CIFOR: conservation, development, research and prospects for REDD

THINKING beyond the canopy

CIFOR: conservation, development, research and prospects for REDD

Terry Sunderland, PhD

FFPRI, Tsukuba, 9th November 2009


Presentation outline

Who we are Where we work Impact Why forests matter Our research agenda ICDP experiences and REDD


Who we are: Centre for International Forestry Research


We advance human wellbeing,

environmental conservation and

equity by conducting research to

inform policies and practices

that affect forests in developing

countries.

Purpose


We envision a world where: Forests are high on the political

agenda People recognise the value of forests

for maintaining livelihoods and ecosystems

Decisions that influence forests and the people that depend on them are based on solid science and principles of good governance, and reflect the perspectives of developing countries and forest-dependent people

Vision


We are the only pro-poor policy

orientated forestry institute in the

world with a fully independent and

global mandate that focuses

primarily on creating International

Public Goods.

How we work


200 staff globally

A ‘centre without walls’, working in partnership with:

• governments

• non-governmental organisations

• international organisations

• development agencies

• civil society

• foresters

• media

• private sector

How we work


Where we work


Where we work

Tropical forest

Dry forest Humid forest


Headquarters:

Bogor, Indonesia

Where we work

2 Regional officesBurkina Faso CameroonEthiopiaGuinea ZambiaBrazilBolivia Laos

7 Project offices37 Research sitesVietnam


Impact: policy, publications etc.


Sustaining Cameroon’s forestsCIFOR research identified a loophole in the 1994 Forest Law, which

meant almost 25% of total timber production in 2006 was drawn from unlisted valuable species

Ministry of Forests and Fauna has since revised the law

Impacts are likely to include conservation of forest resources and improved revenue flows (including community welfare)


Co-management for co-benefits Landscape Management for Improved Livelihoods

Research identified policy options for strengthening community forests as legal entities and practical options for agricultural intensification

Impacts have included up to threefold increases in local incomes, and significant growth in vegetation cover


Getting the message out…


Forests matter


Forests underpin many developing

economies and employ large

numbers of rural people.

Forests matterEconomic value


Global

Timber, pulp, paper = more than $US150 billion

NTFPs = more than $US10 billion

Forests provide a third of rural, nonfarm employment in many developing countries



Indonesia

$US8.9 billion forest-sector export earnings in 2006

$US3 billion annual loss from undocumented timber extraction

$US1 billion development aid to forestry sector, 1988-2008



Forests matterLocal livelihoods

More than a billion people depend

on forests for food, fuel, shelter and

medicines


Health and nutrition

Bushmeat contributes 30 to 80% of rural protein in Cameroon

Medicinal plants play a major role in primary health care and treating and preventing illness

Forests matterLocal livelihoods


Forests stabilise soils and discourage erosion

So they’re important for transport and infrastructure

Forests matterEnvironmental services


Forests regulate water supply

So they’re important for drinking water, agriculture and hydroenergy



Forests store atmospheric carbon

So they’re important for stabilizing the Earth’s climate

Forests absorb around15% of global emissions

Their destruction generates around 20% of global emissions



Make up 15%of Earth’s surface

Home to 50%of land-based species

Forests matterBiodiversity


Our research agenda


CIFOR’s strategic research agenda

1 Enhancing the role of forests in mitigating climate change

Enhancing the role of forests in adapting to climate change2Improving livelihoods through smallholder and community forestry3Managing trade-offs between conservation and development at the landscape scale4Managing impacts of globalised trade and investment on forests and forest communities5Sustainably managing tropical production forests6


Domain 4: Conservation and development trade-offs at the landscape scale

“CIFOR’s goal [within this domain] is to shift policy and practice toward conservation and development approaches that are more effective, efficient and equitable in process and outcome”


Most forest biodiversity occurs outside protected areas

So trade-offs are often required between the needs of people and the need for forest conservation

Payments for Environmental Services (PES)

• including carbon, watersheds, aesthetic value, biodiversity

Managing trade-offs between conservation and development at the landscape scale4Research

domain


Research themes Developing better methods for assessing environmental services

Establishing platforms for negotiating conservation and development trade-offs

Understanding the relative effectiveness of institutional frameworks and alternative conservation approaches


domain



domain

Research projectsBiodiversity in landscape mosaics

• Cameroon, Indonesia, Laos, Madagascar, Tanzania

• Funded by SDC



domain

Research projects

Landscape management for improved livelihoods (LAMIL)

• Guinea, Sierra Leone

• Funded by USAID



domain

Research projectsScaling up payments for watershed services (PWS)

• Bolivia, Ecuador, India, South Africa

• Funded by the CGIAR


What is REDD? Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and forest Degradation

Forest conservation to compete with drivers of deforestation

Co-benefits include poverty alleviation, biodiversity protection and improved forest governance

3E’s: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Equity


ICDP’s and REDD: what relationship? ICDP’s = Integrated conservation and development projects

(traditional means of tropical forest conservation) REDD = post-Kyoto mechanism for funding carbon storage

in tropical forests Masters study undertaken by Betsy Hill from Charles Darwin

University: analysis of ICDP’s in Lower Mekong Identified constraints to ICDP implementation and what

constitutes “best practice” Much to learn from ICDP implementation for REDD Build upon experience to ensure that REDD projects comply

to the “3 e’s”: effective, efficient and equitable REDD conceptually linked closely with Payments for

Environmental Services (PES)


Brief history of ICDP’s Conservation projects that include elements of local

development Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation Compensating for preservationist approaches However, ICDP’s have poor track record and have been

roundly criticised (“back to the barriers”) Accountability an issue (lack of monitoring) Yet remain pervasive approach to delivery of tropical

conservation initiatives REDD initiatives expected to be incorporated into post Kyoto

international climate change agreements But initial REDD examples resemble ICDP approach hence

important to learn from experience


ICDP best practices of relevance to REDD

Have measurable and clearly defined goals

Project duration should reflect time commitment needed to achieve goals

Markets must be available for participants goods and services

Mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation should be in place


ICDP practices that require greater diligence for REDD

National policies should support project activities Locally based conservation should be applied where

threats and solutions are local Recognise and negotiate for trade-offs Develop understanding of community heterogeneity and

complexity Develop understanding of community needs Design projects to be adaptable Involve local stakeholders at all stages Collaborate with all potential partners Do what you are good at: get others to do the rest!


The key issues

We do not suggest that all REDD projects should always follow the ICDP approach

REDD implementation will be far more complex than ICDP implementation

However, experience of ICDPs show that project design are important for overall project success

Must be careful not to regard REDD as a new approach Have seen these before (NTFP development, CBNRM,

ICDP’s, forest certification…) MUST integrate a pluralistic approach learning from

project experiences Or we will be reviewing REDD experiences in the same

way as ICDPs


A silver bullet?…

“REDD could provide us with the greatest opportunity for forest conservation and the equitable sharing of benefits for local communities or it could turn into yet another case of false promises, unrealistic expectations and diverted funds that will ultimately fail in slowing carbon emissions and conserving biodiversity, unless we learn from past experiences.” Editorial: The Guardian, 28th October, 2009


Road to CopenhagenCOP13 (Bali, 2007), Forest Day 1

• Do Trees Grow on Money?

COP14 (Poznan, 2008), Forest Day 2

• Moving ahead with REDD; Facing an Uncertain Future

COP15 (Copenhagen, 2009), Forest Day 3


Precedents

Climate change is the most pressing issue in our lifetime (Myers, 1988)

“What have we done to the Earth” (Jim Morrison, 1967)


www.cifor.cgiar.orgwww.cifor.cgiar.org

Thank you!!Arigatou!!

Education

CIFOR: conservation, development, research and prospects for REDD