Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Transforming REDD+ lessons learned and way forward

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 33 Ad

Transforming REDD+ lessons learned and way forward

Download to read offline

Presentation by Christopher Martius on April 5, 2019 at Workshop in Ethiopia ("Forests and climate change: research results and implications for REDD+ and forest governance in Ethiopia")

Presentation by Christopher Martius on April 5, 2019 at Workshop in Ethiopia ("Forests and climate change: research results and implications for REDD+ and forest governance in Ethiopia")

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Transforming REDD+ lessons learned and way forward (20)

Advertisement

More from Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Transforming REDD+ lessons learned and way forward

  1. 1. TRANSFORMING REDD+ LESSONS LEARNED AND WAY FORWARD Christopher Martius, Arild Angelsen, Stibniati Atmadja, Niki de Sy, Thu Thuy Pham, Anne Larson, Amy Duchelle c.martius@cgiar.org Addis Ababa, 5 April 2019
  2. 2. What is in this talk? 1. Global role of forests in mitigating climate change 2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+ 3. REDD+ as a Theory of Change: What is missing? 4. Policy Network Analysis - Indonesia example 5. Summarizing REDD+ at the global level
  3. 3. What is in this talk? 1. Global role of forests in mitigating climate change 2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+ 3. REDD+ as a Theory of Change: What is missing? 4. Policy Network Analysis - Indonesia example 5. Summarizing REDD+ at the global level
  4. 4. UNEP: The Emissions Gap Report 2016
  5. 5. Climate change context • IPCC 1.5 degree report: immense and urgent challenges and risks related to climate change • a temperature rise of 2.0 °C is likely Forestry: • huge expectations globally - is the only carbon sink • Bonn Challenge 350 million ha ecosystem restoration until 2030 • But costs and area demand are huge • South Korea: restored 2 million ha of forest at cost of 3 billion $ • IPCC 1.5° report: For BECCS and afforestation together, land demand in 2100 is ca. 800-1800 million hectares, mainly converted from pasture land  What role can forestry realistically play?
  6. 6. Climate change mitigation role of afforestation Relatively low potential but lowest costs 6 IPCC1.5degreereport,chapter4 Direct air capture and carbon storage Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage Afforestation
  7. 7. http://redd.unfccc.int/uploads/2_94_redd_20150804_unredd_technical_considerations_frel_under_unfccc_en.pdf The four key elements of REDD+ and related UNFCCC DecisionsThe five activities that comprise REDD+ 1. Reducing emissions from deforestation 2. Reducing emissions from forest degradation 3. Conservation of forest carbon stocks 4. Sustainable management of forests 5. Enhancement of forest carbon stocks Decision 1/CP.16, par. 70 Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
  8. 8. What is in this talk? 1. Global role of forests in mitigating climate change 2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+ 3. REDD+ as a Theory of Change: What is missing? 4. Policy Network Analysis - Indonesia example 5. Summarizing REDD+ at the global level
  9. 9. CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study of REDD+ • To support REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with • information • analysis • tools • to ensure 3E+ outcomes for REDD+: • effectiveness (to reach C and non-C benefits) • (cost-) efficiency • equity • + co-benefits • towards transformational change Effective REDD+ policy National and global policies, measures and commitments REDD+ performance Rigorous assessment in 6 countries, 23 sites, 150 villages, 4,000+ households; global overview Integrating REDD+ in the landscape Multilevel governance, stakeholder platforms, development Monitoring, Measuring, Reporting and Verification Baslines, reference levels, drivers, capacity development Partnerengagementanddissemination 2009 - 2020
  10. 10. GCS REDD output & results: publications, websites… + Factsheets: http://www.cifor.org/gcs/publications/factsheets/ + REDD+ legal studies: http://www.cifor.org/gcs/publications/redd-legal-studies/ + Safeguards: http://www.cifor.org/gcs/publications/redd-safeguards/ + over 500 scientific publications: http://www.cifor.org/gcs/publications/ (books thumbnails are hyperlinked)
  11. 11. OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
  12. 12. What is in this talk? 1. Global role of forests in mitigating climate change 2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+ 3. REDD+ as a Theory of Change: What is missing? 4. Policy Network Analysis - Indonesia example 5. Summarizing REDD+ at the global level
  13. 13. REDD+ as a Theory of Change • A Theory of Change (ToC) is a roadmap for change o It outlines how to build a successful societal transformation o It explains how and why an initiative works o It maps a pathway from a project’s activities, via its outputs, to its outcomes and impact o It tells you where the gaps are
  14. 14. One early definition of REDD+ was… “A core idea underlying REDD+ is to make performance-based payments, that is, to pay forest owners and users to reduce emissions and increase removals. Such payment for environmental (or ecosystem) services (PES) … provides strong incentives directly to forest owners and users to manage forests better and clear less forestland. PES will fully compensate carbon rights holders that find forest conservation more lucrative than the alternatives. They simply sell forest carbon credits and less cattle, coffee, cocoa or charcoal.” Angelsen et al. (2009)
  15. 15. REDD+ as a Theory of Change I – the original idea
  16. 16. REDD+ as a Theory of Change II – the ‚official‘ set-up
  17. 17.  REDD+ misses some elements of a functional ToC • Missing components : “power” of incentives; nature and level of compensation; who the beneficiaries should be; and the extent to which offsetting should be permitted • REDD+ as practiced on the ground has evolved into a broad basket of adaptive, non-conditional activities • More clarity is needed for donor-side actions and commitments, and their role as catalysts of change through (conditional) financial support • One confusion arises when not distinguishing clearly between the objective of reduced emissions (REDD+), and the framework to achieve REDD+ • REDD+ has laudable broad objectives, but is also entangled by them, and its success depends on broad policy reform • Implementation must become more realistic and pragmatic, based on diagnosis and through evidence-based policy making
  18. 18. What is in this talk? 1. Global role of forests in mitigating climate change 2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+ 3. REDD+ as a Theory of Change: What is missing? 4. Policy Network Analysis - Indonesia example 5. Summarizing REDD+ at the global level
  19. 19. REDD+ policy (collaboration) networks: influence and coalition building in times of change Research question and hypothesis Tenure has become a central element in Indonesia’s REDD+ policymaking • But is this reflected in the REDD+ policy networks? • Can the network structure explain how tenure got high on the agenda? 2 Hypotheses: a) Actors with a rights-based approach to REDD+ gained more influence over time (higher reputation) b) Actors with a rights-based approach to REDD+ strategically build coalition with diverse and influential actors (less centrality in network)
  20. 20. Policy Network Analysis: Research Methods • Data collection in 2012 and 2015 • Identification of core organizations and policy events • expert panel (GO, Private Sector, ENGO, rights-CSO, University, international and national research) • Social organization survey • standard questionnaire to identify coalitions and network structures (stances, reputational power, info, collaboration, disagreement and financing networks) • In-depth interview with actors using open ended questions • UCINET Actors: • 2012: 102 identified, 65 responded to network survey: 64% • 2015: 130 identified, 83 responded to network survey: 62% • Overlap of 84 actors between round 1 and 2
  21. 21. FINDINGS: Influence The more often an actor is mentioned as influential, the larger the node size Network of influence 2012 2015 - AMAN among most influential actors in phase 2 - fewer government actors highly influential
  22. 22. FINDINGS: Collaboration Collaboration Network 2012 2015 - More actors in the center - Central actor such as AMAN, HUMA, FWI, Kemitraan are pushing for rights and climate justice including tenure reform - Ministry of Forests central actor, and government agencies recognizing this - But MoF also needs other organizations for REDD+ implementation
  23. 23. What is in this talk? 1. Global role of forests in mitigating climate change 2. Global Comparative Study on REDD+ 3. REDD+ as a Theory of Change: What is missing? 4. Policy Network Analysis - Indonesia example 5. Summarizing REDD+ at the global level
  24. 24. SUMMARISING REDD+ (I) Finance and building blocks • International funding (public & private) remains scarce, and demand through carbon markets is lacking • USD 1.1 – 2.7 billion/year in international REDD+ funding • Fact that REDD+ governments and communities cover many of the costs is not acknowledged • Results-based payment -REDD+’s key feature- largely untested at scale • Funding • Complex • Anecdotal evidence on the impacts of REDD+ finance on national policies
  25. 25. SUMMARISING REDD+ (II) Shaping up Positive intermediate outputs & outcomes • REDD+ helped forests gain prominence on international and some national policy agendas • 50+ countries put REDD+ in NDCs and have national REDD+ strategies • major coordination and implementation issues remain • National REDD+ initiatives improved countries’ monitoring capacities and understanding of drivers • Increased stakeholder involvement, and platforms to secure indigenous and community land rights • 350 REDD+ projects, covering 43 million ha • Jurisdictional approaches now covering 28% of tropical forests
  26. 26. SUMMARISING REDD+ (III) Modest impacts • National REDD+ policies: • most show some statistically significant reductions, but small effect size • Local REDD+ initiatives: • modest but positive outcomes for forests • Well-being impacts limited and mixed • more likely positive when incentive components are included • Similar to the micro-macro paradox of development aid • crowding out, leakage, too small
  27. 27. How can REDD+ be more effective? (I) Big and bold initiatives needed • International finance nudges …. • … but domestic incentives decide • Redesigning economics incentives for a triple win: • conserve forests • increase economic efficiency • improve government budget balance • Examples • Brazil’s drastic deforestation reduction post-2004 • India’s ecological fiscal transfers (USD 7-12 billion annually) • Ethiopia restoration plans • How can we avoid project-ification, and make REDD+ support these reforms?
  28. 28. How can REDD+ be more effective? (II) A positive, exciting narrative on forests • The iron law of climate policy (Arild Angelsen): • If a conflict climate – economic development, climate loses • Make forests part of a green/sustainable economic development strategy • Examples: • 1/5 of local income from forests (PEN study) • Forests as bio-pumps and ‘aerial rivers’
  29. 29. How can REDD+ be more effective? (III) Be brave and assess impacts • Few studies • Impact assessment is not story-telling by donors, proponents or beneficiaries … but a set of rigorous approaches; the main problem being to estimate the counterfactual • Impact assessment is not an afterthought; design and collect data from day 1 • It is risky for proponents: no control of the result and hence, verdict on your actions  We simply need to know more about what works and what doesn’t
  30. 30. Why are there not more impact assessments? 3 hypotheses People do not see the benefits? • Proponents with strong faith in own approach & success • “One can easily see if it works or not” Costs are high and the work, complex? • Data collection: baselines, controls • Need to hire experts • Randomisation of treatments is ethically problematic Risks are high? • No control of the result, and hence, the verdict • Negative assessment may jeopardize future funding
  31. 31. REDD+ as a learning experience • The question is not: “should we continue with REDD+ or not”? • But rather: “What have we learned that can make our effort to reduce forest emissions more effective, efficient and equitable?” • Both, dismissing REDD+, and telling unfounded success stories, prevent that learning • The writing of lessons learned has just begun
  32. 32. Great thanks to www.cifor.org/gcs
  33. 33. cifor.org blog.cifor.org ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org THANK YOU! www.cifor.org/gcs

Editor's Notes

  • The countries GCS works in, and some major outputs of CIFOR’s global comparative study
  • Read the lines
  • The data collection were conducted in 2012 for the first phase and 2015 for the second phase.
    We are indentifying core organisations and policy events through expert panel that representing Government organizations, private sector, ENGO, and….)
    Then we are conducting social organization survey to identify coalitions and networks structures.
    Then the survey was supported by actor’s in depth interview with list of open ended questions.
    We are using UCINET to draw to calculate and draw the network. Some calculation also done through R with help from our colleague. We identified 102 policy actors. However, due to confidentially issues and scheduling conflicts, we were only able to interview 65 included in our network analysis.

    Comparing results from two surveys on policy networks, in 2012 and 2015, we identified changes in the actors networks related to influence, information exchange, and collaboration.  We investigate how power relations have changed over time, and discuss what this means for the future of REDD+.
  • REDD+ is seen as involving inclusive, multisectoral and multidisciplinary policy processes. Although state agencies are perceived as the most influential, the Indonesian policy arena is populated by diverse actors. Figure 1 shows the number of times actors are named by other actors
    as influential in national REDD+ policymaking. It shows that a group of government agencies is considered most influential (see the blue oval in Figure 1). Thus, while there is a trend towards a more open government, multistakeholder consultations and multilevel governance, the government,
    understandably, is seen as ultimately responsible for public policy decisions. The Ministry of Forestry ( MoF) derives its power by virtue of controlling most forestland, bringing REDD+ under its jurisdiction. Recently, however, its central role in the policy arena has been challenged. Local governments are exerting their autonomy and pressuring the national government
    to allow conversion of forest to other land uses. In response to a suit brought by four district heads in late 2011, the constitutional court declared that Article 1, Paragraph 3 of the Forestry Law of 1999, defining a forest area as ‘designated’ rather than gazetted by the Minister of Forestry, is unconstitutional. Although the forest areas delineated in the 1980s are still considered legally valid, most forest areas have not yet been gazetted and therefore can now be easily disputed (Arizona et al. 2012). Local communities, supported by NGOs, have also become more assertive in claiming land. Nevertheless, the MoF retains formal rights to control forest
    areas and has issued regulations on the implementation of REDD+. Due to its long‑standing procedures, the MoF tends toward a business‑as‑usual paradigm, reflected in its appropriation of the concession model used for
    timber extraction for conservation and eco‑tourism. REDD+, however, is a new approach requiring changes in attitudes, discourse and power relations, independent of the business‑as‑usual drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (Brockhaus and Angelsen 2012). The President established the National Council for Climate Change (DNPI) and the Task force on REDD+ to coordinate REDD+ policymaking and implementation, and these institutions clearly also have considerable influence on REDD+ in the country. They are, nevertheless, both outside the formal bureaucracy and therefore cannot operate without the support of more established agencies. As
    a result of this institutional interdependence, effective REDD+ policymaking in Indonesia requires transparent and accountable cooperation among a diverse group of public and private organizations.

    In 2015, the second figure shows the difference between the most influential and the lesser highly influential has decreased. The core of most influential actors now includes NORAD, AMAN and CIFOR replacing the disbanded UKP4 and DNPI.

    in 2015, this prominence is shared among government organizations, a foreign donor organization, an NGO and an international research organization. 

    State agencies such as MOEF, Bappenas, KemenAgBn still the most influential power but other actors are gaining influential power. NORAD through their activity in fundings the redd+, cifor through their GCS REDD+ study. The most interesting is that AMAN, the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago, gaining influence pushing tenure agenda into the debate.

    Such a shift could reflect a new openness of the State, to, among others, civil society calls for rights based approaches. REDD+ in Indonesia would then be one arena where this openness is applied. Alternatively, these results may indicate that REDD+ is no longer a priority and the state withdraws from efforts to tackle the political economy of deforestation to REDD+. To ensure progress on different agendas, tenure and avoided large-scale deforestation and hence realize emissions reductions, it will be important to flag the mutual benefits among the two (or more) agendas, that together might lead to the desired transformations in and beyond the forestry sector towards an effective, efficient, and equitable forest governance.
  • In phase 1, year 2011, the MoF (1), emerges as the central actor in mutually recognized collaboration among government agencies. As explained earlier, despite emerging challenges, the MoF holds the mandate to administer all forest areas. REDD+ can therefore only be implemented through collaboration or permit from the MoF, which does not
    necessarily mean that MoF sees an organization as collaborator. Of course, REDD+ cannot be implemented by the MoF alone but requires collaborating with others, but despite this collaboration occurs mostly among same type of organizations.

    Meanwhile in phase 2 year of 2015, collaboration is no longer between same type organization. Less homophily is observed in the network. However, does it means more coordination? Central actor such as AMAN, HUMA, FWI, Kemitraan are pushing for rights and climate justice including tenure reform. NGOS the new power, or REDD+ to unimportant.

×