What are the barriers and opportunities to conditional incentives in REDD+ projects?

William D. Sunderlin, Andini Desita Ekaputri, Amy Duchelle, Erin Sills, Demetrius Kweka

SBSTA side event on “REDD+ performance and verification:

Insights from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS)”

Bonn, Germany, June 5, 2013

Outline

• Global Comparative Study on REDD+

• Proponent challenges survey

• Characterization of projects

• Barriers

• Opportunities

• Some thoughts

Global Comparative Study on REDD+

Module 2 regions, countries, projects

Proponent Challenges Survey

• In-depth survey interview of 23 proponent organizations to ask:

What are the barriers and opportunities to implementation of REDD+ projects in terms of attaining the 3Es and co-benefits?

• Research question in this presentation:

What are the barriers and opportunities to move to conditional REDD+ incentives in REDD+ projects?

Proponent Challenges Survey

1. Characterization of projects:

– Sources of pressure on forests

– Progress in implementation of interventions

– Ranking of importance of interventions

2. Barriers to implementation:

– Most challenging factors (general)

– Challenges in effectively sequestering forest carbon

3. Opportunities:

– Solutions toward effective sequestration

Definition of conditional incentives

• Includes but is not equivalent to what people commonly consider to be "PES"

• Broad definition that includes:

monetary and in-kind rewards

Household and village level rewards

Pre-paid and paid upon delivery

1. Characterization: Main sources of pressure

3

3

3

4

6

7

7

8

9

9

10

11

13

17

19

19

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Large‐scale ranching

Large‐scale timber harvest (illegal)

Large‐scale timber harvest (legal)

Large‐scale agriculture

Other

Commercial fuelwood/charcoal collection

Large‐scale plantations

Non-wood forest products harvesting

Mining

Small‐scale legal timber harvest

Small or medium ranchers

Subsistence fuelwood/charcoal collection

Forest fire

Small‐scale frontier agriculture (colonists)

Small‐scale illegal timber harvest

Small‐scale traditional agriculture (local inhabitants)

n= 148 responses

1. Characterization: Implementation of interventions

9

19

22

14

19

12

19

1

1

1

4

4

2

13

3

5

4

7

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

Others

Tenure Clarification

Env Education

Liv Enhance - Cond

Liv Enhance - Non Cond

Forest Enhancement

Forest Access Restriction

Project sites (n=23)

Begun Not yet begun Will not be done

1. Characterization: Among the interventions that have begun or are planned, which is potentially the most important for effectively reducing

deforestation and forest degradation at your site?

1

1

2

2

3

5

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Unknown

Forest enhancements

Livelihood enhancements (non-conditional)

Forest access restrictions

Tenure clarification

Others

Livelihood enhancements (conditional)

Project sites (n=23)

1. Characterization: Among the interventions that have begun or are planned, which is potentially the most important for effectively reducing

deforestation and forest degradation at your site?

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Unknown

Forest enhancements

Livelihood enhancements (non-conditional)

Forest access restrictions and conversion

Tenure clarification

Others

Livelihood enhancements (conditional)

Project sites (n=23)

BRAZIL

CAMEROON

INDONESIA

PERU

TANZANIA

VIETNAM

2. Ranking of ten most challenging of 62 factors

Factor Score

Governance: tenure conditions (national) 86

National policy: tenure & land use 83

International policy: REDD+ (economic) 83

Governance: tenure cond. (reg./local) 80

National policy: REDD+ (technical) 79

National policy: REDD+ (economic) 79

Political economy: BAU interests 78

National policy: REDD+ (legal) 78

National policy: forest 77

Governance: capacity 77

2. Which one of 62 factors has been the most challenging in implementing your REDD+ project?

6 26%

6 26% 1

5%

3 13%

2 9%

3 13%

1 4%

1 4%

Project sites (n=23)

Tenure policy and conditions

Disadvantegous economicsof REDD+

International policy

Issues related to localstakeholders

National agricultural andforestry policies

National and sub-nationalREDD+ policy

Proponent organizationdeficiencies

Unknown

2. Barriers: What are the main challenges you have experienced in designing and implementing a project that will effectively

sequester or reduce emissions of forest carbon?

• Engagement with the community

• Collaboration with government institutions

• Weak local governance

• Tenure

• Inadequacy of REDD+ financing

• Creation of alternative income sources

• Leakage

2. Opportunities: What solutions do you envision in designing and implementing a project that will effectively sequester or

reduce emissions of forest carbon?

• Improved governance and government capacity

• Improved engagement with local community

• Tenure intervention

• Intensive/sustainable agriculture

• Community forest management

• Intervene to change policy

• Increase area to overcome leakage

• Support low-carbon development planning

• Devise improved financial incentives

Thoughts on barriers and opportunities

• Tendency is to view REDD+ as wholly focused on one intervention: conditional incentives

• In fact, conditional incentives in REDD+ are preceded by, and functionally linked to, other interventions

• This hybrid arrangement has allowed projects to proceed in spite of inhospitable REDD+ policy and economic conditions

We thank our donors!