REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental program

Gatto, Andrea; Sadik-Zada, Elkhan Richard Article — Published Version REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental program Environment, Development and Sustainability Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Gatto, Andrea; Sadik-Zada, Elkhan Richard (2024) : REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental program, Environment, Development and Sustainability, ISSN 1573-2975, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Vol. 27, Iss. 10, pp. 24045-24060, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05368-w This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330549 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 1 December 2022 / Accepted: 26 August 2024 / Published online: 24 September 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Extended author information available on the last page of the article REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental program AndreaGatto1,2,3 · Elkhan RichardSadik-Zada3,4,5 Environment, Development and Sustainability (2025) 27:24045–24060 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05368-w Abstract This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature and assesses the progress on the effects of Indonesia’s REDD+ program. Due to the significance of Indonesia in terms of global rainforests and the comprehensive implementation practice of REDD+ programs since 2009, focusing on the case study of Indonesia enables interesting insights regarding the challenges and opportunities of REDD+. Indonesia faced challenges during the project’s implementation, but there were also reductions. This success is attributed to the set program design of REDD+. In this paper, we show that without international development cooperation in the field of climate change mitigation, the countries in the Global South lack locally driven forest conservation or restoration incentives. These incentives emanate exogenously from international development cooperation programs in the field of climate change mitigation. The review of the program also shows that despite the rigorous institutional design of REDD+ in Indonesia, not all the stakeholders could benefit from the program appropriately. Because of the de facto weakness of the smallholder farmers, indigenous population groups, and other vulnerable categories in the political process of Indonesia, these groups’ interests have not come fully to their own in Indonesia. Hence, we conclude that international programs that target environmental protection, while addressing inferior institutional quality, bad governance and operate through more accountable NGOs than government agencies would perform better in terms of global environmental targets and the sustainability of local livelihoods. Keywords REDD+ · Forests management · Deforestation · Capacity building · Climate change mitigation · Stakeholder interests JEL code Q23 · F51 · F53 · Q56 1 3 A. Gatto, E. R. Sadik-Zada 1 Introduction Primary forest preservation is one of keystones of international environmental agreements (Mackey et al., 2015). Deforestation accounts for about 20% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the global atmosphere (IPCC, 2007; van der Werf et al., 2009). This is the second largest antropogenic source of green house gases (GHGs) in the global atmosphere (Lai, 2024). Forests are crucial for the absorbtion of GHGs and heat and regulate water flows (Mulyani & Jepson, 2013). Thus, the preservation of tropical rainforests is of paramount importance for achieving global climate targets (Hein, 2017; UNFCCC, 2015). International environmental agreements play a central role in the context of the primary forest preservation. These agreements are closely linked to energy sector management, land use, climate change and agricultural sector development (Kalaba et al., 2014; Cowie et al., 2007). Furthermore, institutional capacity development and localization of the global environmental initiatives are vital for the attainment of the targets of global environmental conservation initiatives (Eimer et al., 2016; Park, 2022). 18% of the global greenhouse gas emissions emanate from deforestation and forest degradation, whereby 75% of them can be attributed to deforestation in developing countries (Stern, 2008; IPCC, 2020). Forests regulate ecosystems, prevent desertification and land degradation, protect biodiversity, and by doing so, contribute to the capabilities of rural communities to adopt sustainable livelihood strategies (IUCN, 2021; DFID, 2020). Besides having positive impacts on the environment, afforestation and indigenous crop planting are also the gateways to fostering food security by increasing household resilience and sustainable development in developing regions (Morrow et al., 2023, 2024). Hence, promoting sustainable development, similar projects have been implemented all over the world, being regarded as key steps to ensure reforestation (Condor et al., 2011). The awareness about the critical importance of tropical rainforests has been steadily increasing worldwide since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the establishment of the “Forest Principles” within the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 and the UN climate conference in Glasgow in 2021. During the conference in Glasgow in 2021, more than 130 governments declared their commitment to stop deforestation by 2030 (UNFCCC, 2021). Despite increasing awareness about the importance of forests and their role in the mitgation of global warming, the world has been witnessing deforestationover the past three decades. According to Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the 1990s the annual global loss of forests was 16 million hectares. Due to forest policies since the Earth Summit in 1992 there were, however, also some advances in terms of global forest preservation and restoration. However, between 2015 and 2020 the annual rate deforestation was on average 10 million hectares (FAO and UNEP, 2020). According to The World Counts (2023), in reality, these numbers are much greater. Their estimations show that since 2016, there has been a substantial increase in deforestation. The yearly cut of forests surged from 20 million hectares between 2011 and 2015 to an average deforestation of 28 million hectares from 2016. This is equivalent to one football field forest loss every single second around the clock (WRI, 2023). In 2021, deforestation in the Amazon has reached a 15-year high (World Economic Forum, 2022). 2023 was, however, a very successful year because, according to the European Commission (2024), deforestation of Brazilian Amazon has been nearly halved in 2023 as compared to 2022. 1 3 24046 REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental… Reforestation, confinement of forest degradation, afforestation and the mitigation of GHGs are the cornerstones of international environmental agreements (Lederer, 2012; Schroeder, 2010; Global Environmental Change, 2010). The central dilemma of deforestation is that smallholder farmers and indigenous population groups are to a some extend “beneficiaries” of deforestation and they are in the same time negatively affected by the deforestation that is driven by other stake holders (Solikin, 2015). This is why, the issue of deforestation is closely tied to the concept and problem of climate justice. And, hence, it is in the first line a complex ethical question that encapsulates different aspects of climate justice. Notable measures are designed to protect both the environment and mankind – above all indigenous people and their resources rights (Wallbott, 2014; Lyster, 2011; Schroeder, 2010). In this sense, REDD+ has been designed as an international framework for protecting forests and achieving sustainable development goals by acting on environmental governance and environmental justice (Thompson et al., 2011; Okereke & Dooley, 2010). International environmental programs, supported by international environmental agreements, are increasingly recognizing the importance of involving each socioeconomic group, especially the most vulnerable ones. This framework is often based on multistakeholder approaches relying on pluralistic and holistic perspectives pointing at universal socioeconomic inclusiveness – above all the most marginalized communities (Gatto, 2020, 2022; Rusciano & Gatto, 2022). REDD+ is one of few examples of global environmental action that actively incorporates the sub-national governments into this global action. Hence, REDD+ is a tool of environmental policy whereby the elements of the subsidiarity principle also come into their own (Sadik-Zada et al., 2018). Despite a broad consensus in the scholarly and applied climate policies, economics and management literature on the merits of REDD+, there are grave differences in the performance of the program in different countries. This paper focuses on the implementation, results and major challenges of REDD+ in Indonesia. Indonesia is worldwide the third-largest tropical forest area after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 94,43 million hectares or 52% of Indonesia’s land area are covered by forests (FAO, 2011). The choice of Indonesia as a case study emanates from its rainforest abundance, significance of Indonesia’s global significance in the realm of global primary forest abundance, the dominance of commodity-driven deforestation in the country (87%), and the high deforestation of the national forests since the early 2000s (WRI, 2023). The global significance of Indonesia’s forest resources, the country’s commitment to REDD+, and relatively high deforestation rates despite this commitment make Indonesia an interesting case study for the preliminary evaluation of the impact of REDD+ on forest preservation (Dwisatrio et al., 2021). Re-addressing the case of Indonesia is important due to the declining academic interest for the deforestation problems in the REDD+ commited forest and unfortunately also a giant in terms of the primary natural forest loss – Indonesia on the one hand side, and the increasing criticism in the environmental policy discourse on the effects of REDD+ in this country on the other hand side (cf. Austin et al., 2019). With this paper, we envisage a reactivation of the scholarly discussion on the achievenents and/or failures related to REDD+ program in Indonesia, foregrounding the central challenges, and drawing the balance related to REDD+ Indonesia and discuss the lessons learnt for similar ongoing or planned project initiatives. 1 3 24047 A. Gatto, E. R. Sadik-Zada The paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 dwells on the general description of the program. Section 3 scrutinizes the implementation of REDD+ in Indonesia and discusses the central challenges at different stages of the program that Indonesia encountered. In the subsequent Sect. 4, the study critically evaluates the REDD program from the perspective of Indonesia. The last Sect. 5 presents concluding thoughts and remarks. 2 Development of REDD+ 2.1 Origin and formation In May 2005, under the leadership of the government of Papua New Guinea, a nongovernmental organization, the Coalition of Rainforest Nations was launched by two MBA graduates from Columbia University. They put forward the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestration (RED) initiative. There was much skepticism as RED was made public. Nevertheless, the government of Costa Rica secured the support for RED. This allowed the proposition of RED in the framework of COP 11 in Montreal in Canada. Later, during COP13 in Bali in 2007, the RED was supplemented by the topic of forest degradation. Hence, RED has been augmented and the official title of the program has been changed to Reducing Emissions from Forest Degradation and Deforestation (REDD) (Pistorius, 2012; UNFCCC, 2007). REDD, the central tool of global forest policy, has been officially adopted during COP 13 in Bali in 2007. The idea of REDD goes, however, back to the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project in North-East Bolivia (Holloway and Giandomenico, 2009). Within UNFCCC the idea first came to its own 1997 in Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol. The operation is widely recognized at the global level as an effort to mitigate vulnerability and promote resilience tools to the vulnerable, fostering decentralized forest management and inclusiveness in light of polycentric governance approaches (Gatto, 2022; Sandbrook et al., 2010). The principles of sustainable forest management have been further concretisized and expanded within the Cancun Agreements in 2010 (UNFCCC, 2010). Going beyong REDD has lead to a more comprehensive framework dubbed as REDD+ (Olander et al., 2012). Important feautures of REDD+ are their compliance with the national forest programs and a special attention to the rights of indigenous population groups in the management of forests and forestry programs. The indigenous groups have to be a central element of the multi-stakeholder forestry management processes (UNFCCC, 2010). COP 19 in Warsaw played a decisive role in the strenghthening fiscal transparency in the implementation of REDD+. This aspect has been strenghthened again and substantiated in 2015 during COP 21 (UNFCCC, 2013, 2015). 2.2 The REDD+ mechanism The Cancun Agreement that was proposed within the COP16 in 2010 and also the Warsaw Framework Conditions propounded at the 19th UNFCCC in 2013 determine a series of phases (Schaller, 2020; UNFCCC, 2021). REDD+ is a three-phase procedure (FAO, 2021; GCF, 2023). The first phase, REDD+ readiness phase, focuses on the development of the national forest strategies, policies, and mesures, as well as establishment of the required 1 3 24048 REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental… institutions and technical capacity building activities. There are also strict criteria related to the initial phase. These are (1) the existence of a national REDD+ strategy; (2) the national forest reference emission levels; (3) development of the transparent and reliant forest monitoring systems; and (4) development of a safequards information system (Granziera et al., 2021). These criteria are also known as Warshau Framework elements (GCF, 2023). The second phase is related to the implementation of the forest action plans and strategies that have been drafted in the initial phase. And, the third phase is the evaluation and detailed assessment phase. The first submissions of the results were made only at the end of 2022. We could say more about the whole programm success in the selected REDD+ implementing countries in the coming years (UNFCCC, 2010). The third phase is also known as the REDD+ results-based payment phase, because if the participating countries can demonstrate verifiable emission reductions or carbon stock enhancements then they are eligible for the results-based payments from the international climate finance mechanisms. In the next section, we venture, however, a preliminary assessemnt of the case study of Indonesia, a country with 94,43 million hecrates of forest that represent more than 50% of the total land area and the third-largest tropical forests worldwide. Only Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo have a greater tropical foreat area than Indonesia (Solikin, 2015). Hereby, we review the potential of REDD+ to generate significant carbon savings in Indonesia and review the selected nationwide REDD+ initiatives in Indonesia, assess the verified emission reductions and analyze the central challenges such as land tenure conflicts, limited capacity of local communities, and difficultied in the monitoring and evaluation of the initiative. 3 The case of Indonesia 3.1 REDD+ in Indonesia Deforestation is the central issue in Indonesia’s climate policies. Roughly 60% of total emissions of Indonesia are caused by deforestation (Mulyani & Jepson, 2013). Land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) are responsible for at least 35% of GHG emissions of Indonesia (DNPI, 2010; Solikin, 2015). The assessment of Indonesia’s updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 2021–2030 shows that 97,2% of contributions are related to forest, land and energy sector management. Within the new NDC main forestry and land use measures are the enhancement of afforestation, reforestation, rehabilitation, and peat water management (Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, 2022). The climate-oriented forest policies date back to 2009 as Indonesia joined the REDD+ program. In just three years, Indonesia finalized the first phase of REDD+ and proposed a fullfledged action plan by the end of 2012. The related strategic REDD+ implementation plan has set three main objectives that build upon each other in terms of timing and content. The initial capacity building targets set in the strategy paper had to be achieveb by the end of 2014. Indonesia envisaged a complete advancement of the REDD+-aligned governance systems by 2018 and achieve the emission reduction target by 26–41% by 2020 (Indonesian 1 3 24049 A. Gatto, E. R. Sadik-Zada REDD+ Task Force, 2012). The envisaged long-term target was, however, the achievement of full carbon-neutrality by the end of this decade. It has to be mentioned that Indonesia has already allocated USD 6,1 billion of its state budget to climate funding and is committed to attain the Paris targets by 2030. Despite substantial attention to climate issues, the mentioned amounts are not sufficient. The mentioned climate investments cover only 34% of the required investments into climate change mitigation in Indonesia (Satrio, 2021). In order to achieve these long-term goals without violating the five core principles of effectiveness, efficiency, fairness, transparency and accountability Indonesia elaborated a strategic framework built on five pillars. The first pillar targets development of an appropriate and functioning institutional system for REDD+ in Indonesia. This system has to provide an effective exchange and negotiation plattform for all the major stakeholders of the forest and land use policy in Indonesia. To this end, Indonesian government established a National REDD+ agency that has to assure good institutional quality. If one asks about the function of this agency then the answer is first of all transparency and inclusiveness of the forest management, i.e. creation of a new culture of inclusiveness in the management of natural resources (Indonesian REDD+ Task Force, 2012). The second pillar is closely related to the first one. It, however, encompasses only the financial enginnering of the local REDD+ in Indonesia. This is the creation of a straighforward and for everyone understandable remuneration system for those who engage in reforestation. The REDD+ Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) is the third essential element of the institutional design of REDD+ in Indonesia. The purpose of the institution is the support in monitoring, evaluation and reporting related to Indonesian REDD+ (Indonesian REDD+ Task Force, 2012; Solikin, 2015). Legal and Regulatory Frameworks is the second pillar of REDD+ in Indonesia, whereby, its operationing is closely chained with the work of the first pillar. This pillar contributes to the flexibility of the program in the face of permanent changes, emerging opportunities and the eventual challenges. The third pillar of the Indonesian REDD+ National Strategy is a coordinated strategic programming against the backdrop of the trade-offs and complementarities of the individual targets within the REDD+ program. There are roughly three coordinated programs within the REDD+ strategy roof. These are: (A) conservation and rehabilitation; (B) sustainable agriculture, forestry and mining; and (C) sustainable management of landscapes. 3.2 Implementation Now, almost fifteen years after launching the REDD+ program in Indonesia, there is much praise, but at the same time also critique on the effects of REDD + on the set targets and the impact on different stakeholders (Afifa, 2024). The literature is dominated by discussions on the effectiveness of REDD+ in reducing GHGs. The impact of REDD+ on GHGs is mostly measured by the magnitude of the mitigation of deforestation. The main drivers of deforestation in Indonesia are oil palm cultivation and timber plantation (Tsujino et al., 2016; Austin et al., 2019). Both activities play a significant role in terms of employment and growth performance of Indonesia. The mentioned productions are disproportionately contributing to income-generating activities of the rural poor and the indigenous population groups in Indonesia (Solikin, 2015). Hence, the present compensation systems of the 1 3 24050 REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental… REDD+ program are supposed to compensate for the inhibition of the economic activities of these vulnerable swaths of the population. The decrease of the primary forest loss in Indonesia since 2016 is attributed solely to the takeover of REDD+. In 2016, Indonesia provided an updated value for the national forest reference emission level. It was set at 0.57 GtCO2e−1 with 1990–2012 as the reference period and included emissions from deforestation, forest degradation, and peatland decomposition in order to measure the performance of the implementation period between 2013 and 2020 (Nofyanza et al., 2020). The calculation of the national forest reference level was criticized by the Global Forest Watch board members and other experts (Global Forest Watch, 2021). They presumed that the reference emissions level might be inflated, double counting project-level reductions occurred and that indigenous people’s rights have not been sufficiently protected. They also criticized the fact that a more recent date had not been used as a reference period, as Indonesia had already made progress in reducing emissions and an outdated reference period leads to higher performance-based payments without providing strong incentives for forest protection (Jong, 2020). Korhonen-Kurki et al. (2017) examined the institutional aspects of REDD+ in Indoneasia and came to the conclusion that REDD+ was a significant breakthrough in the public sector management and institutional development both within REDD + Indonesia and countrywide. REDD+ created an impactful and an inclusive multi-stakeholder exchange and decision making plattform in Indonesia (UNCCCC, 2023). In addition, REDD+ has triggered an overarching and for all the stakeholders beneficial development of the dialogue culture in the issues related to socio-economic development. However, there were also significant dawbacks in the aftermath of the new government that delegated the interaction between the government and REDD+ to the individual ministries. Reporting to and working directly with the administration of the former president of Indonesia was a setting that enabled a substantial reduction of the transaction costs, and especially the costs of bureaucracy. Enrici and Hubacek (2018) analyzed the effects of REDD+ and claimed that the reductions of GHGs in Indonesia could be more substantial if the stakeholder management of REDD+ in Indonesia would provide more transparency and automation in terms of compensation payments to the indigenous groups and smallholder farmers. The authors refer also to the difficulties in the implementation of REDD+ due to the complex interaction patterns between central government, states and municipalities. This confirms the transactions costs hypotheis in Korhonen-Kurki et al. (2017) The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) also refered to the organizational issues and showed that the attained results were not sufficuent. As the central cause Evans (2022) refered to president Yudhoyono and international community support as positive factors that ended, however, with the ministerial reforms and lower level of involvement of Indonesian presidential office in the work of REDD+ (Nofyanza et al., 2020). 3.3 Challenges As we have already mentioned in the previous section, putting forward a streamlined and really inclusive forest protection policies was and is still a great challenge because of the importance of forests in the livelihoods of different stakeholders and the related economic 1 3 24051 A. Gatto, E. R. Sadik-Zada sectors. The central obstacles for stopping deforestation is the economic weight of timber as an export commodity, mining activities, and agricultural land use. Based on a comprehensive literature review on the causes of deforestation in Indonesia, Austin et al. (2019), compiles the central drivers of deforestation in Indonesia between 2001 and 2016. The authors show that timber plantations, oil palm plantations, extention of the grassland areas, further large-scale plantations, small-scaled farming, and logging have been the main single drivers of deforestation in Indonesia in the respective time frame. This shows that the revenue side of Indonesia’s public budget, agricultural sector output and the livelihoods of small-scaled farms are heavily dependent on the degradation of forests. In the same time, the most vulnerable, the indigenous groups are heavily dependent on intact forest landscapes. Figure 1 outlines the main REDD+ stakeholders in Indonesia. The stakeholder diagramme is based on the literature review and the assessment of the official documents related to REDD+. The area of the respective stakeholders indicate the relative importance of them within the framework of forest conservation and upgrading in Indonesia. According to our interviews with experts from Indonesia Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Indonesia and also National Council of Climate Change of Indonesia play a decisive role in the forest policies in Indonesia. The success of the REDD+ program depends consequently almost entirely on national government. In addition, the subnational governments are strictly following the policies that are induced by the national government in Jakarta. And, if we juxtapose the mentioned stakeholders, it would be clear that the purely economic shortto middle-term interests and power relations are more favorable for the benefiFig. 1 REDD+ Stakeholders in Indonesia. * Indonesia ministry of environment and forestry of Indonesia and also national council of climate change of Indonesia 1 3 24052 REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental… Olander, L. P., Galik, C. S., & Kissinger, G. A. (2012). Operationalizing REDD+: Scope of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.003 Park, J. (2022). Localization leads to stronger, sustainable results in conservation. Insights. Published by RTI International on June 3rd, 2022. https://www.rti.org/insights/localization-sustainability-and-conservation Pistorius, T. (2012). From RED to REDD+: The evolution of a forest-based mitigation approach for developing countries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2012.07.002 Rodríguez-de-Francisco, J. C., del Cairo, C., Ortiz-Gallego, D., Velez-Triana, J.S., Vergara-Gutiérrez, T., & Hein, J. (2021). Post-conflict transition and REDD+ in Colombia: Challenges to reducing deforestation in the Amazon, Forest Policy and Economics, 127, 102450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102450 Rusciano, V., & Gatto, A. (2022). Effects of the COVID-19 outbreak on the use and perceptions of Metropolitan Agricultural Parks—evidence from Milan and Naples of Urban and Environmental Resilience. Sustainability, 14(12), 7509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127509 Sachs, J., & Werner, A. M. (1995). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. NBER working paper no. 5398. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5398 Sadik-Zada, E. R. (2016). Oil abundance and economic growth. Logos. Sadik-Zada, E. R. (2019). Distributional bargaining and the speed of Structural Change in the Petroleum Exporting Labor surplus economies. European Journal of Development Research, 32, 51–98. https:// doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-00221-7 Sadik-Zada, E. R., Loewenstein, W., & Ferrari, M. (2018). Privatization and the role of sub-national governments in the latin American power sector. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.13154/294-6021 Sadik-Zada, E. R., Gatto, A., & Niftiyev, I. (2022). E-government and petty corruption in public sector service delivery. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732 5.2022.2067037 Sandbrook, C., Nelson, F., Adams, W. M., & Agrawal, A. (2010). Carbon, forests and the REDD paradox. Oryx, 44(3), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000475 Satrio, B. D. (2021). Results-based payments in Indonesia: A strategy to move REDD + forward? Analysis, published on January 11th, 2021. https://forestsnews.cifor.org/70458/ results-based-payments-in-indonesia-a-strategy-to-move-redd-forward?fnl=en Schaller, R. (2020). Climate protection through forest conservation using the example of the REDD + mechanism. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag. Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 10(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9138-2 Shahab, N. (2018). From the soil to the law, climate change efforts in Indonesia. FORESTNEWS, May 15th, 2018. Available online at http://www.forestnews.cifor.org Solikin, A. (2015). Revealing willingness to pay and willingness to work to avoid deforestation and forest degradation using contingent valuation method: Evidence from Indonesia. PhD-Thesis. Bochum: Ruhr-University of Bochum. https://hss-opus.ub.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/ docId/4678 Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295722 Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD + as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.006 Tsujino, R., Yumoto, T., Kitamura, S., Djamaluddin, I., Darnaedi, D. (2016). History of forest loss and degradation in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 57, 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.034 UNFCCC. (2021). COP26: Pivotal progress made on sustainable forest management and conservation. https:// unfccc.int/news/cop26-pivotal-progress-made-on-sustainable-forest-management-and-conservation UNFCCC. (2007). Decision 2/CP.13. Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: Approaches to stimulate action. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf UNFCCC. (2010). Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/ resource/do UNFCCC. (2013). Report on the conference of parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=24 UNFCCC. (2015). Report of the conference of parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a03.pdf#page=13 UNFCCC (2021). REDD Information Hub. https://redd.unfccc.int/info-hub.html 1 3 24059 A. Gatto, E. R. Sadik-Zada Wallbott, L. (2014). Indigenous peoples in UN REDD + negotiations: Importing Power and lobbying for rights through Discursive Interplay Management. Ecology and Society, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-06111-190121 World Economic Forum. (2022). The Global Risk Report 2022 (17th ed.). Available online at https://www. weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2022/ WRI. (2023). Indicators of forest extent forest loss. World Resources Institute. Global Forest Review. https:// research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/forest-loss#see-footnote-6 Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Authors and Affiliations AndreaGatto1,2,3 · Elkhan RichardSadik-Zada3,4,5 Andrea Gatto [email protected] Elkhan Richard Sadik-Zada [email protected] 1 College of Business and Public Management, Wenzhou-Kean University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China 2 Division of International Studies, College of International Studies, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea 3 Centre for Studies on European Economy, Azerbaijan State University of Economics, Baku, Azerbaijan 4 Institute of Development Research and Development Policy, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany 5 Center for Environmental Management, Resources and Energy, Ruhr-University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany 1 3 24060