The document summarizes a presentation on a global comparative study of REDD+ in the ASEAN region. It discusses the following key points in 3 sentences: The project analyzed the impact of REDD+ programs through longitudinal household datasets and a database of REDD+ projects. Research found that REDD+ led to reductions in deforestation but also short-term declines in well-being and forest revenue. The presentation recommends diversifying REDD+ approaches, balancing market-based and grassroots programs, supporting experimentation, and fostering collaboration on REDD+ within ASEAN.

1. Global Comparative Study on REDD+:
Inputs for ASEAN region
Sandy Nofyanza, Moira Moeliono, Pham Thu Thuy, Bimo Dwisatrio
21st ASOF International Seminar: Forestry for Climate Action
June 14, 2023
Siem Reap, Cambodia

2. In this presentation
• About the project
• REDD+ impact
• Benefit sharing distribution from REDD+
• Recent development
• Incorporating wetlands (blue carbon) in NDC
• Moving towards compliance carbon market
• Coalition building between countries
• Key inputs for ASEAN

3. Some publicly available data
generated – and used – by the project
• Household and village level longitudinal
datasets (2010, 2014, 2018):
https://data.cifor.org
• ID-RECCO: Most comprehensive, detail, and
updated database on global REDD+ projects and
program
https://www.reddprojectsdatabase.org/
• OECD-CRS data 2000-2019, analyzed using
REDDFIT methods explained in COWI & EC, 2018
• Jurisdictional sustainability and profiles: 39
jurisdictions in 12 tropical countries, in
collaboration with EII and GCF-TF
Project coverage (2009 – 2023)

4. WP1: Engage with and support
stakeholders to enhance
transparency and accountability in
FOLU sectors
WP2: Global typology of policy
instruments reduce D&D; impact
assessment; tracking REDD+ finance
and benefit sharing evolution
WP3: identifying opportunities,
barriers towards transformational
change (governance, political
economy)
WP4: Knowledge sharing and co-
creation of knowledge with key
stakeholders in Science-Policy
dialogue platforms

5. What is the overall REDD+ impact?

6. Examples of research work (1/3)
[Global] Deforestation reductions likely driven by disincentive, but when applied with
incentives, negative wellbeing were cushioned.
[Location specific studies] Significant deforestation reductions but varying degree of
magnitude. Since REDD+ included a mix of interventions, the impact cannot be clearly
attributed to one particular policy (Simonet et al, 2018)
6
[Global] In a short period (3-year, 2010/11-2013/14), subjective wellbeing decreased in
REDD+ villages both for villagers as a whole and much worse for women. These declines
may be due to unrealized expectations for REDD+ (projects were only getting started),
combined with little attention to gender in REDD+ initiatives despite an important
portion (46%) of specific interventions that women view positively (Larson et al, 2018)

7. Examples of research work (2/3)
[Peru] In the 3 years between surveys, we observed a severe decline in forest revenue.
However, by using a BACI study design and matching, we show that this decrease was
not caused by the REDD+ interventions. Thus, REDD+ “did no harm” to local people, at
least in terms of forest revenues (Solis et al, 2021)
[Brazil] We find significant but small additional conservation effects from the
implementation of the PES program. Notwithstanding, treatment effects are relatively
larger in areas with higher deforestation pressure and higher potential agricultural
income (Cisneros et al, 2022)
7
[Brazil] Results indicate the REDD+ project conserved an average of 7.8% to 10.3% of forest
cover per household and increased the probability of improving enrollees' well-being by 27–
44%. After the project ended, forest loss rebounded and perceived well-being declined.
Forest loss was successfully delayed but not permanently eradicated (Carrilho et al, 2022)

8. Examples of research work (3/3)
[Peru] REDD+ had negligible effects on deforestation, but the intensified command-and-
control efforts from the national agency significantly preventing land-cover changes
(taken together, ‘sticks’ performed better than ‘carrots’) due to limited opportunities to
sell REDD+ credits and limited enforcement of project conditionalities (Montoya-
Zumaeta et al, 2022)
8
[Indonesia] In the short-term, farming and overall household income in REDD-
participating households decreased as REDD+ prevents forest clearance for agriculture.
But in the longer-term, overall household income were increased while farming income
remained decreasing, indicating REDD+ was able to offset farming income losses by
increasing (or diversifying) household income sources (Nofyanza et al, forthcoming)

9. How has benefit from REDD+ distributed?

10. Before talking about benefit, let’s have a look at safeguards (Tamara et al 2023)
• While safeguards process may incur costs, it is undeniably necessary
• IPLC rights are mentioned in different implementing regulations in piecemeal
fashion (e.g., aspects of FPIC, access to information, protection of human
rights)
• Rights to land and forest tenure are much more comprehensive, e.g.,
through schemes under the Social Forestry program
• In relation with RBP: customary communities are rewarded for their historical
forest protection
From RBP:
• Layers of payment distribution, from central to local community groups
• Proportion: larger share to community groups; payments to govts to help fund
other climate/REDD+ related activities
• Indonesia to distribute payment from FCPF JREDD+ soon
More on GCS REDD+ Knowledge Tree on Benefit Sharing
https://www.cifor-icraf.org/gcs/knowledge-tree/
Benefit
sharing from
REDD+

11. From PFES (Pham et al, 2021)
• Local people’s motivation to participate in PFES is not driven solely by payment amounts, but also by how payments
are structured
• Each province, district, commune and village has its own social, political and economic context, a scheme that work
in one place may not necessarily be appropriate in another: need participatory approach
Brazilian nut-producing communities in Peru (Solis et al, 2021)
• Private-Farmers’ federation partnership – in 2014, 405 concessionaires joined the project
• Initially, participating concessionaires get 30% of net revenues from carbon trading, but from 2021 onwards it is
distributed equally
Upfront payment (Robinson et al, 2016)
• Balancing conditionality with the need to make some up-front payments to defer the initial costs imposed on
households: 1st payment based on villages’ historical baseline & % of forests they decided to put as reserves
• Challenging – no performance had been achieved, but necessary to create incentives for future management
In-kind/non-cash (Nofyanza et al 2023):
• Communities’ deliberation (provision of basic needs/infrastructures for village community, funding religious activity,
seed capital)
• In collaboration w/ govt: provision of certain public services (e.g., floating clinics)
Other benefit-distribution experiences

12. Recent development related to REDD+

13. Recent development: The increasing importance of wetlands
To seize opportunities and contribute to the restoration of blue
ecosystems:
1. Global: more policy and technical guidance for blue carbon
management and reporting
2. National: Improved coordination and information sharing among
relevant actors, mainstream blue carbon to national development
agenda
3. South-south collaboration and information sharing to help
countries obtain the knowledge and skills required to implement
strategic policies and research
4. Facilitate cross-disciplinary research
5. Strengthen state and non-state actors’ platform for a participatory
decision-making process
6. Mobilize all sources of finances for blue carbon development, with
agency accessible to local community
(Murdiyarso et al, 2018; Pham and Le Thi, 2019)

14. Recent development: Gearing towards JREDD+ and compliance carbon
market (1/2)
JREDD+ under FCPF Carbon Fund
Indonesia
East Kalimantan province (12.7 Mha – 6.5 Mha/54% is forested),
• 6.6% of country area
• Plantation (oil palm), mining (coal), timber, oil and gas
Laos
Six northern provinces of Lao PDR (89.5% is under current forest and potential forest status)
• ~35% of country area
• Shifting cultivation, plantation (rubber, banana)
Vietnam
Six provinces in entire North-Central Agroecological region (5.14 Mha – 2.1 Mha/41% is forested)
• 16% of country area
• Major agriculture area (paddy, perennial crops, crops, fishery), plantation (rubber and acacia)

15. Recent development: Gearing towards JREDD+ and compliance carbon
market (2/2)
Indonesia
2030 FOLU Net Sink, 2022 MoEF Regulation:
• Pushing JREDD+ (govt-led) and domestic carbon market; trading in VCM is permitted with ministry
authorization
Peru
2015 National Climate Change strategy and REDD+ strategy promote:
• “the use of intl and national market mechanism for reduction, capture and increase carbon sinks”
• the establishment of markets and valuing forest ecosystem services through [PES mechanisms]”
Vietnam
2020 Env Protection Law:
• Pushing domestic carbon market, while also open to various GHG accounting standards used in both
jurisdictional- and private-led REDD+ (VCM)

16. Recent development: Dialogue, collaboration, coalition
Example at the national level:
• At the early phase of REDD+, broker(s) may be needed to connect different
clusters of actors for effective and inclusive REDD+ governance (Moeliono et al,
2014)
• REDD+ has been institutionalized over time, with aspirations toward REDD+
remain high (from all stakeholders). But project-like structures also persists,
with government actors and large funding organizations becoming increasingly
dominant (Moeliono et al, 2020)
Example at the global stage:
• ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution
• International Tropical Peatlands Center establishment (2018)
• A product of collaboration between Govts. of Indonesia, DRC, Rep. Congo,
and Peru
• Brazil-DRC-Indonesia’s Rainforest Protection Pact (2022)
• Working towards a joint proposal on carbon market and finance,
establishing a funding mechanism to help preserve their forests
• Pushing for both developed countries and private sector to fund forests
conservation in tropical countries

17. So what is the key inputs for the region?

18. If REDD+ is a medicine..
1. Diversify the medicine, with better coordination and country
ownership
• But first, find the right “disease”
• REDD+ must be underpinned by broader efforts beyond RBP – policy reform
must also include those focusing on land-use planning, tenure and
agriculture
• Need a one-size-fits all approach programmatic approach to the complexity
of land-use decision making to address the variety of drivers and problems
• Cross-sectoral coordination works best so far under:
• Collaboration mandated by central govt
• Overarching institution guiding the process
• Masterplan with buy-in from all sectors
• Secure indigenous, traditional, and rural community rights is central to
successful forest-based mitigation strategy
Everything, everywhere, all at once
Angelsen et al (2018)

19. Find the right dose..
2. Get the best of both worlds
• Emerging market-based approaches for tropical forest offsets could help close
the gap between funding available for REDD+ and what is needed to meet PA
target (Art. 6)
• Many forest-rich countries invested considerable domestic finance/reallocated
countries’ financial flows to incentivize forest conservation and restoration
• Bold policies needed: massive rollout in big JREDD+ combined with grassroot
approaches that are more adaptive. This requires:
• National political and intellectual ownership through a pro-forest narrative
• Political will to act and carry through with decisions sometimes over
decades
• the existence of coordinated multi-ministry efforts
Change has to come from both the top and the bottom
Angelsen et al (2018)

20. And shorten the long road to recovery..
3. Experimentation needs support
• A lot of experimentation has happened and is continuing despite the lack of
financing and the sluggishness of REDD+
• If countries felt able to develop a moderate risk appetite and attempt policy
experimentation, all actors could learn, adjust and scale up
• Mix of financial, technical and political challenges have made impact evaluation
of REDD+ challenging
• “independent evaluations can be risky, as disappointing short-term
evaluated impacts in a learning phase could jeopardize the future financing
of REDD+ projects and programs”
• Concerns about perceived failure can prevent sound learning and the
development of more effective interventions
• Integrate robust impact evaluation within the projects/programs’ lifecycle
Support experimentation and be brave to assess impact
Angelsen et al (2018)

21. Better collaboration/platform/agreement on REDD+ from ASEAN?
• Under JREDD+, REDD+ is an umbrella for various forest policies
• Foster information and learning exchange
• Resource sharing and mobilization
• Amplify ASEAN political influence on the global climate change stage
&
Epicentrum of Forest Conservation

22. cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry and
landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR–ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
cifor-icraf.org/gcs
THANK
YOU!