - Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (cifor.org)

17. THINKING beyond the canopy
Example of data analysis in Indonesia
→ → → → → → → →

18. REDD+ project and its impact on HH agriculture and forest revenues
in Indonesian Borneo: Preliminary findings
Sandy Nofyanza, Zahra Avia, Mella Komalasari, Agus M Maulana
December 14, 2022
Science and Policy Dialogue IV, Santika Hotel Bogor

19. Objective and method
Aim
▪ to explore the average effect of REDD+ on forest and agricultural
revenue (ATET) and their changes overtime (DiD)
Method
▪ Pair match (with replacement)
▪ k-nearest neighbor matching (k=3 and k=5)
▪ Kernel matching (weighted avg of control HHs based on their similar
characteristics to a treated HH)
• Generalized difference-in-differences (DiD) in matched sample
Data
▪ GCS REDD+ household dataset, three phases (2010, 14, 18)
▪ 450 HHs across three surveys

20. Policy relevance
REDD+ aims to generate:
1. Carbon mitigation benefit
2. Co-benefits for sustainable development
▪Forest revenue
▪Agriculture revenue …
… While minimize the risks to local communities
Policymakers and REDD+ proponents will benefit from robust evaluation of REDD+
projects to ensure the target and safeguard requirement are met

21. Study
sites
Katingan-Mentaya
Project
• Avoiding deforestation
(in mineral forest and
peatland) and
peatland drainage
• Community-based
sustainable forest
management
• Fire prevention and
management

22. Study
sites
Berau Forest Carbon
Program
• Support in obtaining
HD status and PA
status
• Support in
smallholders
certification
• Support in land
conflict resolution

23. Forest products
Timber FPs: Logs, sawn timber, poles
NTFPs for services: Bamboo, rattan, lianas and vines, rubber, resin,
forage/fodder, thatch
NTFPs for food/medicine (including wildlife): Honey, tree barks, leaves,
roots, branches, seedlings, seeds
Fuelwood: firewood, charcoal
Other NTFPs: Mineral, ore, rock
Agricultural products
1. Various agricultural crops
2. Livestock
3. Livestock products (eggs, milk, wool, etc)

24. Propensity score matching
Multiple trial using
combinations of
covariates..
.. to obtain a
balance propensity
score
Variable Description
Information on household head
Gender Gender of household head, 0=male, 1=female
Marital status 1=married, 0=otherwise (incl widow/widower)
Age Age of household head
Years of schooling Years of formal education
Born at village 1=household head was born in this village, 0=otherwise
Local ethnicity 1=household head belongs to the largest ethnic group in the village, 0=otherwise
Years living at village* Number of years of living in the village
Information on household
Household size* Number of household member(s)
Years formed Years since household first formed
Asset value Total value of household assets (USD PPP 2021)
House index Relative value of household house conditions, from 3 (low) to 9 (high)
Utility index Relative value of household access to water, electricity, and sanitation, from 3 (low) to 9 (high)
Forest revenue Annual revenue from forest-related activities
Agricultural revenue Annual revenue from agriculture (including the value of livestock and livestock products)
Ha of agricultural land Ha of land used for agriculture purposes
Ha of land for other use Ha of land used for other purposes
Information on villages
Village type 1=REDD+ villages, 0=control villages
Basic infrastructure* Number of basic infrastructures in the village, scale 1-6. Infrastructure include elementary and secondary
schools, accessible road all year, regular phone access, healthcare facility, and financial institution
(formal/informal)
Forest cover change* Perceived forest cover change in the last two years; 1=increased or stayed the same, 0=decreased

25. Propensity score matching
• Good overlap
• Good reduce of bias – models are well-
balanced
Median bias %
Forest revenue Agricultural revenue
pair match nn match
(k=3)
nn match
(k=5)
Kernel pair
match
nn match
(k=3)
nn match
(k=5)
Kernel
Unmatched 13.7 13.7 13.7 n/a 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.7
Matched 6.3 9.1 8.6 n/a 7.3 5.4 6.6 6.1

26. Result: Forest revenue (FR)
n with common support:
• 2010: 189 (out of 194)
• 2014: 159 (out of 165)
• 2018: 164 (out of 169)
1890,8**
2187,0** 2176,0
1059,5** 1119,7**
3702,6
0,0
500,0
1000,0
1500,0
2000,0
2500,0
3000,0
3500,0
4000,0
2010 2014 2018
USD
(PPP
2021)
Avg change in annual forest revenue, by region
REDD+ villages Control villages
ATET DID (n = 496): US$ 362
Overall, average FR increased in REDD+ villages
but no statistical evidence to support that it was caused
by REDD+ project
The difference of FR between REDD+ villages and
control villages was statistically significant in the
baseline and in 2014
Considerable gap in the baseline (2010) indicates that
maybe REDD+ sites were in general more suitable for
forest product collection

27. Result: Agricultural revenue (AR)
n with common support:
• 2010: 286 (out of 290)
• 2014: 316 (out of 322)
• 2018: 303 (out of 309)
2302,7
1706,4
2036,5
1952,4
2442,2
2699,1
0,0
500,0
1000,0
1500,0
2000,0
2500,0
3000,0
2010 2014 2018
USD
PPP
2021
Avg change in annual agriculture revenue, by region
REDD+ villages Control villages
ATET DID (n = 859): US$ -1,131**
Overall, average AR decreased
and there is statistical evidence to support that it was
caused by REDD+ project
Maybe it was caused by various restrictions (e.g. no new
land clearing)
AR in REDD+ villages bounced back 2018, parallel to the
trend in control villages
Regardless, no statistical evidence that the rise was
caused by REDD+
in other words:
REDD+ works!

28. How to improve the model and better explain the difference?
1. Separate the analysis of E and C Kalimantan
• Maybe also consider the type of interventions implemented at each site
2. Consider the differences in forest cover/biophysical characteristics
3. Check if the decline in agricultural revenue is compensated elsewhere
• i.e., maybe overall household revenue on average is increasing despite the decrease in agri
revenue
4. Analyze the impact by household that choose to participate in REDD+, instead of by village status
(but n will be smaller)

29. Conclusion: Lessons for future mitigation efforts
▪ The collection of forest products thrives in area where REDD+ project is situated
(see 2010-2014)
• But the result suggest FR will still increase even though there’s no REDD+ (low
additionality)
• Keep focusing on improving alternative livelihood options – because this is the core of REDD+
▪ Focus on assisting the transition to a sustainable (and profitable) agricultural
practices
• Including providing funding/safety net to mitigate the impact of agricultural revenue decline
during the transition/REDD+ project implementation
• Can be relevant in the case of benefit-sharing from FCPF-CF & BioCF ISFL’s RBPs
▪ This is a preliminary finding – comments/inputs are very much welcome!

30. cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry and
landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR–ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
cifor-icraf.org/gcs
Thank
you