impact of redd+ initiatives on local stakeholders’ income, wellbeing, and land use behavior:...

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 PratamaPresentation for the “Understanding Transformational Change for REDD+

Implementation in Indonesia – Workshop and Policy Dialogue”Jakarta, August 24 2015

Outline

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

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+)

Location of subnational initiatives included in the CIFOR GCS study

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

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)

Household income: before-after

Overall increase in income over time, but variable:

Increase: Brazil, Indonesia

Stagnant: Tanzania, Cameroon, Vietnam

Decrease: Peru

BeforeAfter

Before - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

Differences between REDD+ and control households, where any, are smaller than changes over time

Household income: before-after/ control-intervention

Perceived wellbeing: baseline

• High variation among countries/ different start point

Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent of households answering "better off" or “worse off” in answer to: “Overall, what is the wellbeing of your household to-

day compared with the situation two years ago?”

Better-off Worse-off

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

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

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?”

% c

hang

e be

fore

-aft

er

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

• 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

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

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

Indonesia preliminary findings

• 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.

Household income: IndonesiaBefore - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

• Changes in income over time can vary among sites.

• Significant differences between intervention and control villages emerge in phase 2.

Household income: IndonesiaBefore - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

• No effect (income increase in both control and intervention villages is the same)

Household income: IndonesiaBefore - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

• Positive effects (intervention villages have higher increase in income)

Household income: country case Indonesia

Before - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

• and negative effects (intervention villages have lower increase in income or overall decrease)

• Is this the effect of REDD+? Not necessarily.

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 useNo 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.

Pattern of change in land use due to involvement in interventions

CAP CFP ENLA Other0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

28.4%

14.5%

51.5%

5.6%

• 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).

• 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

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.

Thank you