REDD+ Working Group of Central Sulawesi Province

According to Central Sulawesi Province (2011), on February 18, 2011, there were 77 REDD+ working group members in total, 4 members of the advisory board, 8 coordinators, and 65 members of the working group. However, just over 50 % of members were actively involved in the UN-REDD Programme Indonesia. Each sub-working group was represented by multi-stakeholders, composed of govern­ment, academic, local NGOs, local community, and private sectors. This composi­tion enabled the working group members to share their knowledge and concerns from different perspectives. The sub-working groups were in authority of the following tasks:

a. Sub-working group I is responsible for formulating the local strategy to support REDD+ implementation.

b. Sub-working group II prepares the institutional and methodological strategy.

c. Sub-working group III is in charge of developing criteria and indicators for demonstration activities.

d. Sub-working group IV is accountable for enabling capacity building to attain consensus on the basis of free, prior, and information consent (FPIC).

19.4.3.1 Knowledge Level of REDD+ Working Group

The 36 questions in the knowledge section of the questionnaire encompassed knowledge of terminology, regulations, and activities related to the REDD+ program. The questions were used to assess the knowledge level of REDD+ working group members. The number of ‘yes’ answers were counted and averaged as a percentage to obtain a score. According to each type of stakeholder, the results in

Government Academics Local Local NGO Private (N=11) (N=5) Community (N=3) Sector (N=3)

(N=4)

■ Average percentage of yes answer to the knowledge questions (%) Fig. 19.4 Level of knowledge between stakeholders

High School Bachelor (N=8) Master (N=13) Doctor (N=2) (N=3)

■ Average percentage of yes answer to the knowledge question (%)

Fig. 19.5 Level of knowledge based on education

Fig. 19.4 show that the academics had the highest knowledge of REDD+, attaining 80 %, followed by the government and the local community, who obtained 79 %. The local NGO achieved 77 % and the private sector had the least knowledge, scoring only 69 %.

In relationship to education level, the knowledge level of holders of doctor’s, master’s, and bachelor’s degrees and high school graduates were 89 %, 79 %, 74 %, and 73 %, respectively (Fig. 19.5).

Male (N=19) Female (N=7)

■ Average percentage of yes answer to the knowledge question (%)

Regarding gender, men achieved 78 % and women gained 75 % (Fig. 19.6). After categorizing the questions into four parts, the results are as follows

(Fig. 19.7):

a. There are two questions in the red level (6 %): Project Idea Note (PIN) or Concept Note; and Have you ever read/known the standard of project develop­ment and/or carbon market mechanism outside REDD+?

b. There are eight questions in the yellow level (22 %): Project Design Document (PDD); Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS); Certified Emission Reduction (CER); Leakage; Business as Usual (BAU); Structure of REDD+ Financial Mechanism; Ministry of Forestry (2009a); and Measurement above and below ground carbon.

c. There are five questions in the green level (14 %): Carbon Offset; Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P. 68/Menhut-II/2008 on demonstration activities (DA); Ministry of Forestry (2009b); National Action Plan on Climate Change; and Total of carbon emissions from forestry sector.

d. The 21 questions in the blue level (58 %): Have you ever heard of REDD+ mechanisms/program?; Do you follow REDD+ progress?; REDD/REDD+ meaning; The differences between REDD and REDD+; Reference Emissions Level (REL); Measureable Reportable Verifiable (MRV); Demonstration Activ­ities (DA); REDD+ Working Group; Co-benefit of REDD+; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); UNREDD Programme Indonesia; Cleaning Development Mechanism (CDM); Safeguards; Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); Carbon stock; Kyoto Protocol; Climate change mitigation; Climate change adaptation; Greenhouse gas emissions; REDD+

Table 19.1 Model summary of knowledge level

Change statistics

Adjusted

SE

of the

R

squared

F

df

df

Significant

Durbin-

Model R R2 R squared

estimate

change

change

1

2

F change

Watson

1 0.704a 0.496 0.370

8.12751

0.496

3.938

5

20

0.012

2.169

aPredictors: (constant), participation, education, gender, age, stakeholder Dependent variable: knowledge

Table 19.2 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of knowledge level

Model

Sum of squares

df

Mean square

F

Significance

Regression

1,300.536

5

260.107

3.938

0.012a

Residual

1,321.128

20

66.056

Total

2,621.664

25

aPredictors: (constant), participation, education, gender, age, stakeholder Dependent variable: knowledge

National Strategy; and President Soesilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s statement that Indonesia will reduce emissions 26 % by 2020 and by 41 % with international support.

Statistical analysis using the ANOVA calculation in Tables 19.1 and 19.2 showed that knowledge as a dependent variable could be explained by participation, education, gender, age, and stakeholder as independent variables with a signifi­cance of 0.012 and an R2 of 0.496.

The model of knowledge level was as follows:

LK = 60.138 – (0.365 * SH) + (1.213 * EDU) – (0.411 * AGE)

+ (3.089 * GDR) + (1.053 * PAR)

where LK is level of knowledge; SH is stakeholder; EDU is education; AGE is age; GDR is gender; and PAR is participation (Table 19.3).

REDD+ working group members obtained REDD+ issues information from a range of sources. Ninety-two percent of members obtained REDD+ information from seminars, workshops, and focus group discussions, 62 % from books and the Internet, 46 % from leaflets or brochures, 42 % from newspapers, and 21 % from television. This result revealed that knowledge on REDD+ issues was highly affected by participation in seminars, workshops, and focus group discussions. In addition, 54 % of working group members were of the opinion that the amount of REDD+ information provided was sufficient.

19.4.3.2 Opinion of REDD+ Working Group

The opinions of REDD+ working group members were assessed by asking 21 ques­tions using a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data were analyzed using ANOVA (Table 19.4), chi-square test, and multiple comparisons least-square distance (LSD) to distinguish whether all stakeholders had the same opinion on particular REDD+ issues (Table 19.5). The statistical analysis of the chi-square test was 2.5 x 10-13 and the significance was 0.034 (Table 19.4). The results confirmed that the respondents had varying opinions. The variations between stakeholders are summarized in Table 19.5.