International Workshop “REDD+: A New
Framework for Conservation of TropicalForests – Monitoring, Biodiversity andPractices”
Nagoya, 25/10/2010

Realizing REDD+, a globalcomparative studyA quick introduction to CIFOR• Established in 1993
• One of 15 centers in the CGIAR• Focus on forest policy research andglobal comparative research• Headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia• 80 Scientific staff working in themajor forests of Southeast Asia,
Africa and South and Latin America• “Center without walls”

CIFOR’s research strategy

1 Enhancing the role of forests in mitigating climate change
Enhancing the role of forests in adapting to climate
2 change

3
Managing trade-offs between conservation and4 development at the landscape scale
Improving livelihoods through smallholder andcommunity forestry

5
6 Sustainably managing tropical production forests

Managing impacts of globalised trade and investment on
forests and forest communities

Global Comparative Study on REDD
(GCS-REDD)• National REDD processand strategies (C1)
• REDD demonstration
activities (C2)• Monitoring and reference
levels (C3)

• Knowledge sharing (C4)www.forestsclimatechange.org

GCS-REDD: Countries and activitiesAsia Pacific

AfricaLatin America

Indonesia

Cameroon

Bolivia

Vietnam

Tanzania

BrazilNepal; PNG;DR Congo; Mozambique

Peru

C1: National policies& politics

C2: REDD+ pilot
impact assessment

C3: MRV & reference
levelsComparative policy
process analysis

Comprehensive
methodology: BACI

Field testing ofmethods

8-9 policy processes & 20+ projects/sites
selected policy studies

Defor. & degradation
modelling -> RL

Surveys 2010-2011

National MRV
systems

Surveys 2010 2012/13

Component 1 : Research on
national REDD strategies, policies,
and activities

Hypotheses• Formulation of a national REDD strategy and implementation ofREDD projects is delayed due to limited institutional capacity,
shortcomings in existing financing and MRV mechanisms, and tradeoffs and economic incentive structures outside climatic goals.
• Corruption, lack of transparency and accountability beside otherfactors in countries‟ governance context result in low political will andlimited effectiveness, efficiency and equity of REDD+ strategies• Political commitment for the implementation of 3E REDD+ is low
because powerful national actors are not engaged in the decisionmaking process.
• Lessons from ongoing REDD activities and other forest andgovernance initiatives have little role in informing political decisions
for REDD.

Cross-country
comparativeanalysis

Flexible Element: Specific Policy Studies to capture emerging or country specific issues
and questions, focus on political economy studies

Country casestudies

DiscourseMedia Analysis
 Why: Todetermine whatkinds of actors are
shaping publicdebate andinfluencing thepolicy process.
How: mediabased analysis

Country profile
Why: To reveal contextual conditions (drivers ofdeforestation, institutions, political economy, REDD
architecture as discussed)
How: literature review, expert interviews

Strategy Assessment
Why: To assess the adequacy of proposed
response measures to secure 3E outcomes?
How: situational analysis, R-PP scoring

Policy Network Analysis
Why: To analyse structural conditions in the policy
arena, Actors, Perception, Power, Position
How: survey and in-depth interviews

Comparative analysis
Why: to identify structural and governance barriers for 3E REDD outcomes, andoptions for improvements
How: comparative analysis of individual research elements (country profile etc),
qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

Challenges ahead
REDD dynamics in the policy arenas at all! levels will
have implications for C1 regarding country choice,methods and research questions:• Level  regional, national, subnational decision

making needs to be researched• Cross component work  needs to be strengthened• Donor and ideology dynamics  country specific(LOI..)• Research questions  update needed, and likecountry or regional case specifities can beincorporated in C1 structureComponent 2 : REDD
demonstration activities

Research questions
Overarching• How can REDD projects be designed in sucha way that their outcomes fulfill the 3E+criteria?
Subordinates• Do the 1st generation REDD projects attainthe 3E+ criteria?
• If yes, how? If not, why not?
• How do we improve the design andimplementation of 1st and 2nd generation
projects?

BACI
Comparison(Control)
Project site
(Intervention)

Control
BeforeControl
AfterIntervention
BeforeIntervention
After

BeforeAfter

IMPACTIntensive and extensive
approaches

Research countries and projects
Continent

LATIN
AMERICACountry

BRAZILCAMEROONAFRICATANZANIAASIA

INDONESIA

REDD project site

MOC

Int / ExtGovernment of Acre (SEMA). Acre

YES

INT

Instituto Centro de Vida. Mato Grosso.

YES

INT

IPAM. State of Para.

YES

INT

TNC. Sao Felix du Xingu

YES

INT

Bolsa Floresta - Not part of BACIYES

INT/EXT

CED. South and East region.

In process

INT

GFA. South West province.

In process

INT

TaTEDO. Shinyanga.

YES

INT

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG). Kilosa.

YES

INT

Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG). Lindi.

YES

EXT

HIMA. Care International. Zanzibar.

YES

EXT

JGI. Masito Ugalla Ecosystem.

YES

EXT

MCDI. Mpingo.

YES

EXTGovernment of Aceh. Ulu Masen.

YES

INT

Community Carbon Pool. FFI. West Kalimantan.

YES

INT

KFCP. AusAid. Central Kalimantan.

MOU

INT

Rimba Raya . Infinite Earth. Central Kalimantan.

YES

EXT

Katingan Peatland. Starling Resources. Central Kalimantan.

YES

EXTDiscussion

INT

YES

INT

TNC Berau. East Kalimantan.
VIETNAM

SNV. Cat Tien . Lam Dong province.

REDD project sites in Indonesia

Process outcomes• Outcomes in the “before” period: Project success in establishingcarbon baselines
 Local permission for the project Degree of involvement in shapingproject Degree of involvement inimplementing project Degree of understanding of REDD &project How tenure issues addressed To what extent social and environ.
standards being met (e.g. CCBA)

Impact outcomes• Baseline measurement to lay
foundation for impact in the“after” period:

 MRV baseline
 RS imagery at project sites
 Model of causes of D and D Household wellbeing, livelihoods,

assets Wealth ranking by local standards Existing tenure conditions
 “Is your HH worse off or better off
than one year ago?” “What are reasons for improvement orworsening of HH wellbeing?”

Future challenges• How follow through on BACI in four-year timeframe if REDD+ incentives slow to get offground?
• Representativeness of sample of projects andvillages in the global arena?
• How to make an adequate assessment of REDD
project costs ?
• How to address biodiversity as a co-benefit?

C3: Research on MRV andreference levels

Background• The empirical basis for assessing likely future emissions isvirtually non-existent.

• Many policy makers, NGOs and research institutions routinely
call for standardized methodologies for assessing referenceemissions.

• Most carbon accounting systems (e.g.BioCF) focus solely on
aboveground biomass.

• IPCC procedures are inadequate for forest degradation

Five identified constraints• Integration of historical deforestation data with knowledgeof drivers of deforestation.

• Unavailability of country- or region-specific factors for theIPCC GHG accounting equations.

• Lack of data and understanding of human induced carbon
stock changes in all five pools.

• Institutional capacity to undertake the appropriate work
necessary for setting national emission reductions
targets, MR of forest related carbon emissions.

• Lack of information on cost-accuracy tradeoffs between
highly technical approaches and community-based
measurement approaches.

Objectives• To develop equations and factors for better carbon accounting• To provide guidance to project developers
on using a Tier 2 approach with country
and site specific factors for the IPCC
Greenhouse Gas Accounting Guidelines
equations.

• To assess approaches and synergies for
integrating detailed project-level monitoringand national level estimation, accounting
and reportingC-stocks in peatlands
Seluang

KancilRisam

Peramuan Jerumbun

Assessment of C budgets in peat swamp
forests and oil palm plantations
OilForesPaltm
L
7.
4

SRH
6.9 CH4
0.03
S&PR
1

R
1.
5 peat FOREST = CIN peat – COUT peat
C= 8.9– 7.9= 1.0 Mg C ha-1 y-1

Net C loss =F
4.5

L

SRH
9.3

CH4~0

1.5

R
3.6

S&PR
1

Cpeat OP = CIN peat – COUT peat
= 5.0– 14.8
= - 9.8 Mg C ha-1 y-1

428 Mg C ha-1 over 25 years

Preliminary results on peat soilsShallow peat1) Soil respiration
LF → BF-OP1y:  due to  root respiration
BF-OP1y → OP5y:  due to  both root
respiration and peat decomposition (vicinity todrainage canal)

Soil respiration(Mg C ha-1 y-1)

1612840
Logged forest Burnt forest - Oil Palm-5y
Oil Palm-1y

Root biomass (Mg ha-1 10cm-1)

2) Coarse root biomass

Burnt forest: still many roots fromprevious forest (LUC 3 years ago)
Conversion Logged forest – oil palm:
Loss of 28 ± 7 Mg C ha-1 from roots

51015200soil depth (cm)Logged forest: high root biomass in thesoil top 10 cm0-20
Logged forest _ Deep peat-40-60-80-100

32.1 ± 7.4 Mg C ha-1
Burnt forest -Oil Palm-1y _ Shallowpeat

9.7 ± 1.5 Mg C ha-1
Oil Palm-5y _ Deep peat

4.3 ± 0.7 Mg C ha-125

Preliminary results on mineral soils
45CO2(Mg C ha-1 yr-1)

4035302520
151050Forest

DisturbedForest

Rubber 1 yr Rubber 20 yrOP 8yrs

C4: Knowledge sharing• CIFOR 2008: Book on
global REDD architecture• Key messages:– Technical solutions exist,
but– Often trade-offs– Political issues– Flexibility needed:• Country circumstances• Learning process

The dilemmas ahead• REDD+ must be new ... but build on what has gone
before• REDD+ must be transformational .... in a world wherechange is incremental• REDD+ requires targeted interventions … and broad
sectoral coordination• REDD+ need policies ... but the bias is toward projects• Promising REDD+ approaches .... but no silver bullets• REDD+ is urgent .... but cannot be rushed• We know a lot .... but need to be learning while doing

Key messages• REDD+ is a unique opportunity– the money and political will is there, but past performance mixed• Context matters – REDD+ policies need to work on 2tracks– Start long-term transformational reforms, or accelerate some of thoseongoing (e.g. land titling cadastre)– Start short-term policies, but identify „low-hanging fruits‟ - important also
to demonstrate commitment: “YES WE CAN – AND WILL DO REDD”• REDD is about PES-like performance-based payments– but strong preconditions apply  rely on some old approaches(protected areas)• Learn from the past, but also while moving forwardhttp://www.cifor.cgiar.org
http://www.forestsclimatechange.org