Does REDD+ affect household forest clearing?Stibniati AtmadjaCIFOR-Ethiopia

s.atmadja@cigar.org

53rd ATBC, in Montpellier, 23 June 2016

IntroductionWhy ask? Some REDD+ initiatives target household level forest clearing. Were

they effective? Forest clearing are part of livelihood activities. Are they affected?

Data: GCS-REDD Module 2 Before/After: Phase1 and Phase 2 Control/Intervention: Villages without and with REDD+ 17 REDD+ sites in 6 countries (Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania,

Indonesia, Vietnam): 1-5 site/country 129 villages, 3,988 randomly sampled households (hh) in Phase2 “Has your household cleared any forest in the past 2 years?”

Based on early results for paper with co-authors (Angelsen, Bos, de Sassi, Duchelle, Komalasari, Kweka, Pratama, Resosudarmo, Rodriguez, Suryadarma). Please don’t cite yet!

Overview

Country

Phase1 Phase2Intervention Control Intervention Control

HH% HHcleared

Ha cleared HH

% HHcleared

Ha cleared HH

% HHcleared

Ha cleared HH

% HHcleared

Ha cleared

Brazil 632 66% 1205 486 53% 842.3 604 50% 774.4 442 39% 488Peru 249 35% 141.5 248 45% 209.7 249 51% 207.4 246 60% 287Cameroon 280 66% 348.8 250 71% 552.3 254 61% 231.6 220 60% 321Tanzania 210 14% 19.1 240 13% 25.1 206 2% 3.3 190 2% 2.2Indonesia 691 24% 349.4 658 21% 320.5 681 29% 344.8 659 23% 327 Vietnam 120 8% 14.6 120 2% 1.5 123 2% 0 112 1% 0Total 2182 2523.2 2002 2421.9 2117 1910.7 1869 1775

“Has your household cleared any forest in the past 2 years?”If yes, “How much forest was cleared in total in the last 2 years?”Indicate total area cleared in hectares, in up to 3 parcels total.

Change in forest clearing (ha)

Village type Phase1* Phase2* Phase2-Phase1*Brazil Intervention 2.57 1.80 -0.91

Control 2.52 1.84 -0.93Peru Intervention 0.57 0.88 0.29

Control 1.15 1.26 -0.06

Cameroon Intervention 1.25 0.92 -0.31Control 2.21 1.46 -0.87

Tanzania Intervention 0.12 0.02 -0.09Control 0.13 0.01 -0.11

Indonesia Intervention 0.51 0.53 0.01Control 0.50 0.50 -0.01

Vietnam Intervention 0.25 0.08 -0.16Control 0.01 0.00 -0.01

Mean hh forest clearing (including households who did zero clearing)

* Highlighted cell=significantly different across control and intervention at 10% level

Land use on cleared forest

Crop; 2078.4

Tree planting;

87.8

Pasture; 329.4

Non-Ag; 27.6

Crop; 1951.3

Tree planting;

180.6

Pasture; 270.6

Non-Ag; 19.4

Crop; 1561.4

Tree planting;

181.1

Pasture; 160.2 Non-Ag; 7.0

Crop; 1425.1

Tree planting;

172.5

Pasture; 165.0 Non-Ag; 11.9

Intervention Control

Phase 2

Phase 1

Percentage hectares of forest cleared used for crops, pasture, tree planting, and other

Crops: Almost all of land clearing in Ind, Peru, Cam Pasture + Tree planting mostly in BrazilNon-ag mostly in Tanz, Viet

Forest clearing for cropping (ha)Group Phase1 Phase2 Diff: Phase2-Phase1

Brazil I 1.91 1.28 -0.64C 1.73 1.10 -0.51

Peru I 0.57 0.83 0.23C 0.85 1.17 0.21

Cameroon I 1.25 0.91 -0.32

C 2.21 1.46 -0.87Tanzania I 0.09 0.02 -0.07

C 0.10 0.01 -0.09Indonesia I 0.51 0.51 0.00

C 0.49 0.50 -0.01Vietnam I 0.12 0.00 -0.11

C 0.01 0.00 -0.01

For all households, including those who did zero clearing

Same ↓ C/I

Same ↑ C/I

I ↓ slower than C

Crops on cleared forestRank Phase1* Phase2* (by # plot)

Crop planted on cleared land Top Country

Crop planted on cleared land

Top country

1 Cassava (bitter or sweet) Brazil, Cameroon Rice Indonesia

2 Rice Indonesia, BrazilCassava (bitter or sweet) Brazil

3 Maize Brazil Maize Brazil, Peru4 Plantain Cameroon Plantain Cameroon

5 CocoaCameroon, Brazil (Int) Rubber Indonesia

6 Peanut Cameroon Cocoa Cameroon7 Rubber Indonesia Peanut Cameroon8 Cocoyam Cameroon Oil palm Indonesia9 Cucumber Cocoyam Cameroon

10 Chilli pepper Taro

* Orange: Staple crop; Green: Cash crop

Staple crop: Rice Rice cropping (swidden): Mean ha cleared among those that

cleared

Phase1 Phase2Intervention Control Intervention ControlN Mean N

Brazil 90 3.52 62 2.98 39 2.45 28 2.73Peru 29 1.59 41 1.61 44 1.38 55 1.58Cameroon 1 1.00 0 . 0 . 0 .Tanzania 5 1.29 6 1.66 0 . 0 .Indonesia 111 1.78 96 1.84 148 1.48 94 1.85Vietnam 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .

Brazil: less HH and smaller plots for Rice. Not in Peru and Indonesia

Cash crop: Rubber and Oil PalmMain cash crops in IndonesiaMore HH engaged over timeOil palm: large clearing relative to rice & rubber

Rubber Phase1 Phase2HH Median* HH Median*

Intervention 26 1 58 1Control 9 1 26 1.5

Oil Palm Phase1 Phase2HH Mean HH Mean

Intervention 0 0 2 1.75Control 2 3.0 16 2.5

Preliminary Conclusion Only C or I can disguise effects (or lack thereof) of REDD+

(e.g., Peru, Brazil, Cameroon) General national patterns using BACI cannot reveal REDD+

impact to reduce deforestation. • In Cameroon: Deforestation slowing down but intervention

is at a slower pace than control• Need to go to the project level• Need to control for hh, village, project factors

Data limitations: imperfect recall, fear of admitting forest clearing, data only on HH plots• Need to triangulate with other ways of evaluating impact

(See presentations by Bos, and Resosudarmo, ATBC 2016) Forest clearing used mainly for staple food production. • Reduced clearing can directly impact on food security

Indonesia: hh increasingly use cleared forest for rubber and oil palm, but numbers are small (18 HH).