Call Girls In R.K. Puram 9953056974 Escorts ServiCe In Delhi Ncr
How REDD+ Initiatives Impact Forests and People
1. THINKING beyond the canopy
Policy panel: REDD+
Sven Wunder, Principal Scientist
2. Bali 2007: Umbrella strategy
for on-the-ground implemention
REDD=Global PES
REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and forest Degradation and conservation, sustainable
management and enhancement of carbon stocks
Scales: Pilot projects + juris-
dictional (national, subnational)
REDD+ =goal; but also a model:
Carbon-focused conditional
“PES between countries”?
Rationale: buying out forest loss
in marginal hinterlands Global S.
4. REDD+ financing has remained small
Norman & Nakhooda
(2014)
Donor country pledges for REDD+ for the period 2006-2014
=> high donor concentration,
low volumes pledged
=> But post-Paris, funding flows
from Green Climate Fund (GCF),
Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility (FCPF)/ (World Bank)
8. CIFOR Global Comparative Study on REDD+
• Field research in 6 countries, 23 sites, 150 villages,
4,000+ households
• “Before-after/control-intervention” (2010-11 / 2013-
14/ 2018)
• Land use mapping, socioeconomic questionnaire
2016-07-06_GCS_sites_pantropicalTOTALexclBF_LowRes.pdf
9. REDD+ as bundle of interventions
Restrictions on forest access
and conversion
Tenure clarification, registries
Non-conditional liv.
enhancement
Conditional liv. enhancement
Environ. education Forest enhancement
§ Characterized all interventions in study villages
§ Created “treatment intensity” score (share households per
village exposed to specific intervention types)
11. 1. Forest carbon/ land use outcomes: 12 studies (!)
Other outcomes (welfare, tenure…): 26 studies
2. Positive carbon/ LUC impacts, but large range
3. Mostly small/ insignificant impacts on income &
perceived wellbeing….
es that focused on participation in REDD
ocused on Free Prior Informed Consent
al engagement in project activities. Nine
ase reports, three were systematic reviews,
land grabbing [16 !!
]. Similarly, low partic
ARR project in Mozambique (30%) was re
charcoal extraction, as well as low trust, ed
cash income levels [32]. In Cameroon, part
enhanced by positive local perceptions of a n
area associated with the REDD+ project [33
project in Mexico, participation was positive
0 5 10 15 20
case report
case-control study: no confounders
considered
case-control study: some confounders
considered
case-control study: pre-matched
controls
randomized control trial
systematic review
# studies
carbon
non-carbon
participation
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
udy components assessing carbon and non-carbon outcomes, and local participation in REDD+.
n Environmental Sustainability 2018, 32:134–140 www.sc
REDD+ impacts
Duchelle et al. (2018)
12. Subnational: TransamazonSimonet et al. (2018)
80.0
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
50.0
75.7
71.0
65.9
60.5
67.3
62.3
52.6
2008
Participants Counterfactual Comparisoncommunities
Forest
covers
as
share
of
land
(%)
2010 2012 2014
Causaleffectof the
REDD+project:-50%in
therateof deforestation
Figure 10.4 Impact of REDD+ on deforestation in Transamazon project
15. # Dimension Filtering factor Observation/ justification
1 REDD+ label Self-labelled and ‘REDD+ like’ Incl. multipurpose C-focused national
PES (separate category)
2 Actions Forest carbon conservation element Excl. pure A/R projects
3 Scale National and subnational REDD+ No filter: projects and programmes alike
4 Starting time Implementation start not before
2007
COP13 initiated REDD process in 2007
A Literature Peer-reviewed + Grey Filtering instead on evaluation quality
B Impacts Forest carbon + human wellbeing Incl., as main bottom lines for REDD+
C Outcomes Forest cover/loss + socio-economic Incl., as shorter-term bottom lines.
D Outputs Excluded Excl. all middle-part ToC (intermediary)
E Objectivity Subjective wellbeing included Incl., as welfare impact
F Evaluation (Quasi-)experimental methods Counterfactual approach always needed
Wunder, Schulz,
Montoya Börner
(unpublished)
New REDD+ impact meta-
study: delimitations
19. REDD+: a (so far) unfulfilled
promise, in Chinese boxes
– REDD+ has remained under-financed, especially
national REDD+ (the original target)
– Project scope (PDD): avoid 84 mtCO2/yr (~33 yr)
~1% of land-based tropical emissions – but sold
just 5% (Simonet et al. 2018): a drop in the sea…
– REDD+ is to carbon, what ICDP is to biodiversity: a
heterogenous mix of on-the-ground interventions
– Land-use (and carbon) impacts of implemented
policy mixes have been little evaluated
– REDD+ projects tend to be welfare-neutral
20. But don’t just give up on REDD+ yet!
– Post-Paris big new funding flows – GCF, FCPF
– Upscaling/ new jurisdictional approaches –
national, states & provinces (likely lower leakage)
– Policy mixes: combining area- and product-
based, and ‘produce & protect’ interventions
– Even project environmental impacts so far
have not been too bad, cf. other conservation
tools (but: cost efficiency, permanence issues).
=> Social innovation cycles & fads: are we too
quick to reject & move on to the next ‘big thing’?