Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although conservation efforts have sometimes succeeded in meeting environmental goals at the expense of equity considerations, the changing context of conservation and a growing body of evidence increasingly suggest that equity considerations should be integrated into conservation planning and implementation. However, this approach is often perceived to be at odds with the prevailing focus on economic efficiency that characterizes many payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. Drawing from examples across the literature, we show how the equity impacts of PES can create positive and negative feedbacks that influence ecological outcomes. We caution against equity-blind PES, which overlooks these relationships as a result of a primary and narrow focus on economic efficiency. We call for further analysis and better engagement between the social and ecological science communities to understand the relationships and trade-offs among efficiency, equity, and ecological outcomes.

A major new approach to emissions mitigation may interrupt a promising trend toward decentralized forest management. Over the past 25 years, developing countries have transitioned toward decentralized forest management that allows local actors increased rights and responsibilities ( 1 – 4 ), and has helped protect forests in many regions ( 5 , 6 ). A new approach to mitigating terrestrial emissions associated with climate change, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), is poised to interrupt this trend. Given the implications for tropical forest management, REDD+ governance links should be a research priority ( 7 ).

Benefit-sharing mechanisms are a central design aspect of REDD+ because they help to create the necessary incentives to reduce carbon emissions. However, if stakeholders do not perceive the benefit sharing as fair, the legitimacy of REDD+, and support for the mechanism, will be weakened. In this paper, drawing on data from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, we analyze national policy processes in 6 countries and incipient benefit-sharing arrangements in 21 REDD+ project sites. Through our analysis of current practices and debates, we identify six rationales that have been put forward to justify how benefits should be distributed and to whom. These rationales encompass a range of perspectives. Some hold that benefit sharing should be related to actual carbon emission reductions or to costs incurred in achieving the reduction of emissions; others emphasize the importance of a legal right to benefit, the need to consider aspects such as poverty reduction or the appropriateness of rewarding those with a history of protecting the forest. Each rationale has implications for the design of benefit-sharing mechanisms and the equity of their outcomes. We point out that, given the wide range of rationales and interests at play, the objectives of REDD+ and benefit sharing must be clearly established and the term “benefit” defined before effective benefit-sharing mechanisms can be designed. For stakeholders to support REDD+, the legitimacy of decision-making institutions, consideration of context, and attention to process are critical. Building legitimacy requires attention not only to fair distributional outcomes but also to consensus on relevant institutions’ authority to make decisions and to procedural equity.

Protected areas (PAs) now shelter 54% of the remaining forests of the Brazilian Amazon and contain 56% of its forest carbon. However, the role of these PAs in reducing carbon fluxes to the atmosphere from deforestation and their associated costs are still uncertain. To fill this gap, we analyzed the effect of each of 595 Brazilian Amazon PAs on deforestation using a metric that accounts for differences in probability of deforestation in areas of pairwise comparison. We found that the three major categories of PA (indigenous land, strictly protected, and sustainable use) showed an inhibitory effect, on average, between 1997 and 2008. Of 206 PAs created after the year 1999, 115 showed increased effectiveness after their designation as protected. The recent expansion of PAs in the Brazilian Amazon was responsible for 37% of the region's total reduction in deforestation between 2004 and 2006 without provoking leakage. All PAs, if fully implemented, have the potential to avoid 8.0 ± 2.8 Pg of carbon emissions by 2050. Effectively implementing PAs in zones under high current or future anthropogenic threat offers high payoffs for reducing carbon emissions, and as a result should receive special attention in planning investments for regional conservation. Nevertheless, this strategy demands prompt and predictable resource streams. The Amazon PA network represents a cost of US$147 ± 53 billion (net present value) for Brazil in terms of forgone profits and investments needed for their consolidation. These costs could be partially compensated by an international climate accord that includes economic incentives for tropical countries that reduce their carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

The expansion of cocoa farms is a major driver of deforestation and emissions in Ghana’s high forest zone. The Ghana Cocoa Forest Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Program (REDD+) was launched as the world’s first commodity-based initiative to address emissions from deforestation caused by cocoa production and generate non-carbon benefits. Hotspot Intervention Areas were established to implement the Ghana Cocoa REDD+ program. This study combines Q-methodology with focus group discussions and interviews to assess stakeholder perceptions in the Juabuso-Bia cocoa landscape regarding the capacity of the Hotspot Intervention Area to facilitate the generation of governance and economic non-carbon benefits to sustain emission reductions. We found that introducing the Hotspot Intervention Area has re-centralized landscape governance, which, coupled with weak collaboration among stakeholders, has led to poor generation of non-carbon benefits. Furthermore, efforts to include women in the leadership structure of the Hotspot Intervention Area can be described as tokenism, and little has been done to improve land and tree tenure for vulnerable groups. This, combined with the low adoption of climate-smart cocoa practices, is likely to negatively affect the generation of economic non-carbon benefits. To overcome these challenges, we recommend reforming the Hotspot Intervention Area, bolstering community-level sensitization, improving access to decision-making spaces that will enhance the participation of women and minority groups in landscape governance, and improving farmers’ tenure security through a registration scheme for land and trees. These recommendations can ensure the efficient generation of non-carbon benefits, which are key to the success of REDD+.

Efforts to mitigate climate change through the Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) depend on mapping and monitoring of tropical forest carbon stocks and emissions over large geographic areas. With a new integrated use of satellite imaging, airborne light detection and ranging, and field plots, we mapped aboveground carbon stocks and emissions at 0.1-ha resolution over 4.3 million ha of the Peruvian Amazon, an area twice that of all forests in Costa Rica, to reveal the determinants of forest carbon density and to demonstrate the feasibility of mapping carbon emissions for REDD. We discovered previously unknown variation in carbon storage at multiple scales based on geologic substrate and forest type. From 1999 to 2009, emissions from land use totaled 1.1% of the standing carbon throughout the region. Forest degradation, such as from selective logging, increased regional carbon emissions by 47% over deforestation alone, and secondary regrowth provided an 18% offset against total gross emissions. Very high-resolution monitoring reduces uncertainty in carbon emissions for REDD programs while uncovering fundamental environmental controls on forest carbon storage and their interactions with land-use change.

Reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+) is key to mitigating global climate change. The aim of REDD+ social safeguards is to ensure that REDD+ does not harm, and actually benefits, local people. To be eligible for results-based compensation through REDD+, countries should develop national-level safeguard information systems to monitor and report on the impacts of REDD+. Although safeguards represent a key step for promoting social responsibility in REDD+, they are challenging to operationalize and monitor. We analyzed the impacts of different types of REDD+ interventions (incentives vs. disincentives) on key safeguard-relevant indicators, i.e., tenure security, participation, and subjective well-being, as well as on reported forest clearing. We used household-level data collected in Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam from approximately 4000 households in 130 villages at two points in time (2010-2012 and 2013-2014). Our findings highlight a decrease in perceived tenure security and overall perceived well-being over time for households exposed to disincentives alone, with the addition of incentives helping to alleviate negative effects on well-being. In Brazil, although disincentives were associated with reduced reported forest clearing by smallholders, they were the intervention that most negatively affected perceived well-being, highlighting a clear trade-off between carbon and noncarbon benefits. Globally, although households exposed to REDD+ interventions were generally aware of local REDD+ initiatives, meaningful participation in initiative design and implementation lagged behind. Our analysis contributes to a relatively small literature that seeks to operationalize REDD+ social safeguards empirically and to evaluate the impacts of REDD+ interventions on local people and forests.

There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade-offs. A focus on trade-offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade-offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade-offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate-change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade-offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community-based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade-offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade-offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view. Cada vez hay un mayor reconocimiento de que la conservación a menudo conlleva trade-offs. Un enfoque en los trade-offs puede abrir el camino hacia una consideración más completa de los efectos positivos y negativos asociados con las iniciativas de conservación. Sin embargo, al analizar los trade-offs de la conservación es importante atender las complejidades inherentes al contexto social de la conservación. En particular, es importante reconocer que las consecuencias de las actividades de conservación son experimentadas, percibidas y comprendidas de manera diferente desde perspectivas diversas, y que estas perspectivas se insertan en sistemas sociales y relaciones de poder preexistentes. Ilustramos el papel de los trade-offs en la conservación y las complejidades que implica su entendimiento con debates recientes en torno de REDD (Reducción de Emisiones por Deforestación y Degradación), una política de conservación global diseñada para crear incentivos para reducir la deforestación tropical. A menudo descrito en términos de los múltiples beneficios que puede proporcionar - disminución de la pobreza, conservación de biodiversidad y mitigación de cambio climático - REDD puede implicar trade-offs sustanciales. Las ganancias de REDD podrían implicar la reducción de incentivos para que los países industrializados reduzcan sus emisiones de carbono; la reubicación de la deforestación en sitios no afectados por REDD; el incremento de la inequidad en lugares donde la gente que vive de los bosques no tiene certeza sobre la tenencia de la tierra; la pérdida de diversidad biológica y cultural que no se alinea directamente con los esquemas de REDD; y la erosión de los medios comunitarios para la protección de bosques. Consideramos que es importante reconocer los trade-offs de las iniciativas de conservación como REDD y examinarlos de manera abierta e Integradora que incluya una variedad de herramientas, métodos y puntos de vista.

Will community monitoring assist in delivering just and equitable REDD+? We assessed whether local communities can effectively estimate carbon stocks in some of the world’s most carbon rich forests, using simple field protocols, and we reviewed whether community monitoring exists in current REDD+ pilots. We obtained similar results for forest carbon when measured by communities and professional foresters in 289 vegetation plots in Southeast Asia. Most REDD+ monitoring schemes, however, contain no community involvement. To close the gulf between United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change texts on involving communities and field implementation realities, we propose greater embedding of community monitoring within national REDD+ pilot schemes, which we argue will lead to a more just REDD+.

The scope of the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) mechanism has broadened REDD+ to accommodate different country interests such as natural forests, protected areas, as well as forests under community-based management. In Tanzania the REDD+ mechanism is still under development and pilot projects are at an early stage. In this paper, we seek to understand how local priorities and needs could be met in REDD+ implementation and how these expectations match with global mitigation benefits. We examine the local priorities and needs in the use of land and forest resources in the Angai Villages Land Forest Reserve (AVLFR) in the Liwale District of Lindi Region in Tanzania. Primary data was collected in two villages, Mihumo and Lilombe, using semistructured key informant interviews and participatory rural appraisal methods. In addition, the key informant interviews were conducted with other village, district, and national level actors, as well as international donors. Findings show that in the two communities REDD+ is seen as something new and is generating new expectations among communities. However, the Angai villagers highlight three key priorities that have yet to be integrated into the design of REDD+: water scarcity, rural development, and food security. At the local level improved forest governance and sustainable management of forest resources have been identified as one way to achieve livelihood diversification. Although the national goals of REDD+ include poverty reduction, these goals are not necessarily conducive to the goals of these communities. There exist both structural and cultural limits to the ability of the Angai villages to implement these goals and to improve forestry governance. Given the vulnerability to current and future climate variability and change it will be important to consider how the AVLFR will be managed and for whose benefit?