Skip to main content
UploadLanguage (EN)Support
BusinessMobileSocial MediaMarketingTechnologyArt & PhotosCareerDesignEducationPresentations & Public SpeakingGovernment & NonprofitHealthcareInternetLawLeadership & ManagementAutomotiveEngineeringSoftwareRecruiting & HRRetailSalesServicesScienceSmall Business & EntrepreneurshipFoodEnvironmentEconomy & FinanceData & AnalyticsInvestor RelationsSportsSpiritualNews & PoliticsTravelSelf ImprovementReal EstateEntertainment & HumorHealth & MedicineDevices & HardwareLifestyle
Landscape Alliance, profile picture
Uploaded byLandscape Alliance
581 views

CIFOR and Global Comparative Study on REDD+

The document outlines CIFOR's role in the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS-REDD+) and its research on forest management to aid policymakers and practitioners. It details the challenges of implementing REDD+ schemes, the phases of research conducted from 2009 to 2020, and specific modules addressing policies, carbon emissions, and governance. The study aims to enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of REDD+ initiatives, with a focus on Guyana and various research modules assessing national and subnational policies.

Environment◦
Downloaded 12 times
CIFOR and Global Comparative study on REDD+ Pham Thu Thuy on behalf of GCS-REDD+ team
Outline  Who is CIFOR ?  Global comparative study on REDD+  What we will do in Guyana ?
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?
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
WHY GCS- REDD+ ?
As an idea, REDD+ is a successstory Significant result-based funding to address an urgent need for climate change mitigation, cheap, quick and easy!
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
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
Thanks to
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.
THINKING beyond the canopy CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+) new research countries phase III: Myanmar, Guyana
 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.
Module 1 REDD+ strategies, policies and measures Political economy lens Findings: strong national ownership + already initiated policy changes and relevance of available performance based funding may help countries to formulate REDD+ policies that are likely deliver efficient, effective, and equitable outcomes
Module 1 REDD+ strategies, policies and measures Political economy lens
From REDD+ to Green Growth Indonesia + Vietnam  Old wine in new bottles  Transformational changes or business as usual ?  Dilution of REDD+ agenda and confusion of green growth strategy  Drivers of deforestation and degradation remain untackled
THINKING beyond the canopy • National level: strong political commitment but guidelines for policy and planning treat the two approaches separately. • Local level: integration of mitigation and adaptation is facilitated by subnational autonomy, where mitigation projects might have adaptation co-benefits, and vice versa. • Successful integration of mitigation and adaptation policies would not only remove contradictions between policies, but also encourage governments that are designing domestic policies to exploit the potential for positive spillovers and realize the benefits of both approaches.
Module 2: Subnational REDD+ Initiatives Comparison (Control) REDD+ site (Intervention) Before After IMPACT Intervention After Control After Intervention Before Control Before 2010 / 2011 2013 / 2014 • 6 countries • 23 initiatives • 150 villages • 4,000 households Methods described in detail in Technical Guidelines (Sunderlin et al. 2016)
Module 2: Subnational REDD+ Initiatives- Key findings (Amy Duchelle et al. 2017)  Minimal reduced tree cover loss at REDD+ sites; performance appears worse in analysis without controls (Bos et al. in prep)  3/4 of households at REDD+ sites subject to interventions; 65% of those reported changes in land use (Resosudarmo et al. in prep)  REDD+ initiatives in Indonesia located in high biodiversity areas with lower than average carbon density (Murray et al. 2015) REDD+ impacts on forests REDD+ impacts on people  No negative impacts on income and well-being, but also no evidence of co-benefits (De Sassi et al. in prep; Sunderlin et al. in prep)  Little advancement on tenure (Sunderlin et al. in review)
Module 3 Monitoring and Reference Levels Improve procedures & practices for estimating & managing carbon stocks Hallmark: Stepwise approach to RELs & MRV (considers countries’ capacities)
Module 4: understanding the synergies and trade-offs in joint mitigation and adaptation, and addresses the challenges of multilevel and multi-sector governance and carbon management (Anne Larson et al.). Village Village Village Sub-district Village Sub-district District Province/ State/ Region National International e.g. donors Horizontal Vertical • Who makes decisions and how decisions are made, from the international to national to local level, including formal and informal rules and institutions, power relations and the practice of decision making (Larson y Petkova 2011). • Understand relationships between actors at multiple levels (vertically) and (horizontally) across sectors
Multilevel Challenges (Anne Larson, Maria Brockhaus et al. 2016)  Horizontal cross-sectoral challenges – identified as one of the central challenges to REDD+ at the national level (Brockhaus et al. 2014) – persist at the subnational level (Ravikumar et al. 2015)  Coordination issues (horizontal and vertical) related to scattered and non-transparent data sharing are complicated by divergent interests and needs around ‘technical issues’ (like MRV, Kowler and Larson 2016)  Central government overrides subnational government decisions, or subnational governments ignore central directives – and powerful actors often find a way to get what they want  Projects often target proximate but not the underlying deforestation/ degradation drivers (Kijazi, forthcoming)
Politics of swidden in Vietnam (Pham et al. forthcoming) National level: major of deforestation and forest degradation and needs to be eliminated Provincial level: persistence of swidden as a failure of political performance District level: a way to retain national security at border areas Commune and village level: traditional practice to harmonize different groups and avoid protest from ethnic groups to government system Household level: a normal practice to ensure food security
WHAT WE WILL DO IN GUYANA ?  M1: carry out research on national REDD+ policies and process  M3: support sstakeholders to have better data and assessments on mitigation policy options and the role of forests in setting country targets and planning mitigation activities in the broader land use sector (all levels) and support MMRV capacity  M5: Knowledge sharing
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 Thanks Further information, please contact:  Christopher Martius (Project leader): c.martius@cgiar.org  Pham Thu Thuy (M1 lead): t.pham@cgiar.org  Amy Duchelle (M2 lead): a.duchelle@cgiar.org  Nikki De Sy (M3 lead): niki.desy@wur.nl  Anne Larson (M4 lead): a.larson@cgiar.org  Shelley Thakral (M5 lead): S.Thakral@cgiar.org