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.

Local peoples’ perspectives on the effectiveness of REDD+ in changing land use behaviors

414 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Local peoples’ perspectives on the effectiveness of REDD+ in changing land use behaviors

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×