Evaluating the impacts of REDD+ interventions on forests and people

826 views

Published on

Presented by CIFOR Scientist Amy Duchelle on behalf of the Global Comparative Study (GCS) REDD+ Subnational Initiatives research group on 12 December 2016 at CBD COP13 in Cancun, Mexico.

Published in: Environment
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
826
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluating the impacts of REDD+ interventions on forests and people

  1. 1. Evaluating the impacts of REDD+ interventions on forests and people Amy E. Duchelle On behalf of GCS REDD+ Subnational Initiatives research group 12th December 2016, CBD COP 13, CI & IIED Side Event
  2. 2. THINKING beyond the canopy Context  Paris Climate Agreement recognizes key role of forests in climate change mitigation  REDD+ is included in many countries’ commitments towards keeping global temperature rise below 2.0oC  Since 2007, hundreds of subnational REDD+ initiatives implemented across the tropics => provide opportunity to evaluate forest and livelihood outcomes
  3. 3. THINKING beyond the canopy CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ • To support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with: - information - analysis - tools • To measure 3E+ outcomes: - effectiveness - efficiency - equity and co-benefits
  4. 4. THINKING beyond the canopy Subnational REDD+ Initiatives in GCS Comparison (Control) REDD+ site (Intervention) Before After IMPACT Intervention After Control After Intervention Before Control Before 2010 / 2011 2013 / 2014 • 6 countries • 22 initiatives • 150 villages • 4,000 households Methods described in detail in Technical Guidelines (Sunderlin et al. 2016)
  5. 5. THINKING beyond the canopy Site selection, sampling and matching  In early 2010, selected subnational initiatives in 6 countries where site boundaries and intervention areas determined, but conditional interventions not yet offered.  Rapid rural appraisal => compile data on 22 characteristics (e.g. distance to market, local institutions, main drivers of deforestation) for 15 intervention villages and 15 control villages per site.  Covariate matching using Mahalanobis distance metric to select 4 intervention and 4 control villages per site.  Random sample of 30 households per village (total 240 households per site). Sills et al. in review
  6. 6. THINKING beyond the canopy Initiative design and implementation  Interviews with initiative proponents: Proponent Appraisal (2010), Survey of Project Implementation (2011), Proponent Challenges Survey (2013)  Survey of Village Interventions (proponents, key informants): characterize all forest interventions in study villages 0 20 40 60 Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam #interventions enabling measures disincentives incentives n=5 n=2 n=2 n=6 n=6 n=1
  7. 7. THINKING beyond the canopy B A C I C IB A B A B A Biophysical data • Global Forest Change (“Hansen”) data 2000-2014 at 22 sites • Locally calibrated product based on dense time series data (BFAST) and biomass datasets at 6 sites Bos et al. in prep • Assessment of congruence between carbon and biodiversity benefits at Indonesian sites (Murray et al. 2015) time deforestation
  8. 8. THINKING beyond the canopy Socioeconomic data Village and Women’s Focus Groups, and Household Surveys • Demography • Institutions (focus groups only) • Assets and income (hh only) • Tenure security • Land use • Subjective well-being • Involvement in / assessment of REDD+ initiative and specific forest interventions
  9. 9. THINKING beyond the canopy Key findings  Minimal reduced tree cover loss at REDD+ sites; performance appears worse in analysis without controls (Bos et al. in prep)  3/4 of households at REDD+ sites subject to interventions; 65% of those reported changes in land use (Resosudarmo et al. in prep)  REDD+ initiatives in Indonesia located in high biodiversity areas with lower than average carbon density (Murray et al. 2015) REDD+ impacts on forests REDD+ impacts on people  No negative impacts on income and well-being, but also no evidence of co-benefits (De Sassi et al. in prep; Sunderlin et al. in prep)  Little advancement on tenure (Sunderlin et al. in review)  Incentives help alleviate negative well-being impacts of regulations alone (Duchelle et al. in review)
  10. 10. THINKING beyond the canopy Discussion  Flexibility needed for analyzing evolving policy process (e.g. some REDD+ projects => jurisdictional programs; interventions beyond conditional rewards)  Good controls needed for BACI approach; our study demonstrates that it is possible to improve selection of controls with matching based on rapid rural appraisal data  Slow REDD+ implementation and cautious smallholder response make it difficult to separate real effects from general noise of data  Planned 3rd round of data collection at 8 sites in Indonesia, Brazil and Peru to assess longer-term impacts
  11. 11. Financial support for GCS REDD+ www.cifor.org/gcs a.duchelle@cgiar.org

×