1. Jurisdictional approaches and multistakeholder governance
Amy Duchelle & Nining Liswanti

2. RESEARCH ON SUBNATIONAL JURISDICTIONAL APPROACHES
> 50 countries with national REDD+ strategies as part of NDCs (many with notable subnational action)
Emerging market-based mechanisms (Article 6 of Paris Agreement, CA cap-and-trade, CORSIA, Shell NBS) focus on jurisdictional programs
JAs way to integrate REDD+ incentives, sustainable supply chain initiatives, domestic policy and finance to promote broader climate and development objectives

3. Reduction relative to FREL
KEY FINDINGS: GLOBAL SUMMARY
19 of 39
Reduction relative to FREL
38 of 39
Formal commitments 39
Jurisdictions
Tropical forest
28%
6.8
GtC02e
Avoided emissions
69.2
GtC
Total carbon stock

4. PROGRESS TO JURISDICTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY
Most advanced: Integrated Low-Emissions Development Strategies, Performance Targets, & Multi-stakeholder Processes
Early: MRV, Company-Government Partnerships, & LED Finance

5. Coordination, such as MSFs, as a solution, but…
It is important to distinguish between coordination failures in REDD+ policy and implementation that can be addressed through improved coordination, and those that arise from fundamental differences in goals and interests (Larson et al. 2018)
The Multi-Stakeholders Forum project emerged from our study of Multilevel governance under the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ with development goals at the landscape level. Here we focus on the role of multi-stakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions”. We start this study in 2018.
One of the main findings of our study was the wide recognition of coordination problems: across sectors, across levels and with IPLCs.
In general, people are very optimistic about coordination: but not always recognizing why it is so difficult. Here in this picture you see a group of people, and the questions: are we putting together a puzzle, or are we playing poker?
Based on that reason, we decided to study Multistakeholder processes, and forums specifically.
The research includes several literature reviews, as well as the fieldwork, and developing monitoring tools to assess the effectiveness and equity of the MSF.

6. Fieldwork Acre – Zoneamento Ecológico-Econômico
Loreto – Mesa PIACI
Madre de Dios – Comité de Gestión Reserva Comunal Amarakaeri
San Martin – Comité de Gestión Bosque de Protección Alto Mayo
Ucayali – Mesa Regional Manejo Forestal Comunitario
Acre – Zoneamento Ecológico-Econômico
Mato Grosso – Zoneamento Sócioeconômico Ecológico
Pará – Programa Municípios Verdes
PPCDAm*
Oromia – SHARE Bale Eco-region
Oromia – Jamma-Urji Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration
Central Kalimantan – INOBU-UNILEVER Palm Oil Initiative
East Kalimantan – Regional Council on Climate Change
Jambi – Regional Peatland Restoration Team
West Java – Integrated Citarum Management Investment Program
We conducted the fieldwork in four countries including Peru, Brazil, Ethiopia and Indonesia.
A total of 14 fórums; 548 interviews (72% male)
13 are subnational but we included Brazil’s Action plan for the prevention and control of deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAM)
9 members of GCF TF (Governance Climate Forest Task Force)
In our study, there is a wide range of types in regards of the MSF. We have some that are planning commissions (the ZEE in Brazil), others are protected área management committees.
In our study, only 4 MSF are dealing with are REDD or REDD related but this is partly because there weren’t enough to fit our criteria; or they hadn’t been around long enough to study, or they were not considered very important by our key informants when we were selecting cases.

7. In this study we have Multiple methods and innovations such as interviewing non-participants.
The reason is because We wanted to understand CONTEXT and we wanted to get MULTIPLE perspectives.

8. Preliminary findings
Different participants have different ideas about the purpose, effectiveness, equity, outcomes of MSFs. This is very important in understanding whether they work or not (or more accurately, for whom and for what)
Organizers do not see power as something to resolve in the MSF, because they see the MSF itself as resolving this
Many participants find “transparency” to be worrisome, e.g. if participants are too transparent with information, maps, and legal documents, others may use it against them.

9. Key questions for impact
When are MSFs appropriate and when are they not?
In what conditions are effectiveness and equity at odds, and how can this best be addressed?
What practical steps can be taken to improve equity and outcomes for marginalized groups?
How effect change beyond the forum and over time?