The potential of REDD+ to finance forestry sector in Vietnam
The potential of REDD+ to finance forestry sector in Vietnam
06 August, 2018
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Despite the great potential REDD+ shows for generating and contributing finance to support forestry in Vietnam, a reduction in both funds and funder commitment to REDD+, challenges in meeting funder requirements, and the significant finance required to implement the national REDD+ program in Vietnam, all imply that in reality REDD+s contribution as a major financial source for the forestry sector is limited.
Although the government has identified various public and private funding sources to cover the different phases of REDD+, the international public sector remains the primary funding source; limited contributions come from the private sector and state.
To date the spending of REDD+ finance has been uncoordinated and fragmented, due to a lack of clarity on what Vietnams REDD+ priorities are.
Effective and efficient implementation of REDD+ activities in Vietnam is being impeded by: limited and inaccurate data regarding REDD+ finance in Vietnam; an unclear definition of what REDD+ finance is; the absence of a national REDD+ financial tracking system; and limited technical capacity (within both government and civil society organizations) when it comes to monitoring REDD+ finance.
To increase the potential for REDD+ to financially contribute to forestry in Vietnam, the following is required: better coordination across sectors and amongst donors and government agencies; enhanced capacity building on the tracking and management of REDD+ finance; development and effective implementation of REDD+ policies and measures, so that the government can access result-based payments from different international funding sources.
Climate-smart land use requires local solutions, transdisciplinary research, policy coherence and transparency
Climate-smart land use requires local solutions, transdisciplinary research, policy coherence and transparency
11 July, 2018
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Successfully meeting the mitigation and adaptation targets of the Paris Climate Agreement (PA) will depend on strengthening the ties between forests and agriculture. Climate-smart land use can be achieved by integrating climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and REDD+. The focus on agriculture for food security within a changing climate, and on forests for climate change mitigation and adaptation, can be achieved simultaneously with a transformational change in the land-use sector. Striving for both independently will lead to competition for land, inefficiencies in monitoring and conflicting agendas. Practical solutions exist for specific contexts that can lead to increased agricultural output and forest protection. Landscape-level emissions accounting can be used to identify these practices. Transdisciplinary research agendas can identify and prioritize solutions and targets for integrated mitigation and adaptation interventions. Policy coherence must be achieved at a number of levels, from international to local, to avoid conflicting incentives. Transparency must lastly be integrated, through collaborative design of projects, and open data and methods. Climate-smart land use requires all these elements, and will increase the likelihood of successful REDD+ and CSA interventions. This will support the PA as well as other initiatives as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.
A decade since the birth of REDD+, what does the program need to succeed?
A decade since the birth of REDD+, what does the program need to succeed?
A REDD+ benefit sharing site is pictured in Jambi, Indonesia. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A REDD+ benefit sharing site is pictured in Jambi, Indonesia. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
It is almost 10 years since the birth of REDD+, the UN-backed program to incentivize forest restoration and conservation in developing countries, as part of a worldwide effort to reduce emissions and increase carbon stocks.
The program, also tailored to contribute to national sustainable development, has been heralded as a powerful part of the solution to both poverty and climate change.
CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) research leader Christopher Martius, who is also CIFOR’s climate change team leader and panel moderator, set the stage for a discussion that would be both productive and critical as some delegates debated its efficacy and future potential.
Panelists acknowledged the extent of the challenges facing the voluntary climate change mitigation approach program, but also came forward with a range of useful propositions for helping achieve the emission reduction results so urgently needed.
Deforestation and forest degradation account for 11 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector, according to data from the UN-REDD Programme, which works with developing countries in an advisory role to help implement REDD+ technical support services tailored to national circumstances and needs.
Gabriel Labbate, regional coordinator of the Latin American and the Caribbean region for the Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI) and the UN REDD program, estimated that around $400 million are dispersed for REDD+ per year, plus another $600 million in finance for other kinds of sustainable forest management.
“That looks like a decent number,” he said. “Until you take a look at what was on the other side of the fence”: the money that’s simultaneously going toward industries responsible for emitting carbon and causing deforestation. For example, in 2015 the oil industry alone was subsidized to the tune of about $5 trillion.
Asgeir Olafson, Global Topic Lead on Land Use and the Bioeconomy at Scandinavian consultancy firm COWI A/S, also picked up on the need to look at the bigger picture and all the actors involved in order to make a real difference: “REDD is only one stream of money, alongside a lot of other streams of money, going into deforestation areas,” he said.
Labbate argued further that carbon markets are not yet lucrative or established enough to incentivize changes in practice on a wider scale, and Kaspar Wansleben, managing director of the Forestry and Climate Change Fund (FCCF), agreed: “It’s not considered by investors to be serious, stable and predictable enough to give them the 15-year perspective that they need to make something like this work.”
Challenges aside, some impressive progress has already been made under REDD+, said Labbate. According to the Lima REDD+ Information Hub, a platform for countries to report avoided deforestation, about 6 gigatons of carbon emissions have already been avoided as a result of the program. “I think it is remarkable that in this environment we still get these types of results,” he concluded.
Session participants discuss REDD+ finance during the “What REDD+ finance needs to succeed” session at the GLF Investment Case Symposium 2018. Photo by Leigh Vogel/GLF
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
One keenly-debated issue was the role of the public sector in both developing and developed countries, in getting REDD+ to perform better. Olafson stated that we should “expect no solution from policymakers. They have too many other urgent things to do.”
“The scope, and the level of ambition, and the political capital to being involved with REDD+, I’m sorry to say, is simply not there.”
But Abbate urged caution about dismissing policymakers’ importance in REDD+ discussions: “Markets don’t work in a vacuum. They work better in London than in the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo], because the institutions around them are different,” he argued. “And the strength of the institutions in a country is a political decision, made by policymakers.”
Olafson acknowledged that governments could, at least, play a useful role in helping unlocking private finance to fund REDD+ activities. “There is plenty of finance out there,” he said. “We need private finance to be involved, and governments to help with that.”
Ellysar Baroudy, Lead Carbon Finance Specialist at the World Bank (WB), described a large-scale project the Bank is involved with in Mozambique. The country received $3.6 million from the Forest Carbon Partnership Fund to establish an enabling environment for private finance, and the WB contributed $5 million to the cause.
Forest sector reform and technical assistance were key aspects of this process, as these aspects that are difficult for private investors to fund. “Countries need time to get sorted and put in place a foundation first,” said Baroudy, “and then they can start to attract funding from a whole mosaic of different sources.”
But Dharsono Hartono, president director of PT Rimba Makmur Utama, an Indonesian based company developing a 108,255 hectare peatland forest REDD+ project in Central Kalimantan, opined that in the Indonesian context, too much money has already been poured into creating enabling conditions, and too little into the task at hand. As a result, he said, “in the last 10 years, deforestation hasn’t decreased.”
In the Indonesian context, the government will start getting involved only once the private sector takes the lead and starts making sales, Hartono continued. “So this is a lesson for us going forward: it’s not just about the typical donor countries working together, we need full collaboration between the private sector, donors, civil society and communities.”
This includes making sure that incentives are truly worthwhile for communities on the frontiers of deforestation, urged Wansleben: “We need to provide systems and build models that allow local communities to generate incomes and livelihoods from the first resources that come through, which are able to at least compete with other, more damaging kinds of land use.”
Olafson shared Hartono’s sense of urgency about getting started, rather than waiting for perfect knowledge and conditions. “We should dare to test 70 percent solutions,” he said.
Baroudy added that the “high bar” for sustainability expected of the land-use sector has gotten in the way of being able to pay for results early in the piece. “Let’s not expect the land-use sector to have to be the gold, platinum and everything else in terms of what you can do, because the more we wait, the more deforestation is happening,” she said.
Several panelists pointed out the progress the program has enabled beyond the realms of carbon finance. In Indonesia, said Hartono, “REDD+ changed the way the private sector does business. We started seeing that communities should be part of the equation.” Wansleben added that REDD+ has pushed emphasis on to creating better monitoring systems, which can then also be used for other projects.
In the bigger picture, the program has helped precipitate a shift from the development paradigm of the 1990s, said Labbate. At that time, the prevailing view was that countries should pay for their own development. In his opinion, REDD+ has helped cement a new approach that takes into account globalization, international inequality and historical contributions to environmental degradation and climate change, and calls on wealthier countries and individuals to contribute to poorer areas’ development in more sustainable ways.
Hartono remained hopeful that the best for REDD+ is yet to come. “The tipping point is almost here,” he said. “People understand carbon much more now than ten years ago; we are in a very exciting time.”
Baroudy was similarly hopeful. “I don’t give up,” she said. “I am totally an optimist in this space. I think it behooves on us all to really push the barriers and keep going, and to me there’s just no other option than to make it happen.”
By Monica Evans, originally published at GLF’s Landscape News.
New study finds little private finance in REDD+ efforts, suggests blended finance as way forward
New study finds little private finance in REDD+ efforts, suggests blended finance as way forward
Products dry in the sun in Jambi, Indonesia, as part of a REDD+ safeguards and benefit sharing project. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
People and produce are transported in the port of Huicungo, Peru. Photo by M. del Aguila Guerrero/CIFOR
The average annual financing for REDD+ of US$323 million might sound like a lot on its own, but compared to the US$41 billion spent on agricultural subsidies and biofuel, it is just a drop in the bucket.
This is one of many findings elucidated in a forthcoming study on funding for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+).
The study was led by the international consulting group COWI, along with the Öko-Institut and scientists from the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry’s (FTA) lead center, the Center for the International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
CIFOR team leader Christopher Martius, who is the leader of FTA’s research theme on climate change adaptation and mitigation, presented some of the study’s findings, starting with the fact that there are two types of funding related to REDD+: indirect funding, which is dedicated to deforestation efforts at large; and direct funding, which goes solely to REDD+ efforts.
The study found that donors commit and disperse much more indirect than direct funding, as the former covers a wider set of issues and tools. Indirect funding also came from a diverse mix of sources – grants, official flows, loans and equity investments – while 99% of direct funding came from official development assistant (ODA) grants. Viewed as aid rather than profit-producing investment, these grants do not make REDD+ attractive from the business world’s point of view.
REDD+ projects go through three stages: readiness, implementation and payment for results. Funding is still needed for the first two stages to get to the third.
“Support for readiness is going down,” said Martius. “People want to go to payments. But we are not there yet.”
Many developing countries with high emissions reduction potential but low capacity not only rely on funding for readiness and implementation, but also need support that is tailored to their needs, and that balances effectiveness and equity.
What’s more, funding is not everything. It also requires functional systems in place to ensure proper governance, accountability and transparency.
The study found it difficult to determine how much private finance REDD+ efforts receive. Despite growing private sector responsibility and recent commitments to reduce deforestation and improve transparency, the scale and flow types are still opaque.
Martius, however, said that fixating on fund flows and their size alone can distract from looking instead for larger ‘triggers for transformational change’. He instead stressed the importance of mainstreaming climate objectives across financial sectors.
“We need to integrate participation, development and climate objectives for conflict-free, lasting results,” he said.
Products dry in the sun in Jambi, Indonesia, as part of a REDD+ safeguards and benefit sharing project. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
IN THE BLEND
Rather than relying on funds from single revenue streams, countries can – and should, the scientists said – look to diversify their capital sources, in what is known as blended finance.
Peter Minang, a principal scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and the leader of FTA’s research theme on landscape dynamics, spoke about how this has manifested in Cameroon. In a performance-based payment experiment where donors are funding community forest enterprises, data is showing positive results for emissions reductions and other benefits such as job creation and capacity building.
However, legal compliance costs such as environmental impact assessments added up, costing thousands of dollars – a large toll for small enterprises to pay.
Minang said that it can often take five years for investors to see returns, and this affects how – and what – they decide to finance. “It is possible to get to Phase 3 [results-based payments], but REDD+ finance flows are insufficient, so it has to be blended.”
Teferu Mengistu, National Forest Sector Development Program Coordinator in the Ethiopian Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, agreed, saying that Ethiopia receives most of its funding from bilateral pledges and commitments.
“Ethiopia is going through phase two [implementation] in the REDD+ process, but there is still a gap between demand and supply for REDD+ finance,” he said.
Asger Strange Olesen, the Global Topic Lead on Land Use and the Bioeconomy at COWI, concluded the session by returning to the research’s analysis of how much funding different global regions received from 2008 to 2015. Africa, he found, received less funding overall – and specifically in key areas, such as drivers and risks; Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) capacity; and forest governance – than the Americas, Asia or Oceania. Governance and safeguards were among the only areas reasonably well-financed.
“Decision-makers see REDD+ as one tool out of many,” Olesen said. “Deforestation is probably one of the hardest problems to tackle in a consumer-based democracy.”
On the ground in Africa, the Network of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities for Sustainable Management of Forest Ecosystems of Central Africa (REPALEAC) champions a traditional approach to forest management, representing 230 organizations in eight countries.
“Elders have the knowledge, but now they are translating it to the younger generation,” said the organization’s spokesperson, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim.
This has attracted US$750,000 from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility capacity-building program, but three of the REPALEAC’s countries – Chad, Burundi and Rwanda – are not FCPC members and therefore remain uncovered. This could become a large problem, so REPALEAC is working to have these countries included in the program.
“We need equity for global impact and protection of the indigenous peoples and local communities of our subregions,” she said.
Ibrahim’s point – and one that underpinned the event as a whole – was that REDD+ not only needs more funding, but also proper processes and procedures to ensure money arrives where it’s supposed to, and supports sufficient participation and equity among local stakeholders.
“There is much to work on, before we will see more green results with REDD+ money,” summarized Martius after the event concluded.
By Christi Hang, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
For more information on this topic, please contact Christopher Martius at c.martius@cgiar.org.
This research was supported by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the European Union (EU), the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), and COWI.
Collecting gender-disaggregated data, and what to do with it
Collecting gender-disaggregated data, and what to do with it
A man holds sirih leaf in Indonesia. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A man holds sirih leaf in Indonesia. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
Collecting robust sex-disaggregated data on forests and climate is one thing, but analyzing it and making it available to the right players is another.
Under the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 48th session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 48) took place from April 30 to May 10, 2018, in Bonn, Germany.
The workshop was mandated in Marrakech as an element of the extended and enhanced Lima work program on gender, SBI 48 chair Emmanuel Dlamini stated in opening the workshop. The topic of the workshop was elaborated last year, in a decision that established the first gender action plan under the UNFCCC, he added.
In the workshop’s first panel discussion, speakers addressed the why and how of sex-disaggregated data in identifying differentiated impacts and informing climate policy and action. Collectively, the discussions aimed to help bring to life the gender action plan, with Ihalainen speaking specifically on sex-disaggregated data in relation to policy and action on REDD+, forests, trees and agroforestry.
Ihalainen’s presentation, based on a submission from CIFOR that was made on behalf of FTA and in partnership with colleagues from the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and Bioversity International, explained by means of background that the agriculture, forestry and other land uses sector (AFOLU) is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, half of which results from deforestation and forest degradation, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In light of this, Ihalainen stated, forest- and tree-based mitigation action holds a lot of potential, but the ecosystem services provided by forests are also critical for adaptation and for reducing social vulnerability – such as by providing safety nets to communities if crops fail, offering protection against extreme weather, regulating water flows, and enhancing soil nutrient retention.
Data shows a clear division of labor in terms of ‘who does what?’, Ihalainen explained, regarding the links between gender, climate change and forest- and tree-based landscapes. This can translate to gender-differentiated perceptions and knowledge in terms of natural resources or climate change.
“Just like in the agricultural sector, there are rampant inequalities in access and control over productive assets, including land, trees, credit, information and extension services,” he said. “As well as inequalities in decision-making power.”
A couple goes fishing in Indonesia. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
These inequalities result in differentiated vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities. Research illustrates that in order to ensure programmatic interventions reach both women and men:
Gender constraints regarding time use, resources and labor need to be considered.
We need to move beyond male and female binaries and collect and analyze more socially disaggregated data on vulnerabilities.
We need to understand that gender relations are dynamic, and change over time.
We need continuous efforts to collect and analyze data to understand how gender relations are affected by climate change or responses to it.
So how can sex-disaggregated data support policy and action in the forest sector?
“In looking at the forest sector, we can see that gender considerations have largely been absent in policymaking,” said Ihalainen, nothing a lack of systematic data, especially at national levels.
Many climate policies and programs in AFOLU aim to change land-use practices, for example with climate-smart agriculture, large-scale agroforestry, or land and forest restoration. These policies are often informed by a cost-benefit analysis at either community or farmer level.
“The logic is that costs incurred by communities or farming households due to this land-use change should be outweighed by immediate or future benefits, to incentivize land-use change,” said Ihalainen.
“But what’s often overlooked is that households are made up of many different members who might experience different costs or benefits from these changes. In order to accurately assess and attribute costs and benefits that are associated with different policy options, robust intra-household level data is critical.”
Thus, understanding how and by whom land is used and is critical for mitigating adverse impacts.
Mismatches between costs and benefits at the intra-household level can risk increasing inequalities within households, decreasing women’s wellbeing and serving as a disincentive for women’s participation. This shows that gender-blind policies and actions can sacrifice efficiency and long-term sustainability, while also jeopardizing gender equality and women’s wellbeing.
On the other hand, “when climate policy is gender-responsive, there is evidence to show it can help level gender equalities while generating better institutional and environmental performance,” said Ihalainen.
But these synergies cannot just be assumed, he warned. Instead they must be built on thorough gender analysis and robust data.
“If we lack an understanding of the differentiated opportunities and constraints that women and men face, we risk tasking women with saving the environment without addressing any of the structural constraints,” he added.
A dwelling is constructed in a forest in West Kalimantan. Photo by I. Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
He admitted that tradeoffs do exist between different objectives, but that incorporating gender-specific targets and conducting thorough gender analysis can help to identify and mitigate potential tensions.
During the workshop, participants – consisting of Party delegates and representatives from observer organizations – stressed the lack of national-level sex-disaggregated statistics.
Indeed, a recent UN Women report found that only 10 out of 54 gender-specific indicators in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were produced with sufficient quality and regularity to allow for reliable monitoring on the global level. However, while it is indeed important to address challenges on the statistical front, a lack of national-level sex-disaggregated data should not hinder gender-responsive policy altogether.
“We should not think that the lack of national-level sex-disaggregated data on a number of climate-related issues means we can’t do evidence-based gender-responsive climate policy,” Ihalainen said following the event. “A lot of data and knowledge already exists, and it’s often more about establishing ways for that knowledge to inform policy. Where there are data gaps, partnerships can be established with research institutions and other stakeholders so that they can be addressed effectively.”
“National surveys are very expensive, and in some cases only occur every 10 years or so. Policy needs to move faster than that – 2030 is when we are supposed to have achieved the SDGs, not the deadline for getting our data and monitoring systems in order. So while it’s important to address national data gaps, policy making needs to focus on what we already know and make sure there are mechanisms for evidence and expertise from different stakeholders to inform policy,” he added.
“And even though you base your policies on the best data, you will never be sure your intervention will yield the anticipated results. So building in safeguards and robust, innovative monitoring systems, and allowing for adaptive learning is really critical too.”
Aside from establishing mixed-gender field teams, collecting sex-disaggregated data and capturing other forms of social difference, partnerships were identified as a key priority to ensuring that data is analyzed and validated, and fed back to policies and programs.
Many relevant guidelines already exist, including some developed by FTA partners, with Ihalainen emphasizing that the program was able to support parties in collecting and analyzing data and developing gender-responsive policies in the forestry sector – steps that will help contribute toward the gender action plan.
By Hannah Maddison-Harris, FTA Communications and Editorial Coordinator.
After an expert panel discussion in the first part of this event, the second part saw a vibrant Q&A between the speakers: Dr. Moira Moeliono, Dr. Pham Thu Thuy, Vanessa Benn, Dr. Yuya Aye, Dr. Patricia Gallo, Javier Perla, Lemlem Tajebe and Dr. Maria Brockhaus.
Lessons learned from REDD+: progress in 8 countries and the way forward
Lessons learned from REDD+: progress in 8 countries and the way forward
24 May, 2018
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
“Lessons learned from REDD+: progress in 8 countries and the way forward”, organized by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), took place in Jakarta, Indonesia, on May 9, 2018.
All over the world, REDD+ countries are struggling with the design and implementation of coherent policies and measures to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. To bring evidence on which factors and configurations are crucial to make progress will be helpful for decision-makers and practitioners at all levels involved in REDD+.
In 2012 and 2014, CIFOR, through Global Comparative Study on REDD+, examined the national political context in 13 REDD+ countries to identify the enabling conditions for achieving progress with the implementation of countries’ REDD+ policies and measures. To assess countries’ progress with REDD+, CIFOR looked at various factors, such as importance of already initiated policy change, and the availability of performance-based funding in combination with strong national ownership of the REDD+ process.
The findings show REDD+ countries are on different stages. Brazil and Guyana are among countries in incomplete progress. Although Brazil was assessed successful in REDD+ progress but they have not completely overcome path dependencies in deforestation and forest degradation (May, Millikan, & Gebara, 2011), despite the country’s investments in command and control measures (Assunc¸a˜o, Gandour, & Rocha, 2012; Maia, Hargrave, Go´mez, & Ro¨per, 2011). Guyana, with much less pressure on forest resources seems to strengthen its REDD+ path with improved institutions of forest governance and considerable progress in developing an MRV system (Birdsall & Busch, 2014), although this remains debated (Henders & Ostwald, 2013). Indonesia, after the 2015 political change, confirmed the importance of ownership over the REDD+ process if performance-based payments are supposed to make a difference. REDD+ in Indonesia has been from its beginnings a highly contested and dynamic policy arena (Indrarto et al., 2012).
Assessment on REDD+ progress in Vietnam showed a positive outcome irrespective of whether there are inclusive policy processes or not. It is important to note that ownership of the REDD+ process has reduced only recently (and seems to be regained with developments in the institutional set-up in 2015). Hence, the finding could indicate that progress is possible when donors politically and financially dominate the REDD+ process while there is political commitment to REDD+ by the government as well as by coalitions of drivers of changes. Several REDD+ countries, such as Ethiopia, are on rocky roads due to lack of ownership and performance based funding commitment, despite of efforts to make the process more inclusive. This is probably explained by the fact that Ethiopia started their REDD+ process rather recently (Bekele et al., 2015; Kambire et al., 2015).
Presented at a media training workshop by the Center for International Forestry Research at the 3rd Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit, on 23–25 April 2018 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Originally presented by Christopher Martius at “Does money go to trees?: Assessing finance flows to maximize the impact of REDD+”, an official SBSTA48 side event, presented by CIFOR, ICRAF and Wageningen University.
Observatory addresses urgent need to monitor forests in East Africa
Observatory addresses urgent need to monitor forests in East Africa
A tropical forest landscape in Uganda. Photo by D Sheil/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A tropical forest landscape in Uganda. Photo by D Sheil/CIFOR
East Africa is home to some of the world’s most diverse forests: montane forests, which include some of the highest and oldest mountains in Africa; coastal forests; Miombo woodlands; tropical rain forests; and mangrove forests.
Like many forested areas around the globe, they are increasingly threatened by agricultural expansion and deforestation for fuelwood and timber purposes.
Although regional authorities, governments, NGOs and international organizations are working hard to protect these forests, without an accurate dataset, there is no effective way to monitor the ecological, environmental and social aspects of these forests.
Today, there are a number of observatories in East Africa monitoring forest activities. However, they lack precise country and regional level data that will help determine future strategies for protecting forests, reporting on countries’ obligations under the Paris Agreement, and evaluating the success of their initiatives under Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) schemes.
Throughout the year, scientists will be conducting a comprehensive study to gather forestry data and assess the status of forests, REDD+ activities, institutional systems and monitoring capabilities across four East African countries – Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda.
In February, a meeting was held in Nairobi, Kenya, with government representatives from the four countries to get the ball rolling. This new project will draw upon the experience of Observatoire des forêts d’Afrique Centrale (OFAC), a similar observatory now operating in Central Africa.
CIFOR scientist Paulo Cerutti, who helped establish OFAC, says the biggest advantage of having an observatory is that the information can be verified by the government.
“The data collected is more reliable because it focuses on a smaller scale, rather than on a global scale.”
Experts like Cerutti point out that global datasets, which are meant to compare larger regions, are not always effective when it comes to smaller regions because they can contain disparities.
People work in a field in Kenya. Photo by Tim Cronin/CIFOR
ON THE SAME PAGE
Before the new observatory can become fully operational, all four countries need to have the same capacity and expertise level to effectively contribute to the platform. Currently, the countries have different levels of technical skills, scientific equipment and data collection methods. Even the terms used to describe the types of forests can vary across borders.
The availability of data is another key issue for experts to overcome. For example, in Uganda, information on taxes and revenues from non-timber forest products is not available because they are not formally traded. Meanwhile, in Mozambique, remote sensing data on forests is only available at the national level. In Tanzania, there is a lack of remote sensing data for forest monitoring.
The new observatory would offer the region a more compatible, streamlined data system that would unite the four countries. It would also provide a new avenue for regional collaboration.
“The observatory will provide strong opportunities for synergies between the different focal points in each country and strengthen national capacity to monitor the forests,” says Alfred Gichu, head of the Climate Change Response Program at the Kenya Forest Service.
Countries in the region would be able to access a platform for sharing, exchanging and accessing data and information related to regional forests and REDD+. It would also provide a unified system for reporting on each country’s obligations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Stakeholders agree that regional cooperation gives everyone an opportunity to share their experiences and challenges and to build a stronger platform for the entire region.
“The observatory will help bring East Africa together as a collective working group to give it a voice in high-level discussions,” says Joaquim Macuácua from Mozambique’s Department of Inventory of Forest Resources.
Experts point out that the current lack of coordination is resulting in different agencies producing the same data.
“The observatory will help avoid this duplication of efforts across the region, and even within individual countries,” says Mugisa Micheal, the executive director of Uganda’s National Forestry Authority.
The project will be carried out through March 2018. Upon its completion, a database and website for the regional forestry observatory will be developed. This data will be made available to the public through the observatory.
Additionally, a thorough analysis of the state of forests and REDD+ activities across the four countries will be completed.
If these above objectives are successfully met, a five-year project will then be initiated to bring the observatory to life as part of the project’s second phase.
By Esther Mwangi and Laura Vanessa Mukhwana, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
Gender lessons for climate initiatives: A comparative study of REDD+ impacts on subjective wellbeing
Gender lessons for climate initiatives: A comparative study of REDD+ impacts on subjective wellbeing
04 May, 2018
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Although REDD+ is primarily a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions from forests, concerns regarding social benefits, wellbeing and gender are increasingly part of its mandate. This is consistent with the Paris Declaration as well as SDG 5 on gender equality and womens empowerment. Critics have argued, however, that REDD+ design, both in policy and projects, does not take gender into account effectively, rather marginalizing women from decision making processes and exacerbating inequalities. Most of that research has been site specific or on single countries. This article uses data from a longitudinal study of subnational REDD+ initiatives in six countries to analyze their gendered impact on perceived wellbeing. Comparative research on subjective wellbeing was conducted at 62 villages participating in 16 REDD+ initiatives and 61 control villages at two periods in time, using a before-after-control-intervention (BACI) design. Focus groups with villagers (68% male) and women (100% female) permit a gendered comparison of definitions of wellbeing and outcomes of initiatives. The results highlight that while definitions of wellbeing overlapped between the two groups, almost half of the womens focus groups thought that having their own source of income was important. Outcomes regarding wellbeing change suggest that perceived wellbeing decreased in REDD+ villages both for villagers as a whole and for women, relative to control villages, but the decrease was much worse for women a decrease that is significantly associated with living in a REDD+ village. These declines may be due to unrealized expectations for REDD+, combined with little attention to gender in REDD+ initiatives, in spite of an important portion (46%) of specific interventions that women view positively. These interventions provide insights into potential ways forward. Overall, however, REDD+ initiatives appear to be repeating past mistakes, with insufficient attention to gender equality and safeguarding womens rights. More effort needs to be paid to ensuring that gender is an integral part of future initiatives to combat climate change in rural communities.
Calls for greater momentum on forest initiatives, from REDD+ to ecotourism, at APRS 2018
Calls for greater momentum on forest initiatives, from REDD+ to ecotourism, at APRS 2018
Tribudi Syukur village in Lampung, Indonesia, is seen from above. Photo by N. Sujana/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Tribudi Syukur village in Lampung, Indonesia, is seen from above. Photo by N. Sujana/CIFOR
Asia-Pacific is the fastest growing region on earth, and home to the world’s three largest cities. Yet it also contains 740 million hectares of forests, accounting for 26 percent of the region’s land area and 18 percent of forest cover globally.
More than 450 million people depend on these forests for their livelihoods.
Through the theme “Protecting forests and people, supporting economic growth,” the third Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit (APRS) examined how the region’s economic and social development can better integrate with climate change and carbon emissions reduction goals.
Following the first APRS held in Sydney in 2014 and the second in Brunei Darussalam in 2016, this year’s was the largest yet, held in the Javanese cultural center of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. From April 23–25, more than 1,200 representatives from academia, civil society, business, government and research institutions gathered for panels, discussions, workshops and field trips.
Regional leaders formed the Asia-Pacific Rainforest Partnership (APRP) and its biannual Summit to help realize the global goal of ending rainforest loss by 2030, as well as reduce poverty through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), carbon emissions through REDD+, and climate change through the Paris Agreement – as discussed in the Summit’s first day of high-level panels.
“Since the summit in Brunei, I am happy to see substantial progress on REDD+ both regionally and globally,” said Australian Minister for the Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg in the opening ceremony. “We need to maintain this momentum and step up the pace of change if we are going to protect our forests and our people while securing economic growth.”
As the host country – supported the Australian Government, the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA) – Indonesia highlighted its recent environmental achievements.
“In the last three years, we have managed to reduce the [annual] deforestation rate from 1.09 million hectares to 610,000 hectares, and 480,000 million hectares in 2017,” said Indonesian Minister of Environment and Forestry Siti Nurbaya.
“We realize that forests are a major contributor to carbon emissions, mainly due to forest fires – especially in peatlands. Forests represent 18% of our national emissions reduction targets and are expected to contribute to over half of our [Paris Agreement] targets.”
CIFOR’s Daniel Murdiyarso speaks during a session on restoration and sustainable management of peatlands at the Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit 2018. Photo by U. Ifansasti/CIFOR
Minister Nurbaya also pointed to community and social forestry as a major theme of the Summit. Indonesia has set a target to allocate some 12.7 million hectares of land for use by communities partaking in five social forestry schemes. Nurbaya said she hopes other countries are similarly prioritizing community-based forestry management.
Community forestry was one of the sub-themes highlighted in the second day’s expert panels, alongside restoration and sustainable management of peatlands, mangroves and blue carbon, ecotourism and conservation of biodiversity, production forests, and forest finance, investment and trade. Issues in focus are detailed below.
PRIVATE FINANCE
Speakers throughout the Summit echoed the need for increased private-sector support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions – and policies that help enable this.
Companies need more incentives – and assurance of profitability – if they are to balance their business activities with ecological protection and support to local communities. Similarly, there needs to be proof of returns in order to increase private investment in environmental efforts.
Juan Chang, a GCF senior specialist in forest and land use and panel speaker at the Summit, said the Fund’s forestry and land use portfolio of 10 funded projects around the world so far includes 2 REDD+ projects.
Within GCF’s portfolio as a whole, around a third of its USD 3.7 billion goes to projects in the Asia-Pacific region.
REDD+ AND FORESTS
This year’s APRS comes roughly a decade after the UNFCCC COP13 in Bali gave birth to REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation), an initiative that – much as its name says – seeks to lower global carbon emissions by preserving tropical forests.
As its goals broadened to give more attention to sustainable forest management and carbon stocks, REDD became REDD+, which now has numerous development and research projects running throughout the region.
Indonesia’s Minister of Environment and Forestry, HE Siti Nurbaya, opens the 3rd Asia-Pacific Rainforest Summit. Photo by U. Ifansasti/CIFOR
Around 2 billion hectares of Asia-Pacific forests are degraded, and research experts expressed that production forests – such as those used for bioenergy – hold new opportunities for REDD+ implementation.
Contrasting this, however, was the difficulty some countries’ delegates said they’re facing in setting the many pieces in place required to uphold such a detailed effort as REDD+.
Emma Rachmawaty, Director of Climate Change at Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry, said, “We are in the process of establishing a financial institution to manage financing for REDD+. [Until then] we cannot implement results-based payments for REDD+.”
“Pillars for REDD+ need to be really strong at the readiness phase,” she said. “If you have a house that has a roof but nothing else, would you use it? No. You need it to be functional. So, the challenge that we face is: how do you take these elements and make them functional?”
Mangroves and blue carbon – carbon captured and stored in oceans and coastal areas – have been hot topics of late.
“There is one ecosystem that has been close to my heart for a long time, that encompasses all the issues you can think of for forests: peatlands and mangroves,” said CIFOR Director General Dr. Robert Nasi.
“Although they represent a small percentage of forests, they are probably the richest and most carbon-rich ecosystems in the world – and the most threatened. I can only encourage and commend Indonesia for all the efforts they’re doing in terms of restoring and rehabilitating peatlands and mangroves.”
Comparatively little research has been done on these ecosystems so far. But the vast carbon sinks of Indonesia’s mangroves – the largest in the world, spanning 3.5 million hectares – have begun to make their way onto the archipelago’s national agenda, potentially contributing to the country’s commitments to the Paris Agreement and becoming grounds for financial support to local communities through payment for ecosystem services (PES).
Another way to link local communities to financial institutions and global markets? Ecotourism – responsible recreational activities that encourage conservation and preserve biodiversity.
Panelists called for philanthropic foundations and development organizations to give this growing sector more attention. In the realm of sustainable development business ventures, ecotourism is an on-the-ground way to aid land rehabilitation and biodiversity conservation while still turning a profit – however small that profit may be.
This echoed Dr. Nasi’s opening ceremony statement that the Asia-Pacific region is “a region of superlatives and a region of many contrasts,” with a vast array of businesses, landscapes, socioeconomic levels and governments.
Yet, everyone attending the summit “comes together for one reason: because forests matter.”
By Nabiha Shahab, originally published at CIFOR’s Forests News.
Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future
Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future
23 March, 2018
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Attention to tenure is a fundamental step in preparation for REDD+ implementation. Unclear and conflicting tenure has been the main challenge faced by the proponents of subnational REDD+ initiatives, and accordingly, they have expended much effort to remedy the problem. This article assesses how well REDD+ has performed in laying an appropriate tenure foundation. Field research was carried out in two phases (2010-2012 and 2013-2014) in five countries (Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia) at 21 subnational initiatives, 141 villages (half targeted for REDD+ interventions), and 3,754 households. Three questions are posed: 1) What was the effect of REDD+ on perceived tenure insecurity of village residents?; 2) What are the main reasons for change in the level of tenure insecurity and security from Phase 1 to Phase 2 perceived by village residents in control and intervention villages?; and 3) How do intervention village residents evaluate the impact of tenure-related interventions on community well-being? Among the notable findings are that: 1) tenure insecurity decreases slightly across the whole sample of villages, but we only find that REDD+ significantly reduces tenure insecurity in Cameroon, while actually increasing insecurity of smallholder agricultural land tenure in Brazil at the household level; 2) among the main reported reasons for increasing tenure insecurity (where it occurs) are problems with outside companies, lack of title, and competition from neighboring villagers; and 3) views on the effect of REDD+ tenure-related interventions on community well-being lean towards the positive, including for interventions that restrain access to forest. Thus, while there is little evidence that REDD+ interventions have worsened smallholder tenure insecurity (as feared by critics), there is also little evidence that the proponents efforts to address tenure insecurity have produced results. Work on tenure remains an urgent priority for safeguarding local livelihoods as well as for reducing deforestation. This will require increased attention to participatory engagement, improved reward systems, tenure policy reform, integration of national and local efforts, and business-as-usual interests.
Integrating REDD+ with development goals at the landscape level: The role of multistakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions
Integrating REDD+ with development goals at the landscape level: The role of multistakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions
21 March, 2018
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
Through a comparative study spanning 13 case studies in 4 countries, researchers at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) will examine the equity and effectiveness of the processes and outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums set up around land use and land use change. The project will specifically engage with forums that bring together government, local and private-sector stakeholders around subnational jurisdictions.
REDD+ findings from Tanzania, Indonesia and Peru show gender divide
REDD+ findings from Tanzania, Indonesia and Peru show gender divide
A woman picks tea leaves in Tanzania. Photo by Nkumi Mtimgwa/CIFOR
Posted by
FTA COMMUNICATIONS TEAM
A woman picks tea leaves in Tanzania. Photo by Nkumi Mtimgwa/CIFOR
Men and women differ in their preferences when it comes to REDD+ benefits. Men prefer cash incentives while women lean toward non-cash benefits, according to the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry’s (FTA) Esther Mwangi, a Principal Scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Mwangi and an international team of researchers conducted in-depth intra-household interviews in Tanzania, Indonesia and Peru as part of a work package comprising a larger project on REDD+ and tenure.
Across all three countries, in addition to the benefit preference of men and women, researchers found a correlation between increased women’s participation and more equitable distribution of benefits. But they also found male dominance in different decision-making stages, and that people (mostly men) involved in decisions regarding REDD+ were more likely to be satisfied with the distribution of benefits.
More than benefit preferences, there was a bigger gender difference when it came to having REDD+ information and being involved in the decision-making process on which benefits would be distributed and how, with men much more active. Mwangi presented some of her findings late last year at the IUFRO 125th World Congress. Here she talks about her work and findings in detail.
When you talk about non-cash benefits, what does that include?
Non-cash benefits are material awards other than direct monetary payments. These include construction of classrooms for primary school children, provisions of farming implements, provision of potable water, or even capacity-building in conservation farming.
In Peru, it was interesting to find that even these non-monetary benefits were differentiated by gender. Men preferred construction materials, technical assistance and training, legal assistance and seedlings of non-timber species. Women, on the other hand, preferred objects or utensils for the home, organic gardens, animals to raise, timber tree saplings, textiles and handicrafts. Therefore, even the preferred types of non-cash benefits are differentiated according to gender.
During a community feedback workshop in Tanzania, we asked men and women to tell us what they would want to see done differently if the REDD+ project were to resume in their village. While women wanted non-cash benefits prioritized, they also indicated that these non-cash benefits “touch women’s problems”.
What are some factors keeping women out of REDD+ decision-making?
Children play in the indigenous community of Callería in Peru. Photo by Juan Carlos Huayllapuma/CIFOR
We found that twice as many men as women were involved in REDD+ decision-making in Tanzania, four times as many men as women in Peru, and about equal proportions of men and women were involved in Indonesia.
Our definition of REDD+ decision-making covered issues such as whether they were involved in the initial decision on whether or not REDD+ should be implemented in their village, and whether they were involved in the design and implementation of REDD+ activities. Most women indicated that they did not know about these matters. For those who did know, they said they were not invited to meetings when those decisions were made.
The asymmetry between men’s and women’s participation in forestry decision-making is often rooted in two inter-related issues. First, forestry institutions and forest resources are generally male-dominated and second, village-level decision-making takes place in the public sphere. Women are traditionally associated with the private sphere of home and family life.
Was it surprising to find that when there was increased women’s participation, there was a more equitable distribution of benefits?
I personally wasn’t surprised, but still I thought it was an interesting result that probably jibes well with other results.
Work in India and Nepal shows that an increased number of women in decision-making roles has good outcomes for forest conditions. Even in the corporate world, research is starting to show that increasing the presence of women in boardrooms is correlated with greater corporate social responsibility and concern for equitable outcomes of investments.
Regardless of gender, there were pretty low rates of knowledge of REDD+ and involvement in related decisions. Can you tell us more about that?
Women prepare for a local culinary course in Kapuas Hulu, Indonesia. Photo by Icaro Cooke Vieira/CIFOR
This is an interesting observation and speaks to the entry point chosen by NGOs, which, in most of the cases, happened to be village leaders. Village leaders are crucial and should always be approached when setting up projects and interventions in rural areas. However, more effort should be made to ensure greater inclusion, especially if women and others (including men) are frequently marginalized in decision-making. This extra effort should be made even if village leadership is widely respected and legitimate.
When asked what should happen differently if the REDD+ pilots were to be repeated, both men and women in Tanzania made clear that REDD+ education should be provided on a door-to-door basis. This would help raise awareness and widely disseminate information.
This is a reasonable demand and probably good for interventions, because if people don’t know what exactly REDD+ is and why it’s being implemented, (that is, make the connection between REDD+ benefits and forest conservation) it’s unlikely that these schemes will achieve their goals. Moreover, lack of involvement in decision-making weakens the legitimacy and sustainability of the schemes.
What are the next steps for work on this topic?
Benefit-sharing arrangements should be designed with gendered differences in mind. This cannot be overemphasized, because these benefits constitute an important incentive for sustainable management and even conservation.
In previous work, we demonstrated that greater gender equity is possible in the forestry sector both in participation in decision-making and in the distribution of forestry benefits. Lessons from this work would be invaluable in informing the design and implementation of benefit-sharing arrangements.
Restoration 
Plantations and tree crop commodities 
Enhanced nutrition and food security 
Biodiversity, safeguarding and conservation 
Nationally determined contributions 
Bioenergy and biomaterials 
Blue carbon and peatlands 
Climate change adaptation 
Landscape governance 
Gender 
Silvopastoral systems 
Market-based agroforestry-forestry 
Farm-forest policy interface 
Agroecology 
Livelihood trajectory modelling and assessment 
Inclusive finance and business models 
Innovating finance for sustainable landscapes 
Public and private commitments to zero deforestation 
Orphan tree crops 
Effectiveness of approaches to sustainable supply 
Quality of FTA research for development 
Sentinel landscapes 
Foresight 
Seeds and seedlings delivery systems 
Smallholder tree-crop commodities 
