analysing redd+: challenges and choices
DESCRIPTION
Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices is the third book in a series of highly recognised REDD+ volumes from CIFOR. It was launched at CIFOR's official onsite side event during Rio+20, which discussed how transformational change is required to realise the forest sector's climate change mitigation potential through avoided deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Climate change is a key global challenge and forests are a key part of the international mitigation agenda. REDD+ offers the opportunity to transform the forest sector in a manner consistent with the vision of a green economy. For the past four years, CIFOR and partners have been conducting a Global Comparative Study on REDD+ on policy development and the challenges of implementation. In this presentation, CIFOR scientists discuss the results of this work that are relevant to the objectives of Rio+20 and the development of a green economy.For a copy of the publication, visit www.forestsclimatechange.org/analysingredd+For more information about the Global Comparative Study on REDD+, visit www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-comparative-study-on-redd.htmlTRANSCRIPT
THINKING beyond the canopy
Arild Angelsen, CIFOR & Norwegian Univ. of Life Sciences
Rio, 18 June 2012
Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices
THINKING beyond the canopy
3 generations of REDD+ research
Focus Key ques+ons Books
1 Designing REDD+ and learning from related experiences in the past
What should REDD+ look like to be effec>ve, efficient and equitable (3E)?
Moving Ahead Realising REDD+ (Analysing REDD+)
2 The poli>cal economy and implementa+on of REDD+
How is REDD+ being decided and implemented, and why? (What hinders or enables decision and implementa>on of 3E REDD+ policies and projects?)
Analysing REDD+
3 Assessing the impact of REDD+
Does REDD+ work? (How can REDD+ work beNer?) (How should REDD+ outcomes be measured?)
(All)
THINKING beyond the canopy
§ 3 research components + 1 knowledge sharing
§ A diverse set of questions and methods
§ A large number of partners
§ 12 countries
The Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS)
THINKING beyond the canopy
How to achieve transformational change (TC)?
§ Definition of TC a shift in discourse, attitudes, power relations, and deliberate policy and protest action that leads policy formulation and implementation away from business as usual policy approaches that directly or indirectly support deforestation and degradation
§ Examples of TC § changes in economic, regulatory and governance frameworks,
including the devolution of rights to local users § removals of perverse incentives: subsidies and concessions that
serve selective economic interests and stimulate DD § reforms of forest industry policies and regulations that effectively
reduce unsustainable extraction
REDD+ and TC: a chicken – egg problem
THINKING beyond the canopy
4 Is framework
Business as usual
REDD+ Agenda SePng: incen>ves + ideas
Output: Policy decision -‐ broader policies & ins+tu+ons -‐ Specific policies and measures -‐ admin and technical capacity
Outcome: Policy impact -‐ emissions/-‐removals -‐ livelihoods -‐ biodiversity -‐ admin and technical capacity
REDD+ Na+onal and Subna+onal Ac+on Arena
Transforma+onal Change
REDD+ Interna+onal Policy Arena
ShiSs in incen>ves, discourses and power rela>ons
Ins>tu>ons Path Dependency and S>ckiness
Actors
Informa>on Data, Knowledge
Interests Materialis>c,
Individual, Organized
Ideas Beliefs, Discursive
prac>ces
Policy Process
THINKING beyond the canopy
How to achieve TC?
1. Changing economic incentives § International financial resources exogenous to the national
and subnational systems § The core REDD+ idea: REDD+ should change the basic
benefit–cost equation § Win-win-lose-lose:
• large actors likely to lose (politically unacceptable to compensate)
• full international compensation of REDD+ costs is unrealistic
THINKING beyond the canopy
… how to achieve TC 2. New ideas and information § A new discourse on the value of standing forests and their
role in CC, a potential “game changer” § Spotlight on old and new issues & need for change of BAU
• Indigenous/local rights, conflicts local – external uses • Governance & corruption
§ Redefine roles between developed and developing countries: poor countries providing services to the world
3. New actors and coalitions § Changing economic incentives and new ideas and discourses
can lead to shifts in power relations among key actors § New actors enter the REDD+ arena and gain power and
influence in decision making
In the end: money speaks louder than words
THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD+ and the global economy (Chapt 4)
§ Globalisation and market & financial liberalisation • Increased exposure of forests to global trade and
investment • Aggravate historical trends of DD • REDD+ implementation more challenging, but also
opportunities (influencing market chains) § Implications for REDD+
• REDD+ as PES more expensive: § need for other policies
• Look at both demand and supply side § Detailed studies of 3 regions
THINKING beyond the canopy
The evolution of REDD+ (Chapt 3)
§ REDD+ - as an idea - has been extremely successful • A good idea (CC, result-based, significant funding,
burden sharing) • Sufficiently broad/vague to accommodate different
interests § REDD+ has evolved significantly, driven by:
• the absence of a new international climate agreement • strong business as usual (BAU) interests • a large number of actors with diverging agendas • experience and learning
Key trends
16
Objectives: CO2 Co-benefits
Funding: Rich pay poor REDD+ countries
Policies: PES Broad PAMs Forest policies
Funding: Market Public (aid)
Scale: National Local/projects
A dilemma
§ REDD+ has attracted many actors with different agendas and ideologies, each trying to get a piece of the perceived REDD+ cake.
§ Result: a diversified and less focussed REDD+ agenda, which risks losing the initial characteristics of REDD+ that made it attractive in the first place.
§ But: broad coalitions of different interests and actors with different ideologies are needed to get the political support for REDD+ and can also be a basis for transformational changes.
THINKING beyond the canopy
Part 2a: Implementing REDD+: National Level Perspectives
§ Politics and Power (Chapt 5)
§ Scales of Governance (Chapt 6)
§ Financing REDD+ (Chapt 7)
§ Who benefits and why (Chapt 8)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Politics and power in national REDD+ policy processes
§ REDD+ requires 4 preconditions to overcome politico-economic hurdles: • Relative autonomy of nation states • National ownership over REDD+ policy processes • Inclusive REDD+ policy processes • Coalitions calling for transformational change
§ Formulating and implementing national REDD+ strategies most challenging in countries where international actors drive REDD+
§ Breaking up institutional and political path dependencies will need participation of state elites and business actors
THINKING beyond the canopy
Multiple levels and multiple challenges for REDD+
§ REDD+ a multilevel endeavour • Must ensure the interconnections of global demands,
national and sub-national structures, and local peoples’ needs and aspirations.
§ Sound information flows important • Between local and national levels are essential for
accountable MRV and leakage control. • Across the levels can increase negotiation powers of
disadvantaged groups and ensure the 3Es § REDD+ multilevel governance systems must match
incentives and interests with transparent institutions to reduce conflict
THINKING beyond the canopy
Financing REDD+ § Where are we?
• Short term finance available, yet slow disbursement and scarce investment opportunities
• No adequate and predictable long-term strategy to meet REDD+ financial needs
§ Interim phase with no ambitious CC mitigation goals: • REDD+ finance will be mobilized by the public sector • Likely to be fragmented and channelled through various agencies • Thus, need to test financing options that leverage private sector
finance and directly address DD § Options for financing:
• Middle income countries: self finance, engage in results-based agreements with donors and international agencies
• Fragile states rely on ODA-type finances, combining financial support, technical assistance, and policy guidance
THINKING beyond the canopy
Who should benefit and why? § Designing effective benefit sharing mechanisms for REDD+
• Must first determine what REDD+ seeks to achieve as the objectives affect the design of benefit and cost sharing mechanisms
§ Benefits are not only financial • Few REDD+ projects are providing direct financial transfers • Thus benefit sharing must tend to a wide range of activities
§ The legitimacy of the decision making institutions and processes is critical • Legal clarity • Consensus on which institutions have the right to make
decisions • Attention to procedural rights
THINKING beyond the canopy
Discourses on who should benefit
Effectiveness and efficiency vs equity discourses Equity discourse 1: benefits should go to actors with legal rights
Equity discourse 2: benefits should go to low-‐emi0ng forest stewards
Equity discourse 3: benefits should go to those incurring costs
Equity discourse 4: benefits should go to effec6ve implementers
THINKING beyond the canopy
Examples of potential REDD+ beneficiaries and the costs and benefits they may accrue
THINKING beyond the canopy
Part 2b: Implementing REDD+ Subnational projects
§ Why tenure matters (Chapt 9) § REDD+ projects combine old and
new (Chapt 10) § Local stakeholder hopes and worries
(Chapt 11) § Implications of landscape location
(Chapt 12)
THINKING beyond the canopy
Tenure matters in REDD+
§ Although unprecedented attention to forest tenure, national action limited
§ Project-level action faces substantial obstacles if no national backing
§ National institutions often inadequate to address customary rights
§ Policy makers ought to address underlying causes of DD and target tenure issues in parallel, though both likely to face strong resistance
THINKING beyond the canopy
REDD+ projects as hybrids
§ Most projects intend to combine ICDP and PES § Advantages under policy and market
uncertainty: Ø Make early progress on project establishment Ø Fallback if PES does not go ahead
§ Yet there are challenges: Ø ICDP has underperformed Ø PES is played down and this might have
negative consequences
THINKING beyond the canopy
Local hopes and worries
§ Local forest users in sample understood REDD+ is fundamentally about forest projection; they hoped REDD+ would improve incomes and worried would hurt livelihoods
§ Local participants depend on proponents for information about REDD+, and there may be need for independent brokers or advisers
§ Key challenges: Ø Communicate clearly to villagers Ø Involve them meaningfully in design and
implementation Ø Balance forest protection with welfare concerns
THINKING beyond the canopy
Location of forest carbon projects
§ Across countries: • Countries with a higher biodiversity index and
jurisdictions with more protected area § Brazil and Indonesia:
• Jurisdictions with higher deforestation rates and forest carbon densities
§ 6 GCS countries: • Sample villages that are inside project boundaries
depend on agriculture, emphasising the challenge of implementing REDD+ without undermining agricultural livelihoods
THINKING beyond the canopy
Mean values of factors considered in site selection in municipalities &
districts with & without REDD+ projects
§ REDD+ and payments may be made based on performance, which implies that there must be assessments of the results of REDD+ programmes.
§ In the readiness phase support will go to policy reforms, rather than proven emissions reductions. Good performance indicators are critical in this and all three REDD+ phases.
§ Valuable lessons on governance indicators can be learned from the aid sector: avoid seeking the perfect indicator and use expert judgment extensively.
Performance indicators and REDD+ implementation 13 Chapter
Indicators § Challenges:
• Monitor results • Must be credible to stakeholders • Appropriate for the objectives of the each
REDD+ implementation phase.
§ Rationale: • Management: keep efforts on track • Evaluation: assess success of actions
§ Lessons from ODA experience: • Timing of assessment (3-5 y) vs. timing of
outcomes & impacts (10-15 y) • Attribution problems • Reliability of information
PHASE 1 READINESS
PHASE 2 POLICY MEASURES
PHASE 3 RESULTS-‐BASED
ACTION
Implementa+on metrics
Input indicators • Readiness funds disbursed
• Consulta>ons done Output indicators • Pilot projects • R-‐PP approved
Performance metrics
Output indicators • Strategies, policies and laws adopted
• Ins>tu>ons (MRV etc.) in place
Outcome indicators • Gross deforesta>on • Increased share of restored na>ve forest
• Cover Impact indicators • Quan>fied changes in carbon emissions
Input Output Outcome Impact
Results chain
§ Robust standards and methods have been developed to estimate emissions from deforestation at the project level.
§ Because baseline and monitoring methodologies were adopted only recently, many pilot projects do not comply.
§ The next generation of projects should identify or develop suitable methodologies before investing in the development of their baselines and MRV systems.
Baselines and monitoring in local REDD+ projects 14 Chapter
IPCC has developed measurement methods
that serve as the basis for several standards
§ VCS • VM0004 – Avoid planned LUC • VM0006 –Mosaic D&D • VM0007 – REDD • VM0009 –Avoided mosaic deforestation • VM0015 – Avoided unplanned
deforestation
§ ACR REDD framework module • Planned deforestation • Unplanned deforestation • Extraction of fuelwood
MRV survey of 17 demonstration projects show most do not meet
requirements of VCS or ACR § Prior LU often difficult to verify in spatially explicit way § Projects limit monitoring to the project area; no reference
region or leakage belt § 9 of 17 project developers modeled historical rate of
deforestation in the project area; three are in the process § 3 of 17 projects use spatial models to project the location
of future deforestation; the other 14 rely on expert knowledge
§ 13 project have RS images for more than three points in 10 year period
§ 7 of 17 projects have high resolution data (<10m); all have medium resolution data (10–60m).
§ Lack of data limits converting area estimates of DD to carbon stock changes in most tropical countries.
§ Institutional capacity to conduct inventories and measurements for improving GHG inventories in AFOLU has been slow in non-Annex I.
§ Constraints can be overcome with investments in productive partnerships between technical services in REDD+ countries, intergovernmental agencies and ARIs during the readiness phase.
EFs: Converting land use change to CO2 estimates 15 Chapter
C Stock C up
take via
grow
th
Disturbance Harvest
C stock at >me 1
C stock at >me 2
Two methods are available for estimating EFs
Gain – loss method
Stock difference method
§ Developing RELs is constrained by lack of quality data. § Data availability and quality should determine the methods for
RELs. Consideration of drivers of DD will be important for adjusting RELs to national circumstances.
§ A stepwise approach to developing RELs will facilitate broad participation, early startup and the motivation for improvements over time, alongside efforts to enhance measurement and monitoring capacities.
A stepwise framework for developing REDD+ RELs 16 Chapter
Expand on the Stepwise approach and link it to the financial incentive baseline
Historical deforesta>on and forest degrada>on
Na+onal circumstances relevant for BAU (e.g., drivers) Na+onal
circumstances relevant for FIB (e.g.,
capabili>es) BAU baseline
Financial incen+ve benchmark (FIB) (compensa>on benchmark) baseline
Other considera+ons (e.g., efficient use of funds & uncertainty)
§ REDD+ policy makers, project personnel and investors value REDD+ safeguards.
§ To gain national-level buy-in for REDD+ safeguards, national sovereignty must be recognised and competing safeguard policies should be harmonised.
§ The REDD+ safeguards dialogue needs to move towards action. This includes introducing guidelines, low-cost strategies and capacity building to support the interpretation.
REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects 17 Chapter
§ REDD+ safeguards are a set of norms or institutions that guide expectations surrounding social and environmental outcomes of REDD.
§ Several international and nonprofit organisations have articulated safeguard standards for REDD+ policies at the national level (e.g. FCPF)
§ Countries have little capacity to monitor social and biodiversity impacts.
§ There is uneven compliance with safeguards in demonstration projects
Some key findings
THINKING beyond the canopy
The book’s 5 key messages § As an idea, REDD+ is a success story:
• Significant result-based funding to address an urgent need for climate change mitigation
• Sufficiently broad to serve as a canopy, under which a wide range of actors can grow their own trees
§ REDD+ faces huge challenges: • Powerful political and economic interests • Coordination across various government levels and agencies; • Benefits to balance effectiveness and equity • Tenure insecurity and safeguards must be genuinely addressed • Transparent institutions, reliable carbon monitoring and realistic
reference levels to build result-based systems
THINKING beyond the canopy
… key messages § REDD+ requires - and can catalyse - Trans Change
• New economic incentives, New information and discourses, New actors & New policy coalitions; all have the potential to move domestic policies away from the BAU trajectory.
§ REDD+ projects are hybrids in high deforestation areas: • Mix the enforcement of regulations and support to alternative
livelihoods (ICDP) with result-based incentives (PES). • Projects located in high deforestation and high forest carbon
areas, yielding high additionality if they succeed. § ‘No regret’ policy options exist:
• Build political support and coalitions for change. • Invest in adequate information systems. • Implement policies desirable regardless of CC objectives.
We acknowledge the support from:
NORAD and the Ministry of Environment of Norway, AusAID (Australia),
European Commission, Dept. of Energy and Climate Change & Dept. for Int. Dev. (UK),
FinAid (Finland), Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial (France)
& all research partners and individuals that have contributed to the GCS research
Thanks