Appendices | REDD+ on the ground

Appendix 1. Organizational characteristics of subnational REDD+ initiatives researched in CIFOR-GCS.

Country	Abbreviated initiative name	Lead proponent organization	Type of proponent	Scope	Main sources of funding	Current status
Brazil	Acre	Instituto de Mudanças Climaticas (IMC)	Government	Jurisdictional (state)	Amazon Fund, KfW Development Bank	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Brazil	Bolsa Floresta	Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS)	Private nonprofit	Project	Amazon Fund, Marriott International, Bradesco Bank, Amazonas Government, Coca-Cola Brasil, Samsung	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Brazil	Cotriguaçu	Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV)	Private nonprofit–government	Jurisdictional (municipality)	Packard Foundation, Amazon Fund	Ongoing but not using REDD+ label
Brazil	Jari/Amapá	Biofílica	Private for-profit	Project	Biofílica, Jari Group, sale of carbon credits	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Brazil	SFX	The Nature Conservancy Brazil	Private nonprofit–government	Jurisdictional (municipality)	Moore Foundation, USAID, Amazon Fund, British Embassy	Ongoing but not using REDD+ label
Brazil	Transamazon	Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM)	Private nonprofit	Project	Amazon Fund	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Peru	Madre de Dios	Bosques Amazonicos (BAM)	Private for-profit	Project	BAM, Asterix, BioCarbon, Land Economics Management Consultants (LEMCO), Peruvian and Chilean investors	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Peru	Ucayali	Asociación para la Investigación y Desarrollo Integral (AIDER)	Private nonprofit	Project	AIDER, International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Enhancing Environmental Services in Tropical Forests (REDDES), Initiative for Conservation in the Andean Amazon (ICAA), and Consortium of TNC Peru, Conservation International, WWF and Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID)	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Cameroon	Mt. Cameroon	GFA-Envest	Public bilateral	Project	KfW Development Bank	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Cameroon	SE Cameroon	Centre pour l’Environnement et le Développement (CED)	Private nonprofit	Project	Department for International Development (DFID)	Ongoing but not using REDD+ label
Tanzania	Kigoma	Jane Goodall Institute	Private nonprofit	Project	Royal Norwegian Embassy	Ceased operation in June 2013
Tanzania	Zanzibar	CARE International in Tanzania	Private nonprofit	Project	Royal Norwegian Embassy	Ceased operation in December 2014
Tanzania	Kilosa	Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG)	Private nonprofit	Project	Royal Norwegian Embassy	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Tanzania	Lindi	Tanzania Forest Conservation Group (TFCG)	Private nonprofit	Project	Royal Norwegian Embassy	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Tanzania	Mpingo	Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI)	Private nonprofit	Project	Royal Norwegian Embassy	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Tanzania	Shinyanga	Tanzania Traditional Energy Development and Environment Organization (TaTEDO)	Private nonprofit	Project	Royal Norwegian Embassy	Ceased operation as a REDD+ initiative in early 2013
Indonesia	KFCP	Australian Aid/Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP)	Government-to-government partnership	Project	Australian Aid	Ceased operation in 2014
Indonesia	Katingan	PT. Rimba Makmur Utama (RMU)	Private for-profit	Project	PT. Rimba Makmur Utama (RMU)	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Indonesia	KCCP	Fauna and Flora International Indonesia (FFI)	Private nonprofit	Project	The David & Lucille Packard Foundation, Australian Aid, Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA), European Union (EU)	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Indonesia	Rimba Raya	InfiniteEARTH (PT. Rimba Raya Conservation)	Private for-profit	Project	Private investors	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Indonesia	TNC within BFCP	The Nature Conservancy (TNC)	Private nonprofit	Jurisdictional (district)	Govt. of Indonesia, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), USAID, Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF), Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA), Govt. of Germany	Ongoing REDD+ initiative
Indonesia	Ulu Masen	Government of Aceh (Task Force REDD Aceh)	Government	Jurisdictional (multi-district)	Activities related to reducing deforestation and forest degradation, but not specific to REDD+, are funded through provincial budgets	Operation on pause pending future decisions
Vietnam	Cat Tien	The Netherlands Development Organization (SNV)	Private nonprofit	Jurisdictional (district)	Darwin Initiative, which is funded by United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK DEFRA), DFID, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)	Ceased operation in 2012

Sources: Proponent Challenges survey data; documents of initiatives

Appendix 2. Geographical and biophysical characteristics of subnational REDD+ initiatives.

Country	Abbreviated initiative name	Province or state	Area of initiative (km2)a	Total population within boundaries of initiative	Mean elevation or range (masl)b	Predominant forest type	Ecological zone Source: FAO (2001)	Climate region Source: IPCC (2006)
Brazil	Acre	Acre	157,490	35,000 (2007)	100–255	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Brazil	Bolsa Floresta	Amazonas	105,371	40,037 (2014)	90	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Brazil	Cotriguaçu	Mato Grosso	9,123	14,965 (2006)	100–460	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Brazil	Jari/Amapá	Amapá	660	52,370 (2010)	250	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Brazil	SFX	Pará	80,441	64,223 (2008)	80–750	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Brazil	Transamazon	Pará	260	73,543 (2010)	30–380	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Peru	Madre de Dios	Madre de Dios	3,088	7,260	183–500	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Peru	Ucayali	Ucayali	1,270	2,554	110–476	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Cameroon	Mt. Cameroon	South West Region	611	n.a.	125–4025	Evergreen forest	Tropical mountain system (58%) Tropical rainforest (42%)	Tropical wet
Cameroon	SE Cameroon	South and East Region	28	1,451	650–700	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Tanzania	Kigoma	Kigoma	910	69,410	782–1,609	Miombo woodlands	Tropical dry forest	Tropical dry
Tanzania	Zanzibar	Unguja/Zanzibar	828	113,845	0–100	Mix of evergreen, deciduous trees and scrub, woodlands	Tropical dry forest	Tropical dry
Tanzania	Kilosa	Morogoro	1,850	34,180	448–2,226	Miombo woodlands	Tropical dry forest (66%) Tropical shrubland (25%) Tropical mountain system (9%)	Tropical dry
Tanzania	Lindi	Lindi	661	16,051	66–593	Miombo woodlands	Tropical moist deciduous forest (81%) Tropical dry forest (19%)	Tropical dry
Tanzania	Mpingo	Lindi	1,890	17,157	0–400	Miombo woodlands	Tropical dry forest (57%) Tropical moist deciduous forest (43%)	Tropical dry
Tanzania	Shinyanga	Shinyanga	399	766,012	1200–1249	Miombo woodlands, Acacia bushlands	Tropical shrubland	Tropical dry
Indonesia	KFCP	Central Kalimantan	1,200	9,000	0–40	Peatland forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Indonesia	Katingan	Central Kalimantan	1,083	11,463 (2013)	1–20	Peatland forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Indonesia	KCCP	West Kalimantan	144	n.a.	0–630	Peatland forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Indonesia	Rimba Raya	Central Kalimantan	650	10,935 (2011)	0–70	Peatland forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Indonesia	TNC within BFCP	East Kalimantan	22,000	193,831 (2013)	45–97	Dipterocarp forest	Tropical rainforest	Tropical wet
Indonesia	Ulu Masen	Aceh	7,500	145,391	500–2,500	Evergreen forest	Tropical rainforest (85%) Tropical mountain system (15%)	Tropical wet
Vietnam	Cat Tien	Lam Dong	669	7,823	120–200	Mix of conifer, bamboo, young forest and shrubland	Tropical moist deciduous forest (81%) Tropical rainforest (19%)	Tropical wet

Source: Village Survey data; Proponent Site Narratives data; documents of initiatives.

a The figures in Table 1.1 are calculated from the shape files or polygons of the initiative area for the purpose of forest cover loss and emission calculations, while the figures in Appendix 2 are official figures given by the proponents. This may cause discrepancies between figures in Table 1.1 and Appendix 2.

b Elevation for Acre, Cotriguaçu, SFX, Transamazon, Mt. Cameroon, Zanzibar, KFCP, KCCP and Rimba Raya are based on: USGS (2006). Meanwhile, elevation for the rest of the initiatives are official figures from the respective proponents.

Appendix 3. CIFOR-GCS case study initiatives by study design, date research was begun, and number of sample villages and households.

Study design	Country	Initiative abbreviation	Month/Year Phase 1 research begun	Interventions		Controls		Total villages	Total households
Study design	Country	Initiative abbreviation	Month/Year Phase 1 research begun	Villages	Households	Villages	Households	Total villages	Total households
Intensive	Brazil	Acre	June 2010	4	127	4	117	8	244
		Cotriguaçu	July 2010	4	122	4	121	8	243
		Jari/Amapá	August 2012	5	122	0	0	5	122
		SFX	September 2010	4	124	4	122	8	246
		Transamazon	July 2010	4	137	4	126	8	263
	Peru	Madre de Dios	July 2012	4	126	4	124	8	250
		Ucayali	December 2012	4	123	4	124	8	247
	Cameroon	Mt. Cameroon	April 2010	4	160	3	90	7	250
		SE Cameroon	April 2010	2	120	4	160	6	280
	Tanzania	Kilosa	July 2010	3	90	3	90	6	180
		Shinyanga	June 2010	4	120	5	150	9	270
	Indonesia	Katingan	March 2010	4	133	4	132	8	265
		KCCP	August 2010	4	132	4	132	8	264
		KFCP	April 2010	4	131	4	130	8	261
		TNC within BFCP	August 2011	5	163	4	132	9	295
		Ulu Masen	May 2010	4	132	4	132	8	264
	Vietnam	Cat Tien	June 2010	4	120	4	120	8	240
Extensive	Tanzania	Kigoma	July 2010	4	0	0	0	4	0
		Lindi	June 2010	4	0	0	0	4	0
		Mpingo	June 2010	4	0	0	0	4	0
		Zanzibar	July 2010	4	0	0	0	4	0
	Indonesia	Rimba Raya	August 2010	4	0	0	0	4	0
Non-BACI	Brazil	Bolsa Floresta	February 2011	34	244	6	96	40	340
Total				121	2,426	69	2,098	190	4,524

Appendix 4. Definitions of variables used in CIFOR-GCS field research.

Variablea	Definition
Socioeconomic status of households in study villages.
Household average
Number of adults	Count of individuals in the household aged 16 years and older
Number of members	Count of all individuals in the household
Days of illness per adult	Days of illness in the 12 months prior to the interview for those aged 16 years and older. Days of illness are those when household member is unable to work
Years of education (adults ≥16 years)	Number of years attending school (formal education) – average per adult
Total income (USD)	Total income from all sectors listed below, net of costs. ‘Net of costs’ means that costs of purchased inputs including hired labor are subtracted. Costs of family labor, land, and inputs collected or produced by the households are not subtracted.
Total value of livestock (USD)	Total value of livestock including large and small animals and poultry
Total land controlled (ha)	Total area of agricultural, pasture, forest, other natural habitat and residential areas controlled by the household, either used or rented out.
Total value of transportation assets (USD)	Total value of all transportation items owned by the household including motor vehicles, boats and bicycles
Percent of households with
Mobile or fixed phone	Proportion of households in the village owning at least one phone, mobile or fixed
Electricity	Proportion of households in the village having access to electricity through: unpaid or paid connection, grid, village system, own generator, other
Piped water supply	Proportion of households in the village having access to piped water from: own well or rain-fed reservoir, groundwater, municipal or company system
Private latrine or toilet	Proportion of households in the village having access to improved sanitation, defined as private latrine or toilet
Perceived sufficient income	Proportion of households answering “yes” or “reasonable” to the question: “Has your household’s income over the past two years been sufficient to cover the needs of the household?”
Forest dependence of households in study villages.
Household average
Share of income from forest	Forest income: income (cash or in-kind) obtained in the 12-month period prior to the interview from harvesting resources from forests that are not intensively managed, net of production costs. (See also definitions of forest and non-forest environmental income below, under Figures.)
Share of income from agriculture	Agricultural income: value of agricultural production in the 12-month period prior to the interview, net of production costs. (Note that average share of income from agriculture can be negative if there are households with small total income and negative agricultural income in a given year due to high input costs.)
Distance to forests (minutes walking)	Distance from the houses in the village to the forest, in minutes spent walking
Percent of households
Fuelwood or charcoal as primary cooking source	Proportion of households in the village using either fuelwood or charcoal as their primary cooking fuel
Figures: (barplot) Income distribution per sector for the communities studied, and (pie chart) Household income share.b
Agriculture	Household average income derived from agricultural (crop) production, net of production costs, in the 12-month period prior to the interview, including both subsistence and cash
Livestock	Household average income derived from animal husbandry, net of production costs, in the 12-month period prior to the interview, including both subsistence and cash. Note that we report here values of sales and consumption of animals and animals products, but not animal stock values
Forest and non-forest environment	Household average forest and non-forest environmental income in the 12-month period prior to the interview. In this study we define “environmental income” as “income (cash or in-kind) obtained from the harvesting of resources provided through natural processes not requiring intensive management” (Sunderlin et al. 2010, 53). Environmental income can be sourced from both forest and non-forest locations. In the charts and in the case chapters, we refer to these (respectively) as “forest” income and “non-forest environmental” income
Wage labor	Household average income from wage or salary income in the 12-month period prior to the interview
Household business	Household average income from household business in the 12-month period prior to the interview
Other income	Household average income from activities falling outside the above categories in the 12-month period prior to the interview. Categories include: land rent; remittances; gifts; inheritance; pension; support from government, politicians, or NGOs; compensation for lost income; dividends; PES; as well as others

a This list excludes variables defined in the case chapters.

b All monetary values reported in these two figures have been converted to USD using the 2010 (year of fieldwork) yearly average as reported by the World Bank
(World Bank 2014).

Appendix 5. Sources of pressure causing deforestation and forest degradation within site boundaries at 23 CIFOR-GCS sites.

Country

Abbreviated initiative name

Sources of pressures on forests

Large-scale agriculture

Large-scale ranching

Large plantations

Small-scale traditional agriculture

Small-scale frontier agriculture

Small or medium rancher

Large-scale legal timber harvest

Large-scale illegal timber harvest

Small-scale legal timber harvest

Small-scale illegal timber harvest

Subsistence fuelwood/charcoal collection

Commercial fuelwood/charcoal collection

Non-wood forest product harvesting

Forest fire

Mining

Other

Brazil

Acre

Brazil

Bolsa Floresta

Brazil

Cotriguaçu

Brazil

Jari/Amapá

Brazil

SFX

Brazil

Transamazon

Peru

Madre de Dios

Peru

Ucayali

Cameroon

Mt. Cameroon

Cameroon

SE Cameroon

Tanzania

Kigoma

Tanzania

Zanzibar

Tanzania

Kilosa

Tanzania

Lindi

Tanzania

Mpingo

Tanzania

Shinyanga

Indonesia

KFCP

Indonesia

Katingan

Indonesia

KCCP

Indonesia

Rimba Raya

Indonesia

TNC within BFCP

Indonesia

Ulu Masen

Vietnam

Cat Tien

Source: Proponent Challenges Survey data

Appendix 6. Types and timing of interventions in study villages by REDD+ initiatives and affiliated organizations.

Country	Abbreviated initiative name	Year REDD+ initiative beganb	First year of implementation of intervention during period of REDD+ initiativea
Country	Abbreviated initiative name	Year REDD+ initiative beganb	RFACc	FEd	NCLEe	CLEf	EEg	TCh	Otheri
Brazil	Acre	2009	2009	2012	2009	2009	–	2009	2009
Brazil	Bolsa Floresta	2007	2008	2008	2008	2008	–	–	–
Brazil	Cotriguaçu	2011	2011	–	2011	–	2012	–	–
Brazil	Jari/Amapá	2011	2011	–	2013	–	2012	2013	–
Brazil	SFX	2009	2009	2012	2012	2013	2013	–	–
Brazil	Transamazon	2013	2013	–	–	2014	2013	–	–
Peru	Madre de Dios	2009	–	–	–	–	2009	2009	–
Peru	Ucayali	2010	2014	2011	2011	–	2012	–	–
Cameroon	Mt. Cameroon	2008	2008	2012	2011	2010	2012	2011	2012
Cameroon	SE Cameroon	2009	2010	2010	–	2010	2009	2010	2010
Tanzania	Kigoma	2010	2010	–	2010	2012	2010	–	2010
Tanzania	Zanzibar	2010	–	2011	2012	2013	2010	2011	–
Tanzania	Kilosa	2010	2011	–	2011	2012	2011	–	–
Tanzania	Lindi	2009	2010	–	2011	2012	2010	2011	–
Tanzania	Mpingo	2009	2011	–	2011	2013	2010	–	–
Tanzania	Shinyanga	2010	2010	2011	2011	2012	2011	2010	2010
Indonesia	KFCP	2009	2011	2010	2010	2011	2010	2012	2012
Indonesia	Katingan	2009	2009	2009	2009		2009	–	–
Indonesia	KCCP	2009	2010	2010	–	–	2010	2010	–
Indonesia	Rimba Raya	2009	2009	–	2010	–	2009	–	2014 (plan)
Indonesia	TNC within BFCP	2009	2011	2013 (plan)	2010	2013 (plan)	2010	2011	2011
Indonesia	Ulu Masen	2010	2011	–	2011	–	2011	–	–
Vietnam	Cat Tien	2009	–	–	–	–	2010	–	2012

Source: Survey of Village Interventions database

a In many cases the initiative is a continuation of a pre-existing forest protection effort at the same site. In these cases, many of the interventions at the site were actually begun before the REDD+ initiative was established, and are carry-overs into the period of REDD+ activity.

b In some cases there are inconsistencies between the year the initiative began as noted in this appendix and in the case chapters. This is explained by different perspectives on the most relevant milestone to define the start date of an initiative. For example, the formal start date of Acre is 2010, but we chose 2009 in order to analyze the impact of key initiative-related interventions that otherwise would have gone unmeasured.

Intervention abbreviations and their meanings:

c RFAC = Restriction on forest access and/or conversion. Activities (such as monitoring, policing, imposition of fines) aimed at protecting forests from local and external actors.

d FE = Forest enhancement. Activities such as afforestation and reforestation, and practices aimed at improving forest management (e.g. reduced-impact logging).

e NCLE = Nonconditional livelihood enhancement. Livelihood support of any kind that does not require local stakeholders to change their forest use behavior.

f CLE = Conditional livelihood enhancement. Livelihood support of any kind that requires the participants to protect or improve local forests in exchange for getting this support.

g EE = Environmental education. Information dissemination to persuade stakeholders that there are tangible benefits to protecting and/or enhancing local forests.

h TC = Tenure clarification. Activities aimed at resolving unclear or contested ownership and access rights over local forestlands, trees and carbon.

i Other = Forest interventions other than those listed above.