Land: Man and forests - an evaluation of management strategies for reduced deforestation and forest degradation

REDD+ pilots have been established to gain experience regarding how to ensure reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The project has followed 6 pilots in Brazil, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Uganda. The project has focused on four aspects. First, we document the institutional changes undertaken in each pilot to establish REDD+. Second, we evaluate the processes involved when making these changes. Third, we document the costs of setting-up and making use of the new institutions. Finally, we evaluate impacts of the projects regarding livelihoods and forest status. Regarding the first issue, establishing institutions for REDD+, we note the following: - REDD+ is demanding to establish: It is based on the idea of trading carbon. This demands clarification of property rights to forests/carbon, land use plans and systems for measuring and verifying deforestation rates/carbon storage. Systems for internal distribution of payments/compensations within villages are also needed. - The introduction of REDD+ is influenced by national contexts: REDD+ is very differently organized across countries. This reflects differences in existing institutions, actor constellations and policies. - REDD+ piloting is weakly linked to national policies: Pilots are initiated by NGOs or similar organizations. Weak ownership by states, especially in the African context, challenges the long run sustainability of REDD+. We find large variation across cases regarding NGO experiences with formalizing land rights and facilitating community processes. The process has been very slow, especially in the DRC - REDD+ may create conflicts: Internal conflicts are observed both regarding whether to participate in REDD+, the delimitation of forests to protect, relocation issues and internal distribution of compensations. - REDD+ does not, however, trade carbon: Payments are related to rules and practices established and not measured carbon stored. One of the Tanzanian pilots has tried to establish a system where verified carbon credits can be issued and traded. The Brazilian pilot has a similar aim. Regarding the second focus of the project, the processes in the villages to establish REDD+, we note that while some villages in Tanzania did not accept to engage in REDD+, local people in villages that enrolled seem generally rather happy with the process. This is the case despite the fact that there were some conflicts regarding land use planning. Village people dominantly express that they were able to voice concerns and that the information received was good. Some people emphasize, however, that they felt they could not speak freely, typically referring to power issues. Relocation was an issue in one of the Tanzanian pilots and the Ugandan one. We note that REDD+ was politically supported from above. This may have made opposition more demanding to organize. We moreover observe that almost all information to villagers came through the NGOs and their partners. They seem to have emphasized only gains from REDD+. They depended on success to realize the aims of the pilot. The uncertainties regarding the future carbon markets have not been well communicated to villagers. Regarding the third topic, the costs of establishing and 'running' REDD+ (transaction costs), results from Tanzania and Brazil show that these costs are almost at the level of the present price of carbon. Hence, there is little to pay for opportunity costs/lost income. While prices may rise, our findings show that REDD+ may not be as cheap a solution as many expected. Evaluating impacts is demanding since the projects have run for a short time. REDD+ appears not to have changed deforestation rates much in the pilots analyzed regarding this issue, two in Brazil and two in Tanzania. There seems to be a positive effect in one of the pilots in Tanzania. The reason for continued forest loss in one of the Brazilian pilots seems to follow developments in real estate markets, being outside the control of the REDD+ pilot focusing on forest communities. REDD+ appears not to have had a significant effect on the level of income. There were severe income reductions in the Tanzanian pilots between 2010 and 2015. These were, however, caused mainly by a drought, influencing pilots and controls equally. Incomes were reduced in the Brazilian pilot studied. The main reason for this was a reduction in government transfers. Changes in forest use seem to demand rather profound shifts in the way people make their living. This requires sustained efforts, and success is not guaranteed. The fact that REDD+ has no sustainable financial basis for the years to come could imply that investments in institutional changes could be wasted. In our case, only the Brazilian pilots have a secured financial basis for the future. At the same time, we note that the clarification of property rights undertaken strengthens the position of the communities involved.

The project is focused at evaluating the (potential) success of a set of REDD+ pilot projects in Brazil, DRC, Tanzania and Uganda. REDD+ is aimed at reducing deforestation and forest degradation. The pilots are initiated to gain experience about how to or ganize REDD+ at local level to ensure reduced emissions from deforestation in the best way possible. The Norwegian government has been heavily engaged in funding such pilot projects. REDD+ is seen as a potential triple win: Reduction of CO2 emissions, i ncreased protection of biodiversity and enhancement of rural livelihoods/poverty alleviation. A study of REDD+ pilots needs to emphasize all these dimensions. The present project proposal ensures this by following the chosen pilots from 'start till end' u sing the so-called 'before-after-control-impact (BACI)' format. This is made possible through the fact that a 'before' study is already undertaken in both 'treatment' and 'control' sites as financed by other projects. The BACI format is moreover extended as we do not only look at impacts on carbon storage, biodiversity and livelihoods. We also study the process of implementation and the cost of developing and running the different management regimes. Setting up a REDD+ pilot is foremost about changing th e governance/management regime for land including also clarification of property rights, creating systems for compensation (lost livelihoods) and for developing new livelihoods. Aimed at changed use of forest land, it therefore involves quite a profound s et of institutional changes that is moreover initiated from outside. While there is potential for success, we note several challenges related to e.g., contested rights, weak capacity to change institutions, conflicting interests and power asymmetries (vul nerable groups). We expect the level of (latent) conflict and the ability to find inclusive solutions to these at the local level to be important factors influencing the ability to reach the aims of REDD+.