Presented by Pham Thu Thuy (CIFOR) at "Knowledge Sharing Workshop: REDD+ Policy and Politics in DRC" on 16-17 Oct 2019

1. CIFOR and
Global Comparative study on REDD+
Pham Thu Thuy on behalf of GCS-REDD+ team

2. Outline
 Who is CIFOR ?
 Global comparative
study on REDD+

3. WHAT IS CIFOR?
 Established in 1993
 a member of the CGIAR Consortium and leads the CGIAR Research
Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
 Carry research on the most pressing challenges of forest and landscape
management around the world and support policymakers, practitioners and
communities make decisions based on solid science about how they use
and manage their forests and landscapes.
WHO IS CIFOR?

5. RESEARCH PRIORITIES AGENDA
Forests & Human Well Being
6 Thematic Areas :
Sustainable Landscapes
& Food
Equal Opportunities,
Gender, Justice, & Tenure
Climate change, Energy, &
Low-carbon Development
Value Chains, Finance, &
Investments
Forest Management
Restoration

6. WHY GCS- REDD+ ?

7. As an idea, REDD+ is a successstory
Significant result-based funding to address an urgent need for climate
change mitigation, cheap, quick and easy!

8. In reality, REDD+
faces huge
challenges • Powerful political and economic interests
• Coordination across various government
levels and agencies
• Trade-off/Benefits to balance
effectiveness and equity
• Tenure insecurity and safeguards must
be genuinely addressed
• Transparent institutions, reliable carbon
monitoring and realistic reference levels
to build result-based systems

9. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR’s Global Comparative
Study (GCS-REDD+)
2009- 2020
• To support REDD+ policy arenas
and practitioner communities with
- information
- analysis
- tools
• so as to ensure 3E+ outcomes:
- effectiveness
- efficiency
- equity and co-benefits

10. Thanks to

11. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR’s Global Comparative
Study (GCS-REDD+)
• Phase 1 (2009- 2012): focuses on overall
REDD+ design issues and building strong research-
based knowledge.
• Phase 2 (2012- 2015): analyzing nascent and
evolving policy processes and the actions of early
starters in developing REDD+ policies and
measures to inform and facilitate transformational
change.
• Phase 3 (2016 – 2020): focuses on the
assessment of policy design and actual impacts of
REDD+ policies and measures as a basis to
achieving results in the broader context of
landscape management, livelihood objectives and
equity considerations.

12. THINKING beyond the canopy
CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+)
new research countries phase III: Myanmar, Guyana

13.  M1 (REDD+ policies) focuses on effective,
efficient and equitable (3E) REDD+
policies, and measures them at the
national level.
 M2 (REDD+ subnational initiatives)
focuses on assessing the performance of
REDD+ subnational initiatives.
 M3 (Measuring carbon emissions)
focuses on measuring carbon emissions
and determining forest and carbon
reference levels, and works on the
Monitoring, Measurement, Reporting and
Verification (MMRV) of forests and carbon.
 M4 (Multilevel governance) focuses on
understanding the synergies and trade-offs
in joint mitigation and adaptation, and
addresses the challenges of multilevel and
multi-sector governance and carbon
management.
 M5 (Knowledge sharing) is dedicated to
partner engagement and dissemination.

14. 1. Well, I thought REDD+
is already dead, isn’t it
?
2. What has REDD+
achieved on the
ground?
3. How can REDD+ be
transformed to enhance
social and environmental
resilience?

15. Q1: Is REDD+ dead ?

16. Progress at national level
Over 50 countries have initiated national REDD+ strategies

17. Progress at subnational & local
levels
As of May 2018, there were 358 active REDD+ local
programs and projects in 53 countries.
http://www.reddprojectsdatabase.org/

18. But…
 REDD+ as envisioned has
not been tested at scale.
Results-based payment, the
novel feature of REDD+, has
gone untested.
 International funding (both
public and private) remains
scarce
 Demand through carbon
markets is lacking.

19. Q2. What has REDD+ achieved ?
 forests gain prominence in international and national agenda
 Improved countries’ monitoring capacities and understanding of
drivers, providing transparent and accountable information and data
 Increased stakeholder involvement, and platforms to secure
indigenous and community land rights

20. Q2. What has REDD+
achieved ?
 Some forest-rich countries have
already made important financial
contributions to REDD+
implementation (e.g Equador,
Vietnam, Indonesia)
 Well-being effects small, with mixed
sign, but more likely to be positive
when incentive components included
 Land tenure and social safeguards
highlighted as persistent challenge

21. Q2. What has REDD+ achieved ?
 Major lack of data and solid impact studies
 Studies on biodiversity and adaptation outcomes scarce
 National REDD+ policies: most show some statistically significant
reductions, but small effect size
 Local REDD+ initiatives: modest but positive outcomes for forests

22. Q3: How can REDD+ be transformed to
enhance social and environmental resilience?
 REDD+ requires transformation so
that it can be transformational
 Diversifying and coordinating the
cure:
• Results-based payment with diversification
• coordination and country ownership with bold
policies
• Being at the table
 Finding the right dose:
• International finance nudges but domestic
incentives decide (e.g. Colombia and Indonesia
with carbon tax and green bonds programmes,
PFES in Vietnam)

23. Q3: How can REDD+ be transformed to
enhance social and environmental resilience?
 Nurturing optimism by
stressing positive side effects:
• New, positive national narratives that
forests can play in support of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals, not
primarily as reservoirs of agricultural
land, but as providers of key
products and services for economic
development.
• A positive narrative of
green/sustainable development can
mobilise farmers and firms, voters
and politicians (Nepstad 2018).
 Shortening the long road to
recovery:
• Experience
• Rigorous impact assessment

24. We acknowledge the support from:
the Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (Norad), the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
(DFAT), the European Union (EU), the UK
Government, USAID, the International
Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal
Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
(BMUB) and the CGIAR Research Program on
Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA)
with financial support from the CGIAR Fund.
& all research partners and individuals
that have contributed to the GCS research
MANY THANKS
Further information, please contact:
 Christopher Martius (Project leader): c.martius@cgiar.org
 Pham Thu Thuy : t.pham@cgiar.org
 Amy Duchelle : a.duchelle@cgiar.org
 Nikki De Sy : niki.desy@wur.nl
 Anne Larson : a.larson@cgiar.org
 Jeremy Van Loon : Jeremy.VanLoon@cgiar.org