The advent of initiatives to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation and enhance forest carbon stocks (REDD+) in developing countries has raised much concern regarding impacts on local communities. To inform this debate, we analyze the initial outcomes of those REDD+ projects that systematically report on their socio-economic dimensions. To categorize and compare projects, we develop a participation and benefits framework that considers REDD+’s effects on local populations’ opportunities (jobs, income), security (of tenure and ecosystem services), and empowerment (participation in land use and development decisions). We find material benefits, in terms of jobs and income, to be, thus far, modest. On the other hand, we find that many projects are helping populations gain tenure rights. A majority of projects are obtaining local populations’ free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). However, for those projects interacting with multiple populations, extent of participation and effects on forest access are often uneven. Our participation and benefits framework can be a useful tool for identifying the multi-faceted socio-economic impacts of REDD+, which are realized under different timescales. The framework and initial trends reported here can be used to build hypotheses for future REDD+ impact evaluations and contribute to evolving theories of incentive-based environmental policy.
References
[1]
Larson, A.M. Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: Lessons for REDD+. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 540–549, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.008.
[2]
Phelps, J.; Webb, E.L.; Agrawal, A. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 2010, 328, 312–313, doi:10.1126/science.1187774.
[3]
Seymour, F.; Angelsen, A. Summary and conclusions: REDD wine in old wineskins? In Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options; Angelsen, A., Ed.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2010; pp. 293–303.
[4]
Brown, D.; Seymour, F.; Peskett, L. How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm? In Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications; Angelsen, A., Ed.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 107–118.
[5]
Ecosecurities. The Forest Carbon Offsetting Report. 2010. Available online: http://www.ecosecurities.com/Standalone/Forest_carbon_offsetting_report_2010/default.aspx (accessed on 5 August 2011).
[6]
Diaz, D.; Hamilton, K.; Johnson, E. State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011: From Canopy to Currency; Forest Trends: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
[7]
Peters-Stanley, M.; Hamilton, K.; Yin, D. Leveraging the Landscape: State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2012; Ecosystem Marketplace: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[8]
Angelsen, A.; Atmadja, S. What is this book about? In Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications; Angelsen, A., Ed.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 1–10.
[9]
Wunder, S. Poverty alleviation and tropical forests—What scope for synergies? World Dev. 2001, 29, 1817–1833, doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5.
[10]
Scherr, S.J. A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between poverty and natural resource degradation. Food Policy 2000, 25, 479–498, doi:10.1016/S0306-9192(00)00022-1.
[11]
Reardon, T.; Vosti, S.A. Links between rural poverty and the environment in developing countries: Asset categories and investment poverty. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1495–1506, doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00061-G.
Barbier, E.B.; Tesfaw, A.T. Can REDD+ save the forest? The role of payments and tenure. Forests 2012, 3, 881–895, doi:10.3390/f3040881.
[14]
Kshatriya, M.; Sills, E.O.; Lin, L. Global database of REDD+ and other forest carbon projects. Interactive map. 2013. Available online: http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/redd-map/ (accessed on 16 February 2013).
[15]
World Bank. World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
[16]
Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Anchor Books: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
[17]
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
[18]
Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422, doi:10.1126/science.1172133.
[19]
Chhatre, A.; Agrawal, A. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 17667–17670, doi:10.1073/pnas.0905308106.
[20]
Persha, L.; Agrawal, A.; Chhatre, A. Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 2011, 331, 1606–1608, doi:10.1126/science.1199343.
[21]
Anderson, P. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development; RECOFTC and GTZ: Bangkok, Thailand, 2011.
[22]
Cooke, B.; Kothari, U. Participation: The New Tyranny?; Zed Books: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
[23]
Hickey, S.; Mohan, G. Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Dev. Change 2005, 36, 237–262, doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00410.x.
[24]
Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1969, 35, 216–224.
[25]
Ecosystem Marketplace. Forest Carbon News. Available online: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/newsletters/forest_carbon_new.php?newsletterID=257 (accessed on 21 May 2011).
[26]
Fogarty, D. Special Report: How Indonesia hurt its climate change project. Reuters, 16 August 2011. Available online: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/16/us-indonesia-carbon-idUSTRE77F0IK20110816 (accessed on 15 June 2012).
[27]
Hasan, N. Aceh Angry Over Sale of Carbon Credits to Miner. Jakarta Globe, 7, May, 2011.
[28]
Jindal, R. Livelihood impacts of forest carbon services: field evidence from Mozambique. In Payments for Environmental Services, Forest Conservation and Climate Change: Livelihoods in the REDD?; Tacconi, L., Mahanty, S., Sulch, H., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Northampton, UK, 2010; pp. 185–211.
[29]
Sunderlin, W.; Hatcher, J.; Liddle, M. From Exclusion to Ownership: Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform; Rights and Resources Initiative: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
[30]
Funder, M. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD): An Overview of Risks and Opportunities for the Poor; Danish Institute for International Studies: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009.
[31]
Murray, B.C.; Lubowski, R.; Sohngen, B. Including International Forest Carbon Incentives in Climate Policy: Understanding the Economics; Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University: Durham, NC, USA, 2009.
[32]
DeFries, R.S.; Rudel, T.; Uriarte, M.; Hansen, M. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 178–181, doi:10.1038/ngeo756.
[33]
Wunder, S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13, 279–297, doi:10.1017/S1355770X08004282.
[34]
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295)USA, Adopted 13 September 2007.
[35]
Awono, A.; Somorin, O.A.; Atyi, R.E.; Levang, P. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: Insights from southern Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013. in press, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.017.
[36]
Sunderlin, W.D.; Sills, E.O. REDD+ projects as a hybrid of old and new forest conservation approaches. In Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices; Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L.V., Eds.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2012; pp. 177–191.
[37]
Caplow, S.; Jagger, P.; Lawlor, K.; Sills, E. Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 152–167, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003.
[38]
UNFCCC. Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention; FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/L.4; UNFCCC: Bonn, Germany, 2012.
[39]
World Bank. Poverty and Social Impact Analysis for Climate Change Development Policy Operations; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
[40]
Streck, C. Financing REDD+: Matching needs and ends. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 628–637, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.001.
[41]
UNFCCC. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperation under the Convention. Decision 1/CP.16. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Parties on its Sixteenth Session, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November–10 December 2010; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Bonn, Germany, 2010. FCC/CP/2010/7 Add.1.
[42]
UNFCCC. Decision on guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected and modalities relating to forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels as referred to in decision 1/CP.16. Decision 12/CP.17. 2012.
[43]
Land and Power: The Growing Scandal Surrounding the New Wave of Investments in Land. Oxfam, 2011. Available online: http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/policy/land-and-power (accessed on 23 September 2011).
[44]
Lawlor, K.; Weinthal, E.; Olander, L.P. Institutions and policies to protect rural livelihoods in REDD+ regimes. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2010, 10, 1–11, doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00028.
