REDD+ Projects and Their Impact on Household Incomes in Indonesian Borneo
Additional Files
In Indonesia, early Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) projects, established in the early 2010s, were required to self-fund through carbon credit sales or donor aid while supporting local livelihoods. This paper examines the impact of REDD+ projects on both agricultural and overall household incomes (i.e., from all economic activities, including agriculture). We hypothesize that the agricultural incomes of REDD+ participating households (or treated households) would decrease as REDD+ forbids forest clearance, but this loss would be offset by a subsequent rise in overall household income as REDD+ encourages income diversification. Additionally, we assess whether REDD+ implementation has an intra-community 'spillover' effect by comparing the incomes of households living in REDD+ villages but abstaining from participation, with those in non-REDD+ (control) villages. We evaluate two such projects in Indonesian Borneo (Kalimantan) using panel survey data from over 400 households, collected in 2010, 2014, and 2018. Our analysis employs panel difference-in-differences in matched samples. Overall, our results reveal a small, heterogeneous impact of REDD+ on household incomes. While we found no significant impact in East Kalimantan’s BFCP site, participation in Central Kalimantan’s KMP site led to a reduced agricultural income over the short term (2010-2014). However, we detected no improvement in overall household income, nor did we find this impact to be long-lasting. We also found no conclusive evidence of intra-community spillover effects. The short-term income shock observed at the KMP site, despite its small overall magnitude, indicates the need for strategies to support and safeguard household incomes against temporary disruptions associated with REDD+ implementation. Our research contributes to the broader discourse on REDD+ performance, echoing previous findings of its mixed and modest impact on local communities' incomes globally.
Abadie, A. (2005). Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators. The review of economic studies, 72(1), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00321
Afiff, S. (2015). Learning from green enclosure practice in Indonesia: Katingan REDD+ case study project in Central Kalimantan. International Conference Paper Series No. 67, Chiang May University. Retrieved from https://www.iss.nl/sites/corpora te/files/CMCP_67-Afiff.pdf
Anandi, C. A. M., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Komalasari, M., Ekaputri, A. D., & Itarini, D. Y. (2014). TNC's initiative within the Berau forest carbon Program, east kalimantan, Indonesia. In Sills, E. O., S. Atmadja, C. De Sassi, A. E. Duchelle, D. L. Kweka, & I. A. P. Resosuda (Eds.), REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe (pp. 363-378). Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., ... & Wunder, S. (2014). Environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. World development, 64, S12-S28. https://doi.org/10.10 16/j.worlddev.2014.03.006
Asfaw, A., Lemenih, M., Kassa, H., & Ewnetu, Z. (2013). Importance, determinants and gender dimensions of forest income in eastern highlands of Ethiopia: The case of communities around Jelo Afromontane forest. Forest Policy and Economics, 28, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.005
Astuti, R., & McGregor, A. (2015). Responding to the green economy: how REDD+ and the One Map Initiative are transforming forest governance in Indonesia. Third World Quarterly, 36(12), 2273-2293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015. 1082422
Astuti, R., & McGregor, A. (2017). Indigenous land claims or green grabs? Inclusions and exclusions within forest carbon politics in Indonesia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 44(2), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1197908
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?. The Quarterly journal of economics, 119(1), 249-275. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355304772839588
Biland, M., Zeb, A., Ullah, A., & Kaechele, H. (2021). Why do households depend on the forest for income? Analysis of factors influencing households’ decision-making behaviors. Sustainability, 13(16), 9419. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169419
Brockhaus, M., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Sehring, J., Di Gregorio, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Babon, A., ... & Zida, M. (2017). REDD+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: a qualitative comparative analysis. Climate Policy, 17(6), 708-730. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1169392
Caplow, S., Jagger, P., Lawlor, K., & Sills, E. (2011). Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.envsci.2010.10.003
Carrilho, C. D., Demarchi, G., Duchelle, A. E., Wunder, S., & Morsello, C. (2022). Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil). Ecological Economics, 201, 107568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2022.107568
Chervier, C., & Costedoat, S. (2017). Heterogeneous impact of a collective payment for environmental services scheme on reducing deforestation in Cambodia. World Development, 98, 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.014
Chomba, S., Kariuki, J., Lund, J. F., & Sinclair, F. (2016). Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land use policy, 50, 202-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.021
Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Exeter, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Coe-2002.pdf
Duchelle, A. E., de Sassi, C., Jagger, P., Cromberg, M., Larson, A. M., Sunderlin, W. D., ... & Pratama, C. D. (2017). Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+ implications for social safeguards. Ecology and Society, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-0933 4-220302
Duchelle, A. E., de Sassi, C., Sills, E. O., & Wunder, S. (2018). People and communities: Well-being impacts of REDD+ on the ground. In Angelsen, A. E., Martius, C., de Sy, V., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A. M., & Pham, T. T. (Eds)., Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions (pp. 131–141). CIFOR-ICRAF.
Enrici, A., & Hubacek, K. (2019). A crisis of confidence: stakeholder experiences of REDD+ in Indonesia. Human ecology, 47(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s107 45-019-0045-z
Enrici, A. M., & Hubacek, K. (2018). Challenges for REDD+ in Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09805-230207
Fatem, S. M., Awang, S. A., Pudyatmoko, S., Sahide, M. A., Pratama, A. A., & Maryudi, A. (2018). Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia. Land use policy, 78, 699-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2018.07.018
Gatto, A., & Sadik-Zada, E. R. (2024). REDD+ in Indonesia: An assessment of the international environmental program. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05368-w
Groom, B., & Palmer, C. (2012). REDD+ and rural livelihoods. Biological conservation, 154, 42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.002
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political analysis, 15(3), 199-236. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mp 1013
Indriatmoko, Y., Atmadja, S., Utomo, N. A., Ekaputri, A. D., & Komalasari, M. (2014). Katingan Peatland Restoration and Conservation Project, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In Sills, E. O., Atmadja, S. S., de Sassi, C., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D. L., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., & Sunderlin, W. D. (Eds)., REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. CIFOR.
Ingalls, M. L., & Dwyer, M. B. (2016). Missing the forest for the trees? Navigating the trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation under REDD. Climatic Change, 136(2), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1612-6
Jagger, P., & Rana, P. (2017). Using publicly available social and spatial data to evaluate progress on REDD+ social safeguards in Indonesia. Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.006
Jayachandran, S., De Laat, J., Lambin, E. F., Stanton, C. Y., Audy, R., & Thomas, N. E. (2017). Cash for carbon: A randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science, 357(6348), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci ence.aan0568
Ken, S., Entani, T., Tsusaka, T. W., & Sasaki, N. (2020). Effect of REDD+ projects on local livelihood assets in Keo Seima and Oddar Meanchey, Cambodia. Heliyon, 6(4), e03802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03802
Korhonen-Kurki, K., Brockhaus, M., Bushley, B., Babon, A., Gebara, M. F., Kengoum, F., ... & Maharani, C. (2016). Coordination and cross-sectoral integration in REDD+: experiences from seven countries. Climate and development, 8(5), 458-471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015.1050979
Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Parrotta, J. A. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science, 310(5754), 1628-1632. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1 111773
Larson, A. M., Solis, D., Duchelle, A. E., Atmadja, S., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Dokken, T., & Komalasari, M. (2018). Gender lessons for climate initiatives: A comparative study of REDD+ impacts on subjective wellbeing. World Development, 108, 86-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.027
Liu, G., Liu, Q., Song, M., Chen, J., Zhang, C., Meng, X., ... & Lu, H. (2020). Costs and carbon sequestration assessment for REDD+ in Indonesia. Forests, 11(7), 770. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11070770
Massarella, K., Sallu, S. M., Ensor, J. E., & Marchant, R. (2018). REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: The dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Development, 109, 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worl ddev.2018.05.006
Mcelwee, P. D. (2008). Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use. Environmental conservation, 35(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892908004736
Miles, W. B. (2021). The invisible commodity: Local experiences with forest carbon offsetting in Indonesia. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(2), 499-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620905235
Moeliono, M., Brockhaus, M., Gallemore, C., Dwisatrio, B., Maharani, C. D., Muharrom, E., & Pham, T. T. (2020). REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project? Forest Policy and Economics, 121, 102316. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.forpol.2020.102316
Montoya-Zumaeta, J. G., Wunder, S., Rojas, E., & Duchelle, A. E. (2022). Does REDD+ complement law enforcement? Evaluating impacts of an incipient initiative in Madre de Dios, Peru. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 870450. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.870450
Pasgaard, M. (2015). Lost in translation? How project actors shape REDD+ policy and outcomes in C ambodia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(1), 111-127. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/apv.12082
Rakatama, A., Pandit, R., Iftekhar, S., & Ma, C. (2018). Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes. Land Use Policy, 78, 266-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.004
Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Duchelle, A. E., Ekaputri, A. D., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2012). Local hopes and worries about REDD+ projects. In Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices (pp. 193–208). CIFOR.
Rochmayanto, Y., Nurrochmat, D. R., Nugroho, B., Darusman, D., & Satria, A. (2019). Implementation of REDD+ in the existing forest property rights: lessons from Berau, East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 285(1), 012007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/2 85/1/012007
Sanders, A. J., Ford, R. M., Mulyani, L., Larson, A. M., Jagau, Y., & Keenan, R. J. (2019). Unrelenting games: Multiple negotiations and landscape transformations in the tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Development, 117, 196-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.01.008
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of modern applied statistical methods, 8(2), 597–599. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/12570 35100
Seymour, F., & Busch, J. (2016). Why forests? Why now?: The science, economics, and politics of tropical forests and climate change. Brookings Institution Press.
Sills, E. O., de Sassi, C., Jagger, P., Lawlor, K., Miteva, D. A., Pattanayak, S. K., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2017). Building the evidence base for REDD+: Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being. Global environmental change, 43, 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glo envcha.2017.02.002
Simonet, G., Subervie, J., Ezzine‐de‐Blas, D., Cromberg, M., & Duchelle, A. E. (2019). Effectiveness of a REDD+ project in reducing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(1), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay028
Solis, D., Cronkleton, P., Sills, E. O., Rodriguez-Ward, D., & Duchelle, A. E. (2021). Evaluating the impact of REDD+ interventions on household forest revenue in Peru. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 624724. https://doi.org/10.338 9/ffgc.2021.624724
Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1-21- https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
Sunderlin, W. D., Ekaputri, A. D., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D., Diprose, R., ... & Toniolo, A. (2014). The challenge of establishing REDD+ on the ground: Insights from 23 subnational initiatives in six countries (Vol. 104). CIFOR.
Sunderlin, W. D., De Sassi, C., Ekaputri, A. D., Light, M., & Pratama, C. D. (2017). REDD+ contribution to well-being and income is marginal: the perspective of local stakeholders. Forests, 8(4), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8040125
Sunderlin, W. D., Atmadja, S. S., Chervier, C., Komalasari, M., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., & Sills, E. O. (2024). Can REDD+ succeed? Occurrence and influence of various combinations of interventions in subnational initiatives. Global Environmental Change, 84, 102777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102777
Tacconi, L., & Muttaqin, M. Z. (2019). Policy forum: Institutional architecture and activities to reduce emissions from forests in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 108, 101980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101980
Yuniarti, Y., Tendy, T., Budiman, B., & Prakoso, C. T. (2019). Political Economy of Berau Forest Carbon Program Implementation. ICONEG 2019: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Environmental Governance (pp. 58-65). http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/eai.25-10-2019.2300489
Copyright (c) 2025 Forest and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice
