Making REDD+ benefits relevant for local people

Making REDD+ benefits relevant for local people

Amy Duchelle, Ida Aju Pradnja Resosudarmo, Claudio de

Sassi, Andini Desita Ekaputri, Mella Komalasari, Christy

Desta Pratama, William Sunderlin

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

THINKING beyond the canopy

Emergence of subnational REDD+ initiatives

Since 2007, hundreds of

subnational REDD+

initiatives have emerged in

the tropics

On-the-ground evidence

for how local people could

benefit or lose from

REDD+

6 countries - 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives

190 villages – 4,524 households


REDD+ interventions disentangled

Tenure

regularization

Technology

improvements

Environmental

education

Payments for

Environmental

Services

Subsidies

Provision of inputs

Taxes

Tax exemptions

Regulatory measures

(Prohibition, Rules)

and Fines

Disincentives

CertificationCredit

Insurance

Market interventions

(Quotas,

max/min prices)

Courtesy of J. Börner


Mix of REDD+ related interventions at sampled sites

52%

18%

30%

• More incentives than

other types of

REDD+

interventions

• Of incentives, only

18% are conditional

on ‘sustainable’ land

use behaviors (9% of all REDD+

interventions conditional)n=467


Engaging local people in REDD+ for greater relevance in design of benefits

Are local people aware of REDD+ initiatives,

and do they participate in design and

implementation?

M. Cromberg


Local knowledge of REDD+ (n=2182)

• 22.5% of households heard about REDD+

• 34% heard about local REDD+ initiative;

primary source of information = proponents (53%)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Brazil(n=237)

Cameroon(n=205)

Indonesia(n=134)

Peru (n=123) Tanzania(n=44)

% o

f to

tal r

esp

on

den

ts

Local understanding of REDD+ initiative (n=743)

Income or welfareimprovementForest protection orimprovementClimate, carbon andenvironmentTenure improvement

Others

Sceptic

Respondent does notknow

Resosudarmo et al. forthcoming


Local participation in REDD+ initiatives (n=500)

• 27% of households aware of local REDD+ initiative

participated in early design or implementation … but

participation mostly passive/consultative

M. Cromberg


Local hopes and worries for REDD+ initiatives (n=500)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

H W H W H W H W H W H W W H W

Income or welfare improvementForest protection or improvementClimate, carbon, and environmentProject realizationTenure securityGovernanceAdaptabilityOthers

% o

f to

tal r

esp

on

den

ts

Tanzania (n=23)

Peru (n=70)

Indonesia (n=78)

Cameroon (n=140)

Brazil (n=189)

Resosudarmo et al. forthcoming

Income/

welfare

Forest

protect.

Climate/

carbon

Initiative

continuity

Tenure

security

Gov. Adapt. Other


Understanding local livelihoods for better targeted interventions

Can REDD+ interventions promote social

benefits, while minimizing burdens, at the

local level?

M. Cromberg


Forest clearing at REDD+ sites (n=2182)

• 41% of households had cleared at least one parcel

of forest in the 2 years prior to the survey


Household income shares at REDD+ sites (n=2182)


Alignment between REDD+ interventions and local livelihoods

67%

Ucayali, Peru

71%

Madre de Dios, Peru

49%

São Félix do Xingu, Brazil

34%

Cotriguaçu, Brazil

Livestock reliant sites:

• Sustainable milk

production (Cotri)

• ‘Best practices’ for

cattle ranching (SFX)

Forest reliant sites:

• Local Brazil nut

processing plant

(Madre de Dios)

• Small-scale timber

production (Ucayali)

Forest Livestock Crops Wage/Biz Other


But livelihood portfolios are heterogeneous…

-1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0

PCO1 (30.6% of total variation)

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

PC

O2 (

25.2

% o

f to

tal v

ariatio

n)

A) B)

Within communityWithin site

A) B)

Brazil

Indonesia

Vietnam

Cameroon

TanzaniaPeru


Conclusions

Generally low levels of early local participation in

subnational REDD+ initiatives

Forest clearing and reliance on agriculture important

characteristic of local livelihoods at most sites

- Importance of complementing disincentives with incentives

Livelihood heterogeneity makes it challenging to

promote equitable REDD+ benefit sharing at the local

level

Importance of involving local people in developing an

effective and equitable mix of REDD+ interventions

Financial support for GCS-REDD+:European Commission,

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Australian Agency for International Development,

UK Department for International Development,CGIAR Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) Programme.

Publications: http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/mitigating-

climate-change.html

Videos/Blogs: http://blog.cifor.org/amazonia

http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/mitigating-climate-change.html

http://blog.cifor.org/amazonia