Dataverse

The Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) was launched in 2009 by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) to ensure that policy-makers and practitioner communities have access to – and use – the information, analyses and tools they need to: design and implement REDD+ and other forest-based mitigation strategies in effective, efficient and equitable ways that also promote social and environmental co-benefits; and rigorously assess to what degree REDD+ has delivered. Module 2 (Subnational REDD+ and low emissions development initiatives) focuses on assessing the performance of subnational REDD+ and other low-emission development initiatives, including subnational jurisdictional programmes and local-level projects. Module 2 evaluated the impacts of 23 REDD+ project and program sites in six countries: Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru, Tanzania and Vietnam. The research uses a before–after/control–intervention (BACI) approach. In this approach, identical data are collected both before and after the initiative starts, and in an ‘intervention’ area (that is, the location that is impacted by the REDD+ initiative) and a ‘control’ area (that is, a location that has similar characteristics to the intervention area, but is not impacted by the REDD+ initiative). Data collection for the first round (baseline) was carried out in 2010/11 (hereafter referred as ‘Phase 1’), and for the second round (midline) in 2013/14 (hereafter referred as ‘Phase 2’). In 2018/19, a third round (endline) of data collection (hereafter referred as ‘Phase 3’) was conducted at eight of the study sites in three countries (Brazil, Peru and Indonesia). At each site, four intervention villages and four control villages were surveyed. In each village, three types of data collection instruments were implemented in three research phases: a Household Questionnaire; a Village Questionnaire; and a Women’s Questionnaire. The Village dataset corresponds to the Village Questionnaire, which is divided into 10 main sections: 1. Basic information on demography, settlement, and infrastructure; 2. Village institutions and forest use regulations and rules; 3. Wages and prices; 4. Development projects/income to village (Phase 1 only); 5. Village land tenure and use; 6. Basic information on livelihoods in the village and change over time; 7. Change in forest area, quality, and use; 8. Views on tenure security over agricultural and forest resources; 9. Perceptions on changes in wellbeing; and, 10. Involvement in and assessment of forest interventions. Information sources for this questionnaire are secondary data, own observations and interviews with key informants for sections 1 to 5, and village meetings (or focus groups) that consist of 10–15 adults (>16 years of age) for sections 5 to 10. The village dataset includes 150 villages in Phase 1 (87 intervention and 63 control villages) and 149 in Phase 2 (87 intervention and 62 control villages), while in Phase 3 includes 65 villages (33 intervention and 32 control villages) Variables from Phase 1 start with P1V_section&question number, variables from Phase 2 start with P2V_section&question number, and variables from Phase 3 start with P3V_section&question number. The research design and methods are further described in Sunderlin et al. (2016) as well as in several GCS REDD+ publications (see ‘Related publications’). (2019)