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
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+
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
Understanding local livelihoods for better targeted interventions
Can REDD+ interventions promote social
benefits, while minimizing burdens, at the
local level?
M. Cromberg
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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
THINKING beyond the canopy
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