local peoples’ perspectives on the effectiveness of redd+ in changing land use behaviors
TRANSCRIPT
THINKING beyond the canopy
The effectiveness of REDD+ initiatives in changing local people’s emission-generating activities: Household perspectives from Africa,
Asia, and Latin America
Ida Aju P. Resosudarmo and Mella Komalasari53rd ATBC- 19-23 June 2016, Montpellier, France
THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD+ effectivenessREDD+ intervention
activities• Conditional
Livelihood enhancement
• Non-conditional livelihood enhancement
• Forest enhancement • Restriction on forest
access and conversion
• Tenure clarification • Environmental
education • Other Interventions
Resulting in
Change of people’s behavior on land and resource use that has impact on carbon emissions
Leading to
Improved carbon stock/forest cover
• Land cover change (remote sensing)•Reported forest clearing
THINKING beyond the canopy
Classification of interventions
Conditional livelihood enhancement
Non-conditional livelihood enhancement
Forest enhancement
Restriction on forest access and conversion
Tenure clarification
Environmental education
Other
THINKING beyond the canopy
Research Questions
RQ1: To what extent are HHs involved in REDD+ interventions?
RQ2: Do REDD+ interventions affect local land use?
RQ2: How do REDD+ interventions affect local people’s land use?
THINKING beyond the canopy
HH involvement in interventions
Brazil (N
=3910)
Cameroon (N
=2435)
Indonesia (N
=3532)
Peru (N
=1806)
Tanzania (N=1854)
Vietnam (N
=738)
Total (N=14275)
020406080
100
42 42
2632
23
8
33
Incidences of involvement (%)
Brazil (N
=605)
Cameroon (N
=254)
Indonesia (N
=681)
Peru (N
=249)
Tanzania (N=206)
Vietnam (N
=123)
Total (N=2118)
020406080
100 89 92
53
88
53
38
71
HHs involved - %
• 71% of HHs were involved in at least one intervention
• But, only 1/3 of all incidences of interventions applied in the villages resulted in HH involvement.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Have interventions affected HH land use?
Brazil (N
=1659)
Camero
on (N=1032)
Indonesia (N
=920)
Peru (N
=578)
Tanzan
ia (N=4
30)
Vietnam
(N=59)
Total (N
=4678)0
20406080
100
27
5162
3445
37 42
Land use change - incidence (%)
1947 incidences
Brazil (N
=539)
Cameroon (N=234)
Indonesia (N
=363)
Peru (N=218)
Tanzania (N=110)
Vietnam (N=47)
Total (1511)
020406080
100
52
77 7468 73
47
65
HH changing their LU (%)
980 HHs
• Of those HHs involved in at least 1 intervention, 65% or 980 HHs changed at least 1 of their land uses
• 42% of incidences of HH involvement in interventions resulted in land use change
THINKING beyond the canopy
Have interventions affected HH land use?
247
481
364
431
94
218
12
# Land Use Change
Conditional Livelihood Enhancement Non-Conditional Livelihood Enhancement
Forest Enhancement Restriction on Forest Access and Conversion
Tenure Clarification Environmental Education
Other
THINKING beyond the canopy
How have interventions affected HH land use?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% o
f tot
al re
spon
ses
Agriculture
Forestry
Compliance
New land use
ManagementShift land use
Livestock
THINKING beyond the canopy
HH motivations to change and retain land use practices
Motivation to change• Regulatory environment, monitoring, enforcement• Delivery or implementation of interventions• Positive perception of project or interventions
Motivation to retain • Delivery or implementation of interventions• Targeted objectives, activies, or location of interventions• Regulatory environment, monitoring, enforcement• Sceptisms about project or interventions• Constraints in implementing activities
Sceptisms about project or interventions
Positive perceptions of project or interventions
THINKING beyond the canopy
Conclusions 3/4 of HHs directly participated in interventions
Only 1/3 of all interventions reached HHs: much effort was carried out in comparison to its reach.
65% of HHs involved in interventions changed their land use, but only 42% of incidences of involvement in interventions resulted in change of land use
Variations in how people respond to interventions by country and by type of intervention: non-conditional livelihood enhancement, restrictions on forest access and conversion, and forest enhancement are dominant
Variations in how people change their land use: agriculture, forestry, and compliance stand out
Regulatory environment and implementation of interventions define HH motivation to change land use
Financial support for GCS-REDD+:Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Australian Agency for International Development,
European Commission, UK Department for International Development,
German International Climate Initiative,CGIAR Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) Programme.
www.cifor.org/gcs