THINKING beyond the canopy

Can REDD+ initiatives protect and improve local

stakeholders’ income and wellbeing?

Claudio de Sassi and William D. Sunderlin

Presentation for the session “Politics and numbers: Political and technical challenges in reducing emissions from forests with REDD+ ”

UNESCO – Our Common Future under Climate Change

July 7-10, 2015, UNESCO, Paris, France

Outline

• CIFOR’s Global Comparative study on REDD+

• Module 2 sample and objectives

• Research question and data

• Results: household income

• Results: perception of wellbeing

• Summary and conclusions

Global Comparative Study on REDD+

Module 2 on subnational initiatives

• Aim: Know what works and does not in setting up REDD+ initiatives

• Criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, wellbeing, rights, biodiversity (3E+)

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

BRAZILPERU

TANZANIACAMEROON

INDONESIA

VIETNAM

3

7

8

6

42

1

5

9

10

1116

13

14

15

12

22

19

2018

17

23

21

BRAZIL

1. Acre

2. Bolsa Floresta

3. Cotriguaç u

4. Jari/Amapá

5. SFX

6. Transamazon

PERU

7. Madre de Dios

8. Ucayali

CAMEROON

9. Mt. Cameroon

10. SE Cameroon

REDD+ initiatives

Legend

TANZANIA

11. Kigoma

12. Zanzibar

13. Kilosa

14. Lindi

15. Mpingo

16. Shinyanga

INDONESIA

17. KFCP

18. Katingan

19. KCCP

20. Rimba Raya

21. TNC within BFCP

22. Ulu Masen

VIETNAM

23. Cat Tien

Location of subnational initiatives included in the CIFOR GCS study

Are REDD+ initiatives protecting and enhancing the income and wellbeing of local stakeholders?

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 (12-month recall of agricultural, forest, business, wage, and other income) at two points in time (roughly 2010 and 2013-14)

- Data on perception of wellbeing change collected at the household level at two points in time (roughly 2010 and 2013-14)

Household income: before-after

Overall increase in income over time in most countries, but variable:

Increase: Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam

Stagnant: Tanzania, Cameroon

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

Household income: Tanzania

Before - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

Country income trends over time can be masked by contrasting site results:

• Stagnant results at country level• Opposite trend between sites

Household income: Indonesia

Before - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

• Country income changes over time can vary markedly among sites

• Significant differences between intervention and control villages emerge in the after phase

Household income: Indonesia

Before - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

• Both positive effects (REDD+ intervention villages have higher increase in income)

Household income: country case Indonesia

Before - ControlBefore - InterventionAfter - ControlAfter - Intervention

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

• Is this the effect of REDD+?

Perceived wellbeing: before-after

• “Better off” and “same” increase very slightly over time while “worse off” decreases in aggregate

• High variation among countries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Brazil Peru Cameroon Tanzania Indonesia Vietnam TOTAL

Perc

ent

of

ho

use

ho

lds

Answer to question: “Overall, what is the wellbeing of your household today compared with the

situation two years ago?”

Better off % Phase 1 Better off % Phase 2 Same % Phase 1

Same % Phase 2 Worse off % Phase 1 Worse off % Phase 2

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

% c

han

ge b

efo

re-a

fter

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?”

Results 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; advantage tends to decline in intervention and rise in control

Conclusions:

• 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

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+

REDD+ non-conditional interventions since the beginning of REDD+, perhaps more properly called ICDP rather than REDD+

Interventions by REDD+ organizations that predate REDD+ and therefore have nothing to do with REDD+ properly defined

Other factors

And whether negative changes are attributable to disincentives/restrictions

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• REDD+ on the ground is “treading water”• Without adequate REDD+ financing, REDD+ by default relying mainly on

ICDP approach

Source: Sills et al. (2014)

Conclusions:

• In our follow-up analysis, we plan to do the following to assure our findings are on a sure footing:

Refine our definition of “intervention household”, given the low incidence of direct payments and wide reliance of proponents on non-conditional incentives

Fine tune analyses at the household-level with regard to specific REDD+ and non-REDD+ interventions

• Moreover we plan to assess socioeconomic impacts (or lack thereof) in relation to REDD+ carbon effectiveness

• Stay tuned for in-depth results coming soon….

Sills, Erin O., Stibniati S. Atmadja, Claudio de Sassi, Amy E. Duchelle, Demetrius L. Kweka, Ida Aju Pradjna Resosudarmo, and William D. Sunderlin (eds.). 2014. REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.

References

www.cifor.org/redd-case-book

We thank our donors!