Avoiding deforestation and forest degradation under a new climate

agreement: The evolution of REDD+ and implications

for international forest policy

Maria Brockhaus Bogor – April 2016

Outline The Paris Agreement

The evolution of REDD+

Defining business as usual and transformational change to reduce deforestation/degradation

Factors hindering and enabling REDD+ - a political economy approach

Conclusion: what are implications for International Forest Policy

“Climate change cannot be won without the world’s forests. This, however, will be a complex and

challenging feat. Nonetheless, it is one of the best large-scale investments we can make against climate change that could result in an equally large-scale

dividend.”Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary‐General, September 2008

Forests and Climate Change(Locatelli et al. 2008, 2011)

(e.g. Reducing Emissions for Deforestation and forest Degradation, REDD+)

Ecosystem‐Based Mitigation

Ecosystem‐Based Adaptation

(Managing ecosystem services for reducing the vulnerability of people and economic sectors to climate change)

Forest Adaptation(Reducing the impacts of climate change on forests)

MITIGATION

GhG concentrations

Climate change

Impacts

Responses

ADAPTATION

Paris Agreement

“By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s

a disaster” (George Monbiot)

Agreement links climate actions to ensuring poverty alleviation

sends a signal that actions seek to prevent a global increase in average temperature to 1.5 degrees

INDCs (Intended nationally determined contributions) reviewed on a 5 year cycle

Mismatch between what is committed in these INDCs and what would be needed to achieve the 2° goal, let alone 1.5°

Paris Agreement, forests and REDD+

First time forests are explicitly mentioned (Art 5.1 states: Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests. )

Encourages action for REDD+ (Article 5.2 links to REDD+, results based payments, joint mitigation adaptation actions and non carbon benefits - in addition, several finance announcements were made during the conference to provide more certainty over REDD+ finance)

What is REDD+?

… policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries

UNFCCC Decision 2/CP.13–11

A brief REDD history Early 1990s: Deforestation 1/5 of GHG emissions 2001 - COP7: Avoided deforestation too difficult to include in CDM (+ no

additionality). Only A/R 2005 - COP11: 2 year consultation period for RED ; 2006 –Stern report 2007 - COP13: RED(D) included in Bali Action Plan; Norway’s Climate-

Forest initiative, NOK 15 billions 2008+: FCPF (World Bank), UNREDD, other initiatives 2009 - COP15: some progress for REDD+, interim financing 2010: COP 16 confirms earlier decisions on REDD+; safeguards and

ref.levels; REDD+ partnership 2011: COP 17: REDD part of commitment for all parties? Financing to be

explored. Pilots and national policy reforms 2012: COP 18 and SBSTA - not much new, a lot of bracket text for

safeguards, MRV etc. - verification problem 2013: COP 19 Warsaw framework, results based finance, guidance –

safeguards issue will need further guidance 2014: SBSTA and COP 20 – Safeguards guidance, JMA 2015: COP 21 and SBSTA concluded REDD+ negotiations ->

national implementation arenas

REDD+ architecture (Angelsen et al 2009)

How to realise carbon and non-carbon benefits in a situation of numerous challenges in national REDD+ discussed since 2005?

Among others ...

Coordination across sectors and administrative levels (in decentralized systems)

Tenure, financing systems, benefit sharing and participation

MRV systems and capacity

Scope, scale, permanence, leakage

Sovereignty and ownership over process and reform(s)

Capacity and political will to address the drivers of forest carbon change (driven oftentimes by interests of powerful elites), access/availibility to data on sectorial contributions to DD, and identifying an effective policy mix

Transformational change:

‘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 forest degradation’ (Brockhaus and Angelsen, 2012; Di Gregorio et al, 2012 in

‘Analysing REDD+’)

Transformational change versus business-as-usual

Examples of transformational change

In the context of REDD+, transformational outcomes can bei) changes in economic, regulatory and governance

frameworks, including the devolution of rights to local users;

ii) removals of perverse incentives, such as subsidies and concessions that serve selective economic interests and stimulate deforestation and forest degradation; and

iii) reforms of forest industry policies and regulations that effectively reduce unsustainable extraction

Shifts in discursive practices, economic incentives, and power relations

Seeing REDD+ through 4I’s: institutions, interests, ideas, information(Brockhaus and Angelsen 2012)

4 Is – can hinder or enable transformational change…

(Brockhaus and Angelsen 2012)

Institutional stickiness: Formal power typically rests with the ‘stickiest’ organisations –

Interests: often lack of autonomy of State from interests that drive deforestation and degradation (e.g. rent seeking, fraud, collusion and corruption practices that can happen inside the bureaucratic system)

Ideas: discourse affects policy making, they frame the problem and present a limited set of choices of what is ‘reasonable’ or what is put forward as ‘the possible’

Information – a currency in todays world, a source of power - and facts getting selected, interpreted !!

CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+) –

Analysis of national REDD+ policies and processes in 14 countries since 2009

Approach: investigating politico-economic constraints to effective national REDD+

strategies (Brockhaus, M., and M. Di Gregorio. 2012. A brief overview: Component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR)

Institutional Context and Path-Dependencies (country context studies) (Brockhaus, M., M. Di Gregorio and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2012. Guide for country profiles: Global Comparative Study on REDD (GCS-REDD). Component 1 on National REDD+ Policies and Processes. CIFOR)

Ideology, Policy Discourses and Coalitions for Change (media and actor stance analysis) (Di Gregorio, M., Price, S., Saunders, C. and Brockhaus, M. 2012. Code book for the analysis of media frames in articles on REDD. CIFOR)

Policy Network Structures: Constraints and Opportunities for effective policy design (policy network analysis) (see special issue in Ecology and Society 2014)

REDD+ policy process assessment (e.g. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)) (Korhonen-Kurkin et al. 2014, Sehring et al. 2013, Brockhaus et al. 2015, 2016 forthcoming)

Some selected key findings (I): …from readiness to results based

finance…

Overall progress slow, countries stuck in REDD+ readiness, but progress visible need for more certainty about finance to provide credibility for shifts in incentives, Paris might be a signal …

(Brockhaus et al. 2014. REDD+ policy networks: Exploring actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain. Ecology & Society)

Some selected key findings (II): from rhetoric to policy change for

REDD+? Agents of Change and new coalitions emerging, new

incentives, and new discourses highlighting equity implications of REDD+ as well as effectiveness and efficiency (Angelsen et al. 2012)

but BAU actor coalitions are powerful, main drivers of

deforestation not yet tackled no REDD+ without, only lots of ‘old wine in new bottles’ (Salvini et al. 2014. How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: implications for monitoring systems. Environmental Research Letters, 9(7), 074004.)

power struggles everywhere, horizontal, vertical , within between ministries, sectors, within and between old and new institutional settings and involved organisations (Dkamela et al. 2014, Brockhaus et al. 2014, Ecology and Society)

Some selected key findings (III): Progress with REDD+

Politics matter : ownership, coalitions of change and already initiated pathways of larger policy change (a second round of qualitative comparative analysis – Brockhaus et al. 2015 Progress with REDD+; 2016 forthcoming )

Politics of numbers matter: Who counts count, and what is counted counts… (presentation given with Arild Angelsen in Paris, Our common future, 2015)

Conclusion: Paris agreement, REDD+ and implication for International Forest Policy

Forests are high on the agenda!! after Paris need to match rhetoric with matching (and measurable) emission reductions through avoided DD Forest Policy research can provide guidance,

tools and information to support• managing the politics of numbers • generating evidence on effectiveness, efficiency

and equity outcomes of instruments (e.g. 0-Def)• rethinking the role of the state – and of CSO Policy impact assessments

Country Profiles

Media-based discourse analyses

Info Briefs

Working Papers Journal Articles

GCS analysis of policies and processes

2008

2012

2009

CIFOR’s 3rd

edited volume on REDD

AcknowledgementsThis work is part of the policy component of CIFOR’s global comparative study on REDD (GCS). The methods and guidelines used in this research component were designed by Maria Brockhaus, Monica Di Gregorio and Sheila Wertz‐Kanounnikoff. Parts of the methodology are adapted from the research protocol for media and network analysis designed by COMPON (‘Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks’).

Case leaders:  Thuy Thu Pham (Nepal), Thuy Thu Pham & Moira Moeliono  (Vietnam),  Thuy Thu Pham and Guillaume Lestrelin (Laos), Daju Resosudarmo & Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Andrea Babon (PNG), Peter Cronkleton, Kaisa Korhonen‐Kurki, Pablo Pacheco (Bolivia), Mary Menton (Peru), Sven Wunder & Peter May (Brazil), Samuel Assembe & Jolien Schure  (Cameroon), Samuel Assembe (DRC), Salla Rantala (Tanzania), Sheila Wertz‐Kanounnikoff (Mozambique), Suwadu Sakho‐Jimbira & Houria Djoudi (Burkina Faso), Arild Angelsen (Norway). Special thanks to our national partners from REDES, CEDLA, Libelula and DAR, REPOA, UEM, CODELT, ICEL, ForestAction, CIEM, CERDA, Son La FD, UPNG, NRI‐PNG, and UMB. 

Thanks to contributors to case studies, analysis and review : Levania Santoso, Tim Cronin, Giorgio Indrarto, Prayekti Murharjanti, Josi Khatarina, Irvan Pulungan, Feby Ivalerina, Justitia Rahman, Muhar Nala Prana, Caleb Gallemore (Indonesia), Nguyen Thi Hien, Nguyen Huu Tho, Vu Thi Hien, Bui Thi Minh Nguyet, Nguyen Tuan Viet and Huynh Thu Ba(Vietnam), Dil Badhur, Rahul Karki, Bryan Bushley, Naya Paudel (Nepal), Daniel McIntyre, Gae Gowae, Nidatha Martin, Nalau Bingeding, Ronald Sofe, Abel Simon (PNG), Walter Arteaga, Bernado Peredo, Jesinka Pastor (Bolivia), Maria Fernanda Gebara, Brent Millikan, Bruno Calixto, Shaozeng Zhang (Brazil), Hugo Piu, Javier Perla, Daniela Freundt, Eduardo Burga Barrantes, Talía Postigo Takahashi (Peru), Guy Patrice Dkamela, Felicien Kengoum (Cameroon), Felicien Kabamba, Augustin Mpoyi, Angelique Mbelu (DRC), Demetrius Kweka, Therese Dokken, Rehema Tukai, George Jambiya, Riziki Shemdoe, (Tanzania), Almeida Sitoe, Alda Salomão (Mozambique), Mathurin Zida,Hermann Kambire, Nadia Djenontin, Michael Balinga (Burkina Faso), Laila Borge (Norway) and many more. 

Special thanks to Efrian Muharrom, Sofi Mardiah, Christine Wairata, Ria Widjaja‐Adhi, Cecilia Luttrell,  Frances Seymour, Lou Verchot, Markku Kanninen, Elena Petkova, Arild Angelsen, Jan Boerner, Anne Larson, Martin Herold, Kaisa Korhonen‐Kurki, Rachel Carmenta, Juniarta Tjajadi, Cynthia Maharani

We acknowledge the support from:the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the European Union (EU), the UK Government, USAID, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP‐FTA) with financial support from the CGIAR Fund.

& all research partners and individuals that have contributed to the GCS research 

Thanks