REDD+ Dynamics: [not] A one size fit all solution

Efrian Muharrom

Pernas SIEJ, 6 September 2016, Bogor

Outline

REDD+ Indonesia National Dynamics

Distribution of DA REDD+ activities

REDD+ in 3 continents

Challenges

Conclusions

Moving Forward

REDD+ Indonesia National Dynamics

REDD+ in IndonesiaPolicy development

THINKING beyond the canopy

2010 2011 20122008 2013 2014

REDD+ in IndonesiaInstitutional evolution

2015

DNPI

REDD+ Task Force I

REDD+ Task Force II

REDD+ Task Force III

REDD+ Agency

Min of Env & Min of

For

Pres

iden

tial

elec

tion

Dismissal of REDD+ Agency,

DNPI, UKP4

2016

“Six years into the partnership, we are now impatient to see more results on the ground,”

“We are very satisfied with the dialogue we have had [and] with the groundwork that has been put in place but I don’t think anyone can be satisfied when we see the fires last year, when we see continued deforestation [and] when we see continued peat conversion,”

(Norwegian Climate and Environment Minister - Vidar Helgesen)

Where is REDD+ docked?

Where is REDD+ docked?

2016

06 January 2016Establishment of Peat Restoration Agency through Presidential Decree No. 1/2016

14 April 2016President statement on all palm oil and mining moratorium

31 May 2016Improve cooperation of REDD+ with Norway; Indonesia’s president statement towards Norwegian Foreign Minister

03 February 2016Norway through its Minister of Climate and Environment expressed dissatisfaction about lack of progress of REDD+ Indonesia

22 April 2016Paris agreement ratification by Minister of EF in NY

REDD+ in IndonesiaPolicy development

May 2016Improve cooperation of REDD+ with Norway; Indonesia’s president statement towards Norwegian Foreign Minister22 April 2016Paris agreement ratification by Minister of EF in NY14 April 2016President statement on all palm oil and mining moratorium

06 January 2016Establishment of Peat Restoration Agency through Presidential Decree No. 1/2016

03 February 2016Norway through its Minister of Climate and Environment expressed dissatisfaction about lack of progress of REDD+ Indonesia

National REDD+ Policy Network Analysis

A network of InfluenceNetwork Centralization (Outdegree) = 47.515 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 44.515 %

Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 56.528 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 75.167 %

Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Environment, National Planning Agency, REDD+ Taskforce, the National Council for Climate Change

MoEF, National Planning Agency, NORAD, AMAN, CIFOR

2015

2012

Internal influence: Climate Change Management Directorate General, NORAD, AMAN, Forest and Environmental Planning Directorate General, CIFOR

Information ExchangeNetwork Centralization (Outdegree) = 56.504 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 31.507 %

2015

Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 50.333 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 52.028 %

2012

The relevance of information, as well as how it is interpreted, used, and abused, shapes the discourse on REDD+ and influences how REDD+ unfolds (Brockhaus

and Angelsen 2012).

Reciprocal information exchangeNetwork Centralization (Outdegree) = 26.213 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 26.213 %

2015

Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 13.722 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 13.722 %

2012

Collaboration

Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 20.583 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 51.083 % 2012

Network Centralization (Outdegree) = 26.665 %Network Centralization (Indegree) = 18.635 %

2015

Reciprocal collaboration

Collaboration happened when actors consider others as partner, as equal. Often an organization does not consider others as partner, but as fund receiver or etc.

Distribution of DA REDD+ activities

35 REDD+ DAs provide information to MoEF as of 2014• REDD: 29• Forest Conservation: 12• SFM: 7• Enhancement of Carbon Stok: 4• REL/RL: 22• MRV: 21• Institution: 10• Incentive: 3• Safeguards: 28

DA REDD+ activities in Indonesia

(IGES, 2016)

Global REDD+ Projects

REDD+ in 3 Continents

Major events in REDD+ policy arenasBrockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., 2014. National REDD+ policy networks: From cooperation to conflict. Ecology & Society.

REDD+ in 3 continents Papua New Guinea:

• First phase of REDD+ readiness• The country’s political commitment to tackling deforestation and forest

degradation has been questioned. For example; it remains the largest exporter of timber in the world, and continues to back large-scale land conversion plans under a paradigm of ‘green development’.

Vietnam:• Approved National REDD+ Strategy in 2012• No activity until 2015 due to the loss of trust into the process in

international level; REDD+ projects running without coordination• End of 2015, policies related to REDD+ were established, including

national REDD+ fund, and submission of Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) towards UNFCCC.

Democratic Republic of the Congo• Establishing REDD+ policies and measures• A major demonstration site in Mai Ndombe to prepare for results-based

payments – the third and currently final phase of REDD+. • No national REDD+ coordination, and drivers such as mining and large-

scale agriculture are not included in REDD+ policy development.

Ethiopia: • REDD+ National Strategy (REDD+ goals, governance, measurement,

reporting and verification (MRV) design, and financing options)• In-country and external funding, including through agricultural

intensification. • The jurisdictional REDD+ project in the regional state of Oromia is now

entering its final stage of implementation, with a pledge by Norway of USD 50 million.

REDD+ in 3 continents

Brazil:• Successfully decrease deforestation through Amazon fund mechanism,

and spare 54% of its forest for REDD+.

Peru:• REDD+ implementation • Clear leadership and coordination of Ministry of Environment (MINAM)

and National Forestry and Wildlife Service (SERFOR)• Strong support from Norway through Letter of Intent (LOI) with the

country.

REDD+ in 3 continents

Business-as-usual is a powerful force. Conflicting interests in the agendas of different actors involved in deforestation — across and within ministries, and across levels of governance —can be a major challenge for achieving effective, efficient and equitable REDD+.

Lack of land-use planning, unclear tenure, weak law enforcement and uncertainty over long-term funding were also found to be common challenges.

Lack of continuity in commitment from politicians.

Common Challenges of REDD+ in 3 continents

Integration and synergy between development plan (RPJMN)/existing entities, and related initiatives (RAN GRK, REDD+, INDC, SDG, KPH, ICCTF, BLU Environment, etc)

Coordination between Ministries of different competing sectors Capacity building of local stakeholders Synergy of different level authorities (local, provincial, national) One Stop Investment Licensing at BKPM Tenure clarity Budgeting system (performance based budgeting tried out

but forgotten) …. Dana desa??? 35.000. MW power plant using coal One stop investment process

Challenges of REDD+ in Indonesia

Conclusions Indonesia:

• There has been changes towards overall REDD+ settings, in terms of influence, knowledge sharing, and collaboration

• Yet confidence that it will drive transformational change is low. • REDD+ processes have led to a raised awareness and improved

understanding on forest and climate issues, but not yet sufficient to drive significant reforms.

• Is REDD+ is merely a ‘project’, time bound with a clear budget (Aspinall, 2013) and that as a project it lasted long enough?

• REDD+ momentum in Indonesia has changed, along with changes in the government agenda, it seems that REDD+ is perceived as an added value from forest governance improvement

• REDD+ process in Indonesia has been contributed to the participatory decision making, acceleration of one map, moratorium initiative, recognition of Adat community tenure rights.

REDD+ is not a one size fit all solution for all countries, different countries develop their own characterized arrangement in terms of scope of framework

(project or development pathway), level of coverage (local, provincial, or national), implementation scheme, etc.

Conclusions

Moving Forward

REDD+ in Paris Agreement

Article 5, Paragraph 1 | 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.

Article 5, Paragraph 2 | Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: 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; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.

Priority towards 2020

Integrating REDD+ Agenda into Indonesian development plan until 2020; Strengthening required institutional capacity to implement REDD+; Making REDD+ an agenda that receives public support internationally,

nationally, sub-nationally, and at the site levels. Addressing major causes of deforestation, namely (1) forest and peatland

fires, commodity supply chains and strategic industrial practices, and (3) land-based conflicts;

Increasing incentives and access to green development at the national, subnational, and site levels (including through community-based natural resource management);

Ensuring the availability of legal and licensing frameworks to support the implementation of REDD+ and green development in Indonesia.

MRV Institutions and Protocols; FREL updates; INDC updates; RAN GRK updates; Synergy with SDGs, Green Economy/Development. Funding Instruments; Pre-financing the results-based activities; Role of private investors; Mobilizing more resources; Engagement with other stakeholders, but specifically with private sector; Special attention to forest and peatland forests; Coordination with the BRG

(Peatland Agency)

Priority towards 2020

Country Profiles

Media-based discourse analyses

Info Briefs

Working Papers Journal Articles

Global comparative analysis of policies and processes

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, Michael Balinga (Burkina Faso), Laila Borge (Norway).

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, Rachel Carmenta, Juniarta Tjajadi, Cynthia Maharani

We acknowledge the support from:

Norad and the Ministry of Climate Change and Environment of Norway,

AusAID (Australia), European Commission,

Dept. of Energy and Climate Change & Dept. for Int. Dev. (UK),USAID (US)

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

Thanks