This document provides an overview of REDD+ dynamics and initiatives in several countries and continents. It summarizes REDD+ policy developments and institutional changes in Indonesia from 2008-2016. It also discusses REDD+ activities in Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Brazil, and Peru, highlighting their national REDD+ strategies, challenges, and progress. Common challenges facing REDD+ implementation include conflicting interests between development and conservation, unclear land tenure, and lack of long-term funding. The document concludes with priorities for REDD+ moving forward, including further integrating it within national development plans and addressing major drivers of deforestation.

1. REDD+ Dynamics:
[not] A one size fit all solution
Efrian Muharrom
Pernas SIEJ, 6 September 2016, Bogor

2. Outline
 REDD+ Indonesia National Dynamics
 Distribution of DA REDD+ activities
 REDD+ in 3 continents
 Challenges
 Conclusions
 Moving Forward

3. REDD+ Indonesia National Dynamics

4. REDD+ in Indonesia
Policy development

5. THINKING beyond the canopy
2010 2011 20122008 2013 2014
REDD+ in Indonesia
Institutional evolution
2015
DNPI
REDD+ Task
Force I
REDD+ Task
Force II
REDD+ Task
Force III
REDD+
Agency
Min of
Env &
Min of
For
Presidential
election
Dismissal of
REDD+
Agency,
DNPI, UKP4
2016
“Six years into the partnership, we are now impatient to see more results on the ground,”
“We are very satisfied with the dialogue we have had [and] with the groundwork that has been put in place but I don’t think anyone can
be satisfied when we see the fires last year, when we see continued deforestation [and] when we see continued peat conversion,”
(Norwegian Climate and Environment Minister - Vidar Helgesen)

6. Where is REDD+ docked?

7. Where is REDD+ docked?

8. 2016
06 January 2016
Establishment of Peat
Restoration Agency
through Presidential
Decree No. 1/2016
14 April 2016
President statement on all
palm oil and mining
moratorium
31 May 2016
Improve cooperation of
REDD+ with Norway;
Indonesia’s president
statement towards
Norwegian Foreign
Minister
03 February 2016
Norway through its
Minister of Climate and
Environment expressed
dissatisfaction about lack
of progress of REDD+
Indonesia
22 April 2016
Paris agreement
ratification by Minister of
EF in NY
REDD+ in Indonesia
Policy development
May 2016
Improve cooperation of REDD+ with Norway; Indonesia’s president statement
towards Norwegian Foreign Minister
22 April 2016
Paris agreement ratification by Minister of EF in NY
14 April 2016
President statement on all palm oil and mining moratorium
06 January 2016
Establishment of Peat Restoration Agency through Presidential Decree No. 1/2016
03 February 2016
Norway through its Minister of Climate and Environment expressed dissatisfaction
about lack of progress of REDD+ Indonesia

9. National REDD+ Policy Network
Analysis

10. A network of Influence
Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 47.515 %
Network Centralization (Indegree) = 44.515 %
Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 56.528 %
Network Centralization (Indegree) = 75.167 %
Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of
Environment, National Planning Agency,
REDD+ Taskforce, the National Council for
Climate Change
MoEF, National Planning Agency,
NORAD, AMAN, CIFOR
2015
2012
Internal influence: Climate Change
Management Directorate General,
NORAD, AMAN, Forest and
Environmental Planning Directorate
General, CIFOR

11. Information Exchange
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 56.504 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 31.507 %
2015
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 50.333 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 52.028 %
2012
The relevance of information, as well as how it is interpreted, used, and abused,
shapes the discourse on REDD+ and influences how REDD+ unfolds (Brockhaus
and Angelsen 2012).

12. Reciprocal information exchange
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 26.213 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 26.213 %
2015
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 13.722 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 13.722 %
2012

13. Collaboration
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 20.583 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 51.083 %
2012
Network Centralization
(Outdegree) = 26.665 %
Network Centralization
(Indegree) = 18.635 %
2015
Reciprocal
collaboration
Collaboration happened when actors consider others as partner, as equal. Often
an organization does not consider others as partner, but as fund receiver or etc.

14. Distribution of DA REDD+ activities

16. 35 REDD+ DAs provide information to MoEF as of 2014
• REDD: 29
• Forest Conservation: 12
• SFM: 7
• Enhancement of Carbon Stok: 4
• REL/RL: 22
• MRV: 21
• Institution: 10
• Incentive: 3
• Safeguards: 28
DA REDD+ activities in Indonesia
(IGES, 2016)

17. Global REDD+ Projects

18. REDD+ in 3 Continents

19. Major events in REDD+ policy arenas
Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014. National REDD+ policy networks: From cooperation to conflict. Ecology & Society.

20. REDD+ in 3 continents
 Papua New Guinea:
• First phase of REDD+ readiness
• The country’s political commitment to tackling deforestation and forest
degradation has been questioned. For example; it remains the largest
exporter of timber in the world, and continues to back large-scale land
conversion plans under a paradigm of ‘green development’.
 Vietnam:
• Approved National REDD+ Strategy in 2012
• No activity until 2015 due to the loss of trust into the process in
international level; REDD+ projects running without coordination
• End of 2015, policies related to REDD+ were established, including
national REDD+ fund, and submission of Forest Reference Emission Level
(FREL) towards UNFCCC.

21.  Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Establishing REDD+ policies and measures
• A major demonstration site in Mai Ndombe to prepare for results-based
payments – the third and currently final phase of REDD+.
• No national REDD+ coordination, and drivers such as mining and large-
scale agriculture are not included in REDD+ policy development.
 Ethiopia:
• REDD+ National Strategy (REDD+ goals, governance, measurement,
reporting and verification (MRV) design, and financing options)
• In-country and external funding, including through agricultural
intensification.
• The jurisdictional REDD+ project in the regional state of Oromia is now
entering its final stage of implementation, with a pledge by Norway of
USD 50 million.
REDD+ in 3 continents

22.  Brazil:
• Successfully decrease deforestation through Amazon fund mechanism,
and spare 54% of its forest for REDD+.
 Peru:
• REDD+ implementation
• Clear leadership and coordination of Ministry of Environment (MINAM)
and National Forestry and Wildlife Service (SERFOR)
• Strong support from Norway through Letter of Intent (LOI) with the
country.
REDD+ in 3 continents

23.  Business-as-usual is a powerful force. Conflicting interests in the agendas of
different actors involved in deforestation — across and within ministries,
and across levels of governance —can be a major challenge for achieving
effective, efficient and equitable REDD+.
 Lack of land-use planning, unclear tenure, weak law enforcement and
uncertainty over long-term funding were also found to be common
challenges.
 Lack of continuity in commitment from politicians.
Common Challenges of
REDD+ in 3 continents

24.  Integration and synergy between development plan (RPJMN)/existing
entities, and related initiatives (RAN GRK, REDD+, INDC, SDG, KPH, ICCTF,
BLU Environment, etc)
 Coordination between Ministries of different competing sectors
 Capacity building of local stakeholders
 Synergy of different level authorities (local, provincial, national)
 One Stop Investment Licensing at BKPM
 Tenure clarity Budgeting system (performance based budgeting tried out
but forgotten) …. Dana desa???
 35.000. MW power plant using coal
 One stop investment process
Challenges of
REDD+ in Indonesia

25. Conclusions
 Indonesia:
• There has been changes towards overall REDD+ settings, in terms of
influence, knowledge sharing, and collaboration
• Yet confidence that it will drive transformational change is low.
• REDD+ processes have led to a raised awareness and improved
understanding on forest and climate issues, but not yet sufficient to drive
significant reforms.
• Is REDD+ is merely a ‘project’, time bound with a clear budget (Aspinall,
2013) and that as a project it lasted long enough?
• REDD+ momentum in Indonesia has changed, along with changes in the
government agenda, it seems that REDD+ is perceived as an added value
from forest governance improvement
• REDD+ process in Indonesia has been contributed to the participatory
decision making, acceleration of one map, moratorium initiative,
recognition of Adat community tenure rights.

26. REDD+ is not a one size fit all solution for all countries, different countries
develop their own characterized arrangement in terms of scope of framework
(project or development pathway), level of coverage (local, provincial, or
national), implementation scheme, etc.
Conclusions

27. Moving Forward

28. REDD+ in Paris Agreement
 Article 5, Paragraph 1 | Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as
appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4,
paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.
 Article 5, Paragraph 2 | Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and
support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set
out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for:
policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in
developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation
and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests,
while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon
benefits associated with such approaches.

29. Priority towards 2020
 Integrating REDD+ Agenda into Indonesian development plan until 2020;
 Strengthening required institutional capacity to implement REDD+;
 Making REDD+ an agenda that receives public support internationally,
nationally, sub-nationally, and at the site levels.
 Addressing major causes of deforestation, namely (1) forest and peatland
fires, commodity supply chains and strategic industrial practices, and (3)
land-based conflicts;
 Increasing incentives and access to green development at the national,
subnational, and site levels (including through community-based natural
resource management);
 Ensuring the availability of legal and licensing frameworks to support the
implementation of REDD+ and green development in Indonesia.

30.  MRV Institutions and Protocols;
 FREL updates;
 INDC updates;
 RAN GRK updates;
 Synergy with SDGs, Green Economy/Development.
 Funding Instruments;
 Pre-financing the results-based activities;
 Role of private investors;
 Mobilizing more resources;
 Engagement with other stakeholders, but specifically with private sector;
 Special attention to forest and peatland forests; Coordination with the BRG
(Peatland Agency)
Priority towards 2020

31. Country
Profiles
Media-based discourse
analyses
Info Briefs
Working Papers Journal Articles
Global comparative analysis of policies and processes

33. Acknowledgements
This work is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS). The methods and guidelines
used in this research component were designed by Maria Brockhaus, Monica Di Gregorio and Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff.
Parts of the methodology are adapted from the research protocol for media and network analysis designed by COMPON
(‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’).
Case leaders: Thuy Thu Pham (Nepal), Thuy Thu Pham & Moira Moeliono (Vietnam), Thuy Thu Pham and Guillaume
Lestrelin (Laos), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton, Kaisa Korhonen-
Kurki, Pablo Pacheco (Bolivia), Mary Menton (Peru), Sven Wunder & Peter May (Brazil), Samuel Assembe & Jolien Schure
(Cameroon), Samuel Assembe (DRC), Salla Rantala (Tanzania), Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Mozambique), Suwadu Sakho-
Jimbira & Houria Djoudi (Burkina Faso), Arild Angelsen (Norway). Special thanks to our national partners from REDES, CEDLA,
Libelula and DAR, REPOA, UEM, CODELT, ICEL, ForestAction, CIEM, CERDA, Son La FD, UPNG, NRI-PNG, and UMB.
Thanks to contributors to case studies, analysis and review : Levania Santoso, Tim Cronin, Giorgio Indrarto, Prayekti
Murharjanti, Josi Khatarina, Irvan Pulungan, Feby Ivalerina, Justitia Rahman, Muhar Nala Prana, Caleb Gallemore (Indonesia)
Nguyen Thi Hien, Nguyen Huu Tho, Vu Thi Hien, Bui Thi Minh Nguyet, Nguyen Tuan Viet and Huynh Thu Ba (Vietnam), Dil
Badhur, Rahul Karki, Bryan Bushley, Naya Paudel (Nepal), Daniel McIntyre, Gae Gowae, Nidatha Martin, Nalau Bingeding,
Ronald Sofe, Abel Simon (PNG), Walter Arteaga, Bernado Peredo, Jesinka Pastor (Bolivia), Maria Fernanda Gebara, Brent
Millikan, Bruno Calixto, Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil), Hugo Piu, Javier Perla, Daniela Freundt, Eduardo Burga Barrantes, Talía
Postigo Takahashi (Peru), Guy Patrice Dkamela, Felicien Kengoum (Cameroon), Felicien Kabamba, Augustin Mpoyi, Angelique
Mbelu (DRC), Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken, Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, (Tanzania), Almeida Sitoe,
Alda Salomão (Mozambique), Mathurin Zida, Michael Balinga (Burkina Faso), Laila Borge (Norway).
Special thanks to Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Ria Widjaja-Adhi, Cecilia Luttrell, Frances Seymour, Lou
Verchot, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, Rachel Carmenta,
Juniarta Tjajadi, Cynthia Maharani

34. We acknowledge the support from:
Norad and the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment of
Norway,
AusAID (Australia),
European Commission,
Dept. of Energy and Climate Change & Dept. for Int. Dev. (UK),
USAID (US)
& all research partners and individuals
that have contributed to the GCS research
Thanks