REDD+ effectiveness is commonly assessed through recorded emission reductions within a given period and area. This paper proposes a novel approach to evaluate REDD+ effectiveness, where greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions are determined through self-reporting of changes in land use activities and natural resource management that generate these emissions.

1. THINKING beyond the canopy
The effectiveness of REDD+ initiatives in changing local people’s
emission-generating activities: Household perspectives from Africa,
Asia, and Latin America
Ida Aju P. Resosudarmo and Mella Komalasari
53rd ATBC- 19-23 June 2016, Montpellier, France

2. THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD+ effectiveness
REDD+ intervention
activities
•Conditional
Livelihood
enhancement
•Non-conditional
livelihood
enhancement
•Forest enhancement
•Restriction on forest
access and
conversion
•Tenure clarification
•Environmental
education
•Other Interventions
Resulting in
Change of
people’s
behavior on
land and
resource use
that has
impact on
carbon
emissions
Leading to
Improved carbon
stock/forest
cover
•Land cover change (remote sensing)
•Reported forest clearing

3. THINKING beyond the canopy
Classification of interventions
 Conditional livelihood enhancement
 Non-conditional livelihood enhancement
 Forest enhancement
 Restriction on forest access and conversion
 Tenure clarification
 Environmental education
 Other

4. THINKING beyond the canopy
Research Questions
 RQ1: To what extent are HHs involved in REDD+
interventions?
 RQ2: Do REDD+ interventions affect local land use?
 RQ2: How do REDD+ interventions affect local
people’s land use?

5. THINKING beyond the canopy
HH involvement in interventions
42 42
26
32
23
8
33
0
20
40
60
80
100
Incidences of involvement (%)
89 92
53
88
53
38
71
0
20
40
60
80
100
HHs involved - %
• 71% of HHs were involved in at least one intervention
• But, only 1/3 of all incidences of interventions applied in the
villages resulted in HH involvement.

6. THINKING beyond the canopy
Have interventions affected HH land use?
27
51
62
34
45
37
42
0
20
40
60
80
100
Land use change - incidence (%)
1947
incidences52
77 74
68
73
47
65
0
20
40
60
80
100
HH changing their LU (%)
980 HHs
• Of those HHs involved in at least 1 intervention, 65% or 980 HHs
changed at least 1 of their land uses
• 42% of incidences of HH involvement in interventions resulted in
land use change

7. THINKING beyond the canopy
Have interventions affected HH land use?
247
481
364
431
94
218
12
# Land Use Change
Conditional Livelihood Enhancement Non-Conditional Livelihood Enhancement
Forest Enhancement Restriction on Forest Access and Conversion
Tenure Clarification Environmental Education
Other

8. THINKING beyond the canopy
How have interventions affected HH land use?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Conditional
livelihood
(n=292)
Non-conditional
livelihood
(n=559)
Forest
enhancement
(n=469)
Restriction
forest access &
conv. (n=552)
Tenure
clarification
(n=110)
Environmental
education
(n=256)
%oftotalresponses
Agriculture
Forestry
ComplianceNew land use
Management
Shift land use
Livestock

9. THINKING beyond the canopy
HH motivations to change and retain land use
practices
 Motivation to change
• Regulatory environment, monitoring, enforcement
• Delivery or implementation of interventions
• Positive perception of project or interventions
 Motivation to retain
• Delivery or implementation of interventions
• Targeted objectives, activies, or location of interventions
• Regulatory environment, monitoring, enforcement
• Sceptisms about project or interventions
• Constraints in implementing activities
Sceptisms
about project
or
interventions
Positive
perceptions
of project or
interventions

10. THINKING beyond the canopy
Conclusions
 3/4 of HHs directly participated in interventions
 Only 1/3 of all interventions reached HHs: much effort was carried out in
comparison to its reach.
 65% of HHs involved in interventions changed their land use, but only 42%
of incidences of involvement in interventions resulted in change of land use
 Variations in how people respond to interventions by country and by type of
intervention: non-conditional livelihood enhancement, restrictions on forest
access and conversion, and forest enhancement are dominant
 Variations in how people change their land use: agriculture, forestry, and
compliance stand out
 Regulatory environment and implementation of interventions define HH
motivation to change land use

11. Financial support for GCS-REDD+:
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation,
Australian Agency for International Development,
European Commission,
UK Department for International Development,
German International Climate Initiative,
CGIAR Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) Programme.
www.cifor.org/gcs