Does REDD+ affect household forest
clearing?
Stibniati Atmadja
CIFOR-Ethiopia
s.atmadja@cigar.org
53rd ATBC, in Montpellier, 23 June 2016

Introduction
Why ask?
 Some REDD+ initiatives target household level forest clearing. Were
they effective?
 Forest clearing are part of livelihood activities. Are they affected?
Data: GCS-REDD Module 2
 Before/After: Phase1 and Phase 2
 Control/Intervention: Villages without and with REDD+
 17 REDD+ sites in 6 countries (Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania,
Indonesia, Vietnam): 1-5 site/country
 129 villages, 3,988 randomly sampled households (hh) in Phase2
 “Has your household cleared any forest in the past 2 years?”
Based on early results for paper with co-authors (Angelsen, Bos, de
Sassi, Duchelle, Komalasari, Kweka, Pratama, Resosudarmo,
Rodriguez, Suryadarma). Please don’t cite yet!

Overview
Country
Phase1 Phase2
Intervention Control Intervention Control
HH
% HH
cleared
Ha
cleared HH
% HH
cleared
Ha
cleared HH
% HH
cleared
Ha
cleared HH
% HH
cleared
Ha
cleared
Brazil 632 66% 1205 486 53% 842.3 604 50% 774.4 442 39% 488
Peru 249 35% 141.5 248 45% 209.7 249 51% 207.4 246 60% 287
Cameroon 280 66% 348.8 250 71% 552.3 254 61% 231.6 220 60% 321
Tanzania 210 14% 19.1 240 13% 25.1 206 2% 3.3 190 2% 2.2
Indonesia 691 24% 349.4 658 21% 320.5 681 29% 344.8 659 23% 327
Vietnam 120 8% 14.6 120 2% 1.5 123 2% 0 112 1% 0
Total 2182 2523.2 2002 2421.9 2117 1910.7 1869 1775
“Has your household cleared any forest in the past 2 years?”
If yes, “How much forest was cleared in total in the last 2 years?”
Indicate total area cleared in hectares, in up to 3 parcels total.

Change in forest clearing (ha)
Village type Phase1* Phase2* Phase2-Phase1*
Brazil Intervention 2.57 1.80 -0.91
Control 2.52 1.84 -0.93
Peru Intervention 0.57 0.88 0.29
Control 1.15 1.26 -0.06
Cameroon Intervention 1.25 0.92 -0.31
Control 2.21 1.46 -0.87
Tanzania Intervention 0.12 0.02 -0.09
Control 0.13 0.01 -0.11
Indonesia Intervention 0.51 0.53 0.01
Control 0.50 0.50 -0.01
Vietnam Intervention 0.25 0.08 -0.16
Control 0.01 0.00 -0.01
Mean hh forest clearing (including households who did zero clearing)
* Highlighted cell=significantly different across control and intervention
at 10% level

Land use on cleared forest
Crop,
2078.4
Tree
planting,
87.8
Pasture,
329.4
Non-Ag,
27.6
Crop,
1951.3
Tree
planting,
180.6
Pasture,
270.6
Non-Ag,
19.4
Crop,
1561.4
Tree
planting,
181.1
Pasture,
160.2
Non-Ag,
7.0
Crop,
1425.1
Tree
planting,
172.5
Pasture,
165.0
Non-Ag,
11.9
Intervention Control
Phase 2
Phase 1
Percentage hectares of forest cleared used for crops, pasture, tree planting, and other
Crops: Almost all of land clearing in Ind, Peru, Cam
Pasture + Tree planting mostly in Brazil
Non-ag mostly in Tanz, Viet

Forest clearing for cropping (ha)
Group Phase1 Phase2 Diff: Phase2-Phase1
Brazil I 1.91 1.28 -0.64
C 1.73 1.10 -0.51
Peru I 0.57 0.83 0.23
C 0.85 1.17 0.21
Cameroon I 1.25 0.91 -0.32
C 2.21 1.46 -0.87
Tanzania I 0.09 0.02 -0.07
C 0.10 0.01 -0.09
Indonesia I 0.51 0.51 0.00
C 0.49 0.50 -0.01
Vietnam I 0.12 0.00 -0.11
C 0.01 0.00 -0.01
For all households, including those who did zero clearing
Same ↓ C/I
Same ↑ C/I
I ↓ slower
than C

Crops on cleared forest
Rank Phase1* Phase2*
(by #
plot)
Crop planted on cleared
land Top Country
Crop planted on
cleared land
Top
country
1 Cassava (bitter or sweet) Brazil, Cameroon Rice Indonesia
2 Rice Indonesia, Brazil
Cassava (bitter or
sweet) Brazil
3 Maize Brazil Maize Brazil, Peru
4 Plantain Cameroon Plantain Cameroon
5 Cocoa
Cameroon, Brazil
(Int) Rubber Indonesia
6 Peanut Cameroon Cocoa Cameroon
7 Rubber Indonesia Peanut Cameroon
8 Cocoyam Cameroon Oil palm Indonesia
9 Cucumber Cocoyam Cameroon
10 Chilli pepper Taro
* Orange: Staple crop; Green: Cash crop

Staple crop: Rice
 Rice cropping (swidden): Mean ha cleared among those that
cleared
Phase1 Phase2
Intervention Control Intervention Control
N Mean N
Brazil 90 3.52 62 2.98 39 2.45 28 2.73
Peru 29 1.59 41 1.61 44 1.38 55 1.58
Cameroon 1 1.00 0 . 0 . 0 .
Tanzania 5 1.29 6 1.66 0 . 0 .
Indonesia 111 1.78 96 1.84 148 1.48 94 1.85
Vietnam 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .
Brazil: less HH and smaller plots for Rice.
Not in Peru and Indonesia

Cash crop: Rubber and Oil Palm
Main cash crops in Indonesia
More HH engaged over time
Oil palm: large clearing relative to rice & rubber
Rubber Phase1 Phase2
HH Median* HH Median*
Intervention 26 1 58 1
Control 9 1 26 1.5
Oil Palm Phase1 Phase2
HH Mean HH Mean
Intervention 0 0 2 1.75
Control 2 3.0 16 2.5

Preliminary Conclusion
 Only C or I can disguise effects (or lack thereof) of REDD+
(e.g., Peru, Brazil, Cameroon)
 General national patterns using BACI cannot reveal REDD+
impact to reduce deforestation.
• In Cameroon: Deforestation slowing down but intervention
is at a slower pace than control
• Need to go to the project level
• Need to control for hh, village, project factors
 Data limitations: imperfect recall, fear of admitting forest
clearing, data only on HH plots
• Need to triangulate with other ways of evaluating impact
(See presentations by Bos, and Resosudarmo, ATBC 2016)
 Forest clearing used mainly for staple food production.
• Reduced clearing can directly impact on food security
 Indonesia: hh increasingly use cleared forest for rubber and
oil palm, but numbers are small (18 HH).