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.
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.


Policy panel: REDD+

Download to read offline

Presented by Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist, CIFOR

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Policy panel: REDD+

  1. 1. THINKING beyond the canopy Policy panel: REDD+ Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist
  2. 2. Bali 2007: Umbrella strategy for on-the-ground implemention REDD=Global PES REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and conservation, sustainable management and enhancement of carbon stocks Scales: Pilot projects + juris- dictional (national, subnational) REDD+ =goal; but also a model: Carbon-focused conditional “PES between countries”? Rationale: buying out forest loss in marginal hinterlands Global S.
  3. 3. REDD+ multi-level PES model (2008)
  4. 4. REDD+ financing has remained small Norman & Nakhooda (2014) Donor country pledges for REDD+ for the period 2006-2014 => high donor concentration, low volumes pledged => But post-Paris, funding flows from Green Climate Fund (GCF), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)/ (World Bank)
  5. 5. Densityof REDD+initiatives Low Medium High Veryhigh NoREDD+project Forest area under REDD+ Simonet et al. (2018) 347 subnational initiatives (in 2014) National REDD+: NICFI, REM, UN-REDD…
  6. 6. Wunder et al. (2020) REDD+ PCA snapshot
  7. 7. Wunder et al. (2020) Carbon sales & certification
  8. 8. CIFOR Global Comparative Study on REDD+ • Field research in 6 countries, 23 sites, 150 villages, 4,000+ households • “Before-after/control-intervention” (2010-11 / 2013- 14/ 2018) • Land use mapping, socioeconomic questionnaire 2016-07-06_GCS_sites_pantropicalTOTALexclBF_LowRes.pdf
  9. 9. REDD+ as bundle of interventions Restrictions on forest access and conversion Tenure clarification, registries Non-conditional liv. enhancement Conditional liv. enhancement Environ. education Forest enhancement § Characterized all interventions in study villages § Created “treatment intensity” score (share households per village exposed to specific intervention types)
  10. 10. Average country-level treatment intensity 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Int Con Int Con Int Con Int Con Int Con Int Con Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam CLE NCLE RFAC TC FE EE
  11. 11. 1. Forest carbon/ land use outcomes: 12 studies (!) Other outcomes (welfare, tenure…): 26 studies 2. Positive carbon/ LUC impacts, but large range 3. Mostly small/ insignificant impacts on income & perceived wellbeing…. es that focused on participation in REDD ocused on Free Prior Informed Consent al engagement in project activities. Nine ase reports, three were systematic reviews, land grabbing [16 !! ]. Similarly, low partic ARR project in Mozambique (30%) was re charcoal extraction, as well as low trust, ed cash income levels [32]. In Cameroon, part enhanced by positive local perceptions of a n area associated with the REDD+ project [33 project in Mexico, participation was positive 0 5 10 15 20 case report case-control study: no confounders considered case-control study: some confounders considered case-control study: pre-matched controls randomized control trial systematic review # studies carbon non-carbon participation Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability udy components assessing carbon and non-carbon outcomes, and local participation in REDD+. n Environmental Sustainability 2018, 32:134–140 REDD+ impacts Duchelle et al. (2018)
  12. 12. Subnational: TransamazonSimonet et al. (2018) 80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 75.7 71.0 65.9 60.5 67.3 62.3 52.6 2008 Participants Counterfactual Comparisoncommunities Forest covers as share of land (%) 2010 2012 2014 Causaleffectof the REDD+project:-50%in therateof deforestation Figure 10.4 Impact of REDD+ on deforestation in Transamazon project
  13. 13. 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Gross annual deforestation rate (%) Synthetic Guyana Guyana Norway-Guyana REDD+ Project Payments begin to decline above 0.056% Payments stop at 0.100% (b) (c) National: NICFI Guyana Roopsind et al. (2019)
  14. 14. Börner et al. (2018) National conservation policies
  15. 15. # Dimension Filtering factor Observation/ justification 1 REDD+ label Self-labelled and ‘REDD+ like’ Incl. multipurpose C-focused national PES (separate category) 2 Actions Forest carbon conservation element Excl. pure A/R projects 3 Scale National and subnational REDD+ No filter: projects and programmes alike 4 Starting time Implementation start not before 2007 COP13 initiated REDD process in 2007 A Literature Peer-reviewed + Grey Filtering instead on evaluation quality B Impacts Forest carbon + human wellbeing Incl., as main bottom lines for REDD+ C Outcomes Forest cover/loss + socio-economic Incl., as shorter-term bottom lines. D Outputs Excluded Excl. all middle-part ToC (intermediary) E Objectivity Subjective wellbeing included Incl., as welfare impact F Evaluation (Quasi-)experimental methods Counterfactual approach always needed Wunder, Schulz, Montoya Börner (unpublished) New REDD+ impact meta- study: delimitations
  16. 16. Wunder, Schulz, Montoya Börner (unpublished) REDD+ envir. impacts Mean REDD+ effect: 0.27; [95% Conf Int: 0.11-0.43]
  17. 17. Sources: 1) Wunder, Schulz, Montoya-Zumaeta & Börner (unpublished) 2) Börner et al. (2020) REDD+ environmental impacts – vis-à-vis other conservation tools
  18. 18. Wunder, et al. (unpublished) REDD+ socioecon. impacts Mean REDD+ impact of 0.00 (95% Conf. Int: -0.06-0.06)
  19. 19. REDD+: a (so far) unfulfilled promise, in Chinese boxes – REDD+ has remained under-financed, especially national REDD+ (the original target) – Project scope (PDD): avoid 84 mtCO2/yr (~33 yr) ~1% of land-based tropical emissions – but sold just 5% (Simonet et al. 2018): a drop in the sea… – REDD+ is to carbon, what ICDP is to biodiversity: a heterogenous mix of on-the-ground interventions – Land-use (and carbon) impacts of implemented policy mixes have been little evaluated – REDD+ projects tend to be welfare-neutral
  20. 20. But don’t just give up on REDD+ yet! – Post-Paris big new funding flows – GCF, FCPF – Upscaling/ new jurisdictional approaches – national, states & provinces (likely lower leakage) – Policy mixes: combining area- and product- based, and ‘produce & protect’ interventions – Even project environmental impacts so far have not been too bad, cf. other conservation tools (but: cost efficiency, permanence issues). => Social innovation cycles & fads: are we too quick to reject & move on to the next ‘big thing’?
  21. 21. Thanks!

Presented by Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist, CIFOR


Total views


On Slideshare


From embeds


Number of embeds