Presented by Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist, CIFOR

1. THINKING beyond the canopy
Policy panel: REDD+
Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist

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. REDD+ multi-level PES model (2008)

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. 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. Wunder et al. (2020)
REDD+ PCA snapshot

7. Wunder et al. (2020)
Carbon sales & certification

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. 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. 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. 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 www.sc
REDD+ impacts
Duchelle et al. (2018)

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. 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. Börner et al. (2018)
National conservation policies

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. Wunder, Schulz, Montoya
Börner (unpublished)
REDD+ envir. impacts
Mean REDD+ effect: 0.27; [95% Conf Int: 0.11-0.43]

17. Sources: 1) Wunder, Schulz, Montoya-Zumaeta & Börner (unpublished)
2) Börner et al. (2020)
REDD+ environmental impacts –
vis-à-vis other conservation tools

18. Wunder, et al.
(unpublished)
REDD+ socioecon. impacts
Mean REDD+ impact of 0.00 (95% Conf. Int: -0.06-0.06)

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. 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. Thanks!