This document summarizes several studies and analyses related to REDD+ programs:
- An analysis of 13 national REDD+ programs found that the 6 most successful cases had access to performance-based finance and strong national ownership. Countries without performance-based funding could still succeed if external commitment was high.
- A study of 6 countries and 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives involving 190 villages and 4,500 households found a mix of forest interventions being used, with enabling conditions and incentives being more common than disincentives.
- Another study found knowledge of and participation in REDD+ initiatives increasing among villages, women's groups, and households from 2010 to 2014.
2. A NATURAL EVOLUTON FOR REDD+
The Gartner hype cycle: How do technology firms look at these things?
Early
inception
Quick,
cheap, and
easy
COP21
decisions?
Finance
fails to
materialize
No new
projects
2015-2020
experiences?
Post-2020
4. 6 countries have comprehensive
policies targeting transformational
change for REDD+: Brazil, DRC,
Guyana, Indonesia, Tanzania and
Vietnam.
The critical issues that hinder
countries in achieving REDD+ are
related to policy implementation:
lack of grievance procedures and
lack of operationalized financial
systems.
Analysis Of 13 National REDD+ Programs
5. Of the six successful cases three
have access to performance-based
finance for REDD+.
Availability of performance based
funds has a positive impact when it
is combined with strong national
ownership of the REDD+ process.
Analysis Of 13 National REDD+ Programs
6. In cases where national ownership
is low, (donors or other external
agencies dominate the REDD+
policy processes) countries can
achieve the outcome without
performance-based funding.
Where REDD+ commitment is
externally driven, non-performance-
based funding has an effect equal to
that of performance-based funding.
Analysis Of 13 National REDD+ Programs
8. Mix of forest interventions at sampled sites
Brazil
Peru
Cameroon
Tanzania
Indonesia
Vietnam
010203040506070
enabling conditions disincentives incentives
#interventions
9. Local participation in REDD+
Villages
Women'sgroups
Households
050100
Knowledge of REDD+ initiative
2010 2014
%respondents
Villages
Women'sgroups
Households
050100
Participation in REDD+ initiative
10. Multiple levels of governance
REDD+ is now moving toward “nested, jurisdictional” and other “national”
approaches
REDD+ requires coordination across levels: finance and benefit sharing,
carbon monitoring and verification systems, land tenure and titling policies,
safeguards, and so on.
All of this requires integrating notions of power:
Despite diverse legal and decentralization systems , powerful actors with a
stake in deforestation often figure out how to get their way –using or
circumventing the rules.
Most (REDD+ and REDD-like) efforts are trying to change the behavior of
the weaker actors.
Political will and coalitions for change are indispensable for advancing
REDD+ and low emissions development.
How the 4 I’s hinder or enable change
Institutions
Formal power rests with ‘stickiest’ organisations – those with enough influence to resist change
E.g. colonial rules
new institutions and actors are often ignored or remain isolated
E.g. Ministries for natural resources
Interests
State’s interest in social and economic welfare can fall short if not autonomous from interests that drive deforestation and degradation
rent seeking, fraud, collusion and corruption practices in the bureaucratic system
Ideas
discourse affects policy making
it frames the problem and presents limited choices of ‘reasonable’ or ‘possible’
REDD+ benefits for those who contribute to efficiency and effectiveness, versus benefits for those who have moral rights based on equity considerations
Information
Facts are selected, interpreted, and put in context in ways that reflect the interests of the information provider
reference level setting
(from Maria‘s slides)
Maria: the 4 Is is not a method but it is a political economy lens on the underlying problem, or if you want to say so, a baseline study combined with a theory of change in REDD+ terms
<number>
<number>
In absence of a substantial funding stream to pay the opportunity costs of forest conservation (via conditional rewards), REDD+ cannot compete with conversion of forest to other uses. Many REDD+ initiatives are actually a continuation of pre-existing ICDPs operating at the same site. That is why what is now called “REDD+ on the ground” is dominated by classic forest interventions: enabling conditions (tenure clarification, environmental education), disincentives (e.g. environmental fines), incentives (livelihood enhancements that are only in some cases conditional)
<number>
Improved local knowledge of initiatives – especially among women’s groups and households at the study sites – but participation in REDD+ still lacking, especially among women
<number>