Abstract
Currently, many studies on benefit sharing mechanisms (BSM) and the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD+) focus on poverty alleviation and livelihood development. However, relatively few studies incorporate an integrated livelihood framework. This study employs the sustainable livelihoods framework to assess the impact of BSM in Vietnam. The lessons learned could be used in creating social safeguards for REDD+. The communities in Central Vietnam involved in BSM were impacted by the programme on various dimensions. These dimensions, expressed in different types of capital, are interconnected and contribute to a person’s well-being. While the communities have restricted access to their natural forests, they benefited in terms of income diversification, knowledge improvement and network expansion. On the other hand, they faced food insecurity, they were more vulnerable to natural hazards, and their human, social and cultural capital faced risk of deterioration.
Highlights
There are two schools of thoughts on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD+) and livelihoods: The first one argues that REDD+ should solely focus on climate change mitigation but poor households should not be negatively affected, while the second one argues that REDD+ should be pro-poor in order to succeed [1,2]
In order to minimize the negative impacts of REDD+, a balance needs to be found between equal benefit sharing, meaningful community participation, and livelihood diversification strategies
The community forestry management board (CFMB), and commune chairman stated that villagers are expected to pay 20% of the market price of the collected timber to the Commune People Committee (CPC)
Summary
There are two schools of thoughts on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD+) and livelihoods: The first one argues that REDD+ should solely focus on climate change mitigation but poor households should not be negatively affected, while the second one argues that REDD+ should be pro-poor in order to succeed [1,2]. To et al [3] stress that it is important that at least the negative socio-economic impacts of REDD+ are minimized, that REDD+ benefits are equitably shared, and that there is an adequate participation and consultation of local communities in the planning and execution of REDD+ projects. In order to minimize the negative impacts of REDD+, a balance needs to be found between equal benefit sharing, meaningful community participation, and livelihood diversification strategies. REDD+ will most likely not alleviate poverty, but it could allow local communities to diversify their income and livelihood strategies [1]. Both schools of thoughts agree that social safeguards need to be created that at least prevent REDD+ of negatively affecting the communities’ livelihoods.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
