By Maria Brockhaus.

1. 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

2. 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

3. “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

4. 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

5. 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°

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. REDD+ architecture (Angelsen et al 2009)

10. 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

11. 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

12. Examples of
transformational change
In the context of REDD+, transformational outcomes can be
i) 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

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

14. 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 !!

15. CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS-REDD+)
–
Analysis of national REDD+ policies and
processes in 14 countries since 2009

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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

21. Country
Profiles
Media-based discourse
analyses
Info Briefs
Working Papers Journal Articles
GCS analysis of policies and processes

23. 2008
2012
2009
CIFOR’s 3rd
edited volume
on REDD

24. Acknowledgements
This 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

25. 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