By Claudio de Sassi and Christy Desta Pratama. Presentation for the “Understanding Transformational Change for REDD+ Implementation in Indonesia – Workshop and Policy Dialogue”. Jakarta, August 24 2015

1. THINKING beyond the canopy
Impact of REDD+ initiatives on local stakeholders’ income, wellbeing,
and land use behavior:
Global overview and Indonesia case study
Claudio de Sassi and Christy Desta Pratama
Presentation for the “Understanding Transformational Change for REDD+
Implementation in Indonesia – Workshop and Policy Dialogue”
Jakarta, August 24 2015

2. Outline
• Module 2 sample and objectives
• Research question and data
• Results: global overview
• Global summary and conclusions
• Preliminary findings: Indonesia
• Preliminary conclusion: Indonesia

3. Module 2 on subnational initiatives:
REDD+ on the ground
• Aim: Know what works and does
not in setting up REDD+ initiatives
• Criteria: effectiveness, efficiency,
equity, wellbeing, rights,
biodiversity (3E+)

4. BRAZILPERU
TANZANIA
CAMEROON
INDONESIA
VIETNAM
3
7
8
6
4
2
1
5
9
10
11
16
13
14
15
12
22
19
20
18
17
23
21
BRAZIL
1.Acre
2.BolsaFloresta
3.Cotriguaçu
4.Jari/Amapá
5. SFX
6.Transamazon
PERU
7.MadredeDios
8.Ucayali
CAMEROON
9.Mt.Cameroon
10.SECameroon
REDD+ initiatives
Legend
TANZANIA
11.Kigoma
12.Zanzibar
13.Kilosa
14.Lindi
15.Mpingo
16.Shinyanga
INDONESIA
17.KFCP
18.Katingan
19.KCCP
20.RimbaRaya
21.TNCwithin BFCP
22.UluMasen
VIETNAM
23. Cat Tien
Location of subnational initiatives included in the CIFOR GCS study

5. Module 2 on subnational initiatives
• Counterfactual approach: Before-
After, Control-Intervention (BACI)
• 6 countries, 23 initiatives (of which
16 are BACI)
• Of these, 17 have household data
• Surveys of 4,185 households, 150
villages and women’s groups (87
inside and 63 outside REDD+), 23
proponent organizations, other
stakeholders
• Forest cover change through
remote sensing

6. Are REDD+ initiatives protecting and enhancing
income and wellbeing of local stakeholders?
We examine the effects of REDD+ intervention on target households through:
- Detailed household income data (agricultural, forest, business, wage, and other income) at
two points in time (roughly 2010 and 2013-14)
- Data on perception of wellbeing change at the household level at two points in time
(roughly 2010 and 2013-14)
- Data on land use practices due to involvement with interventions (2013-2014)

7. Household income: before-after
Overall increase in income
over time, but variable:
Increase: Brazil, Indonesia
Stagnant: Tanzania,
Cameroon, Vietnam
Decrease: Peru
Before
After

8. Before - Control
Before - Intervention
After - Control
After - Intervention
Differences between REDD+
and control households,
where any, are smaller than
changes over time
Household income: before-after/
control-intervention

9. Perceived wellbeing: baseline
• High variation among countries/ different start point
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam
Percent of households answering "better off" or “worse off” in
answer to: “Overall, what is the wellbeing of your household today
compared with the situation two years ago?”
Better-off Worse-off

10. Perceived wellbeing:
before-after/control-intervention
• Slightly higher in intervention than in control in aggregate, though
declining over time in intervention and rising in control
Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam Total
Cont -0.6 -10.7 0.8 3.3 7.5 -0.1 1.5
Int -2.9 -14.9 4.5 5.2 5.4 -8.4 -0.4
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
%changebefore-after
Percent of households answering "better off" in answer to: “Overall, what is
the wellbeing of your household today compared with the situation two
years ago?”

11. Global overview: summary
• Increase in income variable at the initiative site level, but showing a
significant overall increase
• At most initiative sites (10), no apparent difference between control and
intervention villages
• But at six sites, significant difference emerging over time between
control and intervention villages, both positive and negative
• Subjective perception of wellbeing shows similarities (and dissimilarities)
in comparison with “objective” income data, i.e.:
 slight improvement on average over time at both intervention and
control villages, but not in all countries
 advantage tends to decline in intervention and rise in control

12. • We detect no clear evidence that REDD+ has yet had a significant
role in protecting and enhancing income and wellbeing.
 Both income and wellbeing show both positive and negative
changes over time
 However, where there are changes they tend to be small
compared to background dynamics
Global overview: conclusions

13. At sites where we observe significant changes between control and
intervention villages’ income and perceived wellbeing, it is unclear
whether and to what extent positive changes are due to:
 REDD+ conditional interventions, i.e. what is new and
distinctive about REDD+
 Interventions by REDD+ organizations that predate REDD+
 Other factors
And whether negative changes are attributable to
disincentives/restrictions
Global overview: conclusions

14. We are skeptical that the marginal benefit seen in some intervention
villages can be attributed to REDD+ conditional incentives because
our previous research has shown that:
• Only 4 of 23 initiatives are selling forest carbon credits
• Only 10 have piloted conditional incentives
• 6 have ceased operating
• Without adequate REDD+ financing, REDD+ by default relying
mainly on ICDP approach
Source: Sills et al. (2014)
Global overview: conclusions

15. Indonesia preliminary findings

16. • The survey was conducted in 41 villages (divided into control
and intervention), across 5 REDD+ initiatives* (project site),
consisting of 1,340 households.
• Full analysis of data has not been carried out (including
distinction between the effect of REDD+ and non-REDD+
intervention).
This is an ongoing work..
*there are actually 6 REDD+ initiatives studied in Indonesia, but one initiative was not surveyed
intensively.

17. Household income: Indonesia
Before - Control
Before - Intervention
After - Control
After - Intervention
• Changes in income over time
can vary among sites.
• Significant differences
between intervention and
control villages emerge in
phase 2.

18. Household income: Indonesia
Before - Control
Before - Intervention
After - Control
After - Intervention
• No effect (income increase in
both control and intervention
villages is the same)

19. Household income: Indonesia
Before - Control
Before - Intervention
After - Control
After - Intervention
• Positive effects (intervention
villages have higher increase
in income)

20. Household income: country case
IndonesiaBefore - Control
Before - Intervention
After - Control
After - Intervention
• and negative effects
(intervention villages have
lower increase in income or
overall decrease)
• Is this the effect of REDD+?
Not necessarily.

21. Pattern of change in land use due
to involvement in interventions
0.3%
30.4%
22.5%
46.7%
Not answered No change in land use
No clear answer Change in land use
• At least 46.7% of 946
household
involvements* in
interventions indicated
change in land use
behavior.
• Need to distinguished
between intervention-
control villages.
• Need to distinguished
between REDD+ and
non-REDD+
interventions.
*a single household can be involved in more than one intervention.

22. Pattern of change in land use due
to involvement in interventions
28.4%
14.5%
51.5%
5.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
CAP CFP ENLA Other
• The biggest land use
change behavior are
engagement in new
land use activities
(ENLA), change in
agricultural practices
(CAP), and change in
forestry practices
(CFP).

23. • In line with the global findings, we detect no clear evidence
that REDD+ has yet had a significant role in enhancing income.
• But, there are indications that interventions implemented on
the ground may have changed land use behavior.
Indonesia overview: Conclusions

24. Follow up
• Fine tune analyses at the household level with regards to specific
REDD+ and non-REDD+ interventions.
• Moreover we plan to assess socioeconomic impacts (or lack
thereof) in relation to REDD+ carbon effectiveness.

25. Thank you