1. Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers REDD+ Interdisciplinary & institutional interaction perspectives

2. Wageningen University & Research Centre (WUR) Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group (FNP) Social science perspectives on forest and nature conservation

3. International forest, nature & biodiversity governance Research embedded in debates on regimes and GEG

4. REDD@WUR network Around 80 researchers part of network Research on wide range of topics (MRV, PES, forest management, co-benefits, governance, policy) in almost 30 countries Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012 issue 6 on REDD+ with 17 review articles

5. REDD+: setting the scene Reducing emissions from deforestation, forest degradation; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Basic idea: pay developing countries for using forests sustainably Placed on UNFCCC agenda in 2005

6. Parallel initiatives Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the World Bank Forest Investment Programme (FIP) of WB UN-REDD Support developing countries in ‘getting ready’ for REDD+ Developing countries are developing national strategies Pilot projects Financing ‘readiness activities’ Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA)

7. REDD+ from forest policy perspective REDD+ as the latest international attempt to address deforestation 1992 no forest convention Since then UNFF, CBD, UNFCCC Lacey Act, EU FLEGT How can REDD+ do what other international initiatives have only partly achieved?

8. Two approaches to REDD+ Interdisciplinary Institutional interaction & interaction management

9. Will REDD+ work? How, where and when will REDD+ work? Issues of scope, scale and pace Different views on ‘work’ Prioritization different activities Fundamental critique: Do we want REDD+ to work?

10. Complexity versus simplicity: How will REDD+ work? Two main discussions on scope Co-benefits and safeguards Activities to include

11. Biodiversity and social co-benefits To what extent should biodiversity and livelihoods concerns be incorporated? Co-benefits and safeguards Part of negotiations and other initiatives Scientific discussions

12. Scientific co-benefits debate Ecologists focus on biodiversity co-benefits In beginning: REDD+ would ‘automatically’ also conserve biodiversity Current consensus: biodiversity concerns need to be incorporated into design in order to maximize biodiversity contribution REDD+ Social scientists focus on social co-benefits First: worried about REDD+ worsening situation local communities Now more focused on prerequisites equitable REDD+

13. 2 nd scope debate: Activities to include RED – REDD – REDD+ Should main driver – agriculture – be incorporated, and how?

14. Expanded scope makes REDD+ more complex Choices between assuring success and feasibility

15. Interdisciplinary approach to REDD+ Most research to date disciplinary Current questions need interdisciplinary approach How MRV can incorporate co-benefits Strengthening technical and governance capacity of developing countries for REDD+ Identifying environmental and social impacts Drivers and how to address them Support actors in dealing with inherent complexity of REDD+

16. Institutional interaction & interaction management Embedded in regime literature Since 1990s: regime or institutional interaction Last decade/years: interaction management Important authors: Oberthür, Gehring, Stokke My contributions further development literature Apply new approaches to REDD+

17. 1. Public-private interaction management FCPF, UN-REDD and CCBA influenced UNFCCC by simply starting with REDD+ activities CCBA literally ‘set the standard’ for inclusive REDD+ UNFCCC leaves safeguards to national governments; other (public-private) initiatives ‘demand’ safeguards

18. 2. National level: interactions REDD+ and FLEGT in Ghana Shows the huge potential for synergies between FLEGT and REDD+ in Ghana Only few negative influences discovered, e.g. current focus on REDD+ can take away attention from FLEGT Interaction management needed to realize synergies

19. 3. Practice-based approach How interactions are managed in practice FCPF, UN-REDD and FIP started out competing with each other; partners demanded they work together Current common ‘umbrella framework’ for step-wise approach for REDD+ readiness ‘Meta interaction management’: Developing new structures to address serious problems in interactions

20. Step-wise approach to REDD+ Readiness

21. REDD+ publications Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Interdisciplinary perspectives on REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012. Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary science to address key challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012. Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012. Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Verkooijen P. The Practice of Interaction Management: Enhancing Synergies among Multilateral REDD+ Institutions. In: Arts B et al. (eds). Forest and nature governance: A practice-based approach. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. p. 133-49. Ochieng RM et al. Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana: Recommendations for interaction management. Forest Policy and Economics. 2012. Somorin OA et al. The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: Policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Global Environmental Change. 2012;22(1):288-98. Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Interaction Management by Partnerships: The Case of Biodiversity and Climate Change. Global Environmental Politics. 2011. 11(4):89-107.

22. Ingrid.visseren@wur.nl Thanks for your attention!