Abstract
REDD+ was conceived as a system of incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. While this could include many different types of interventions to reduce deforestation and degradation, a consensus has emerged that they should safeguard and “do no harm” to the forest-based livelihoods of local people. Many REDD+ projects have been designed to incentivize forest conservation and support local livelihoods by promoting sustainable use of the forest, hence increasing the revenues earned by local households from forest products. We examine two such projects in the Peruvian Amazon, using panel survey data from over 400 households gathered in 2011 and 2014. In the 3 years between surveys, we observed a severe decline in forest revenue. However, by using a BACI study design and matching, we show that this decrease was not caused by the REDD+ interventions. Thus, REDD+ “did no harm” to local people, at least in terms of forest revenues in the early phases of these two projects in the Peruvian Amazon.
Highlights
The goal of REDD+ is to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and enhance forest carbon stocks, toward mitigating global climate change
We examine two REDD+ projects in the Peruvian Amazon that both promoted sustainable forest management to align their goals of conserving forest and supporting local livelihoods, they both planned to eventually offer direct conditional payments to local people
Without the additional information in control sites collected by Global Comparative Study (GCS) REDD+, this decline in the value of forest products harvested could have been blamed on REDD+
Summary
The goal of REDD+ is to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and enhance forest carbon stocks, toward mitigating global climate change. REDD+ initiatives provide incentives (or disincentives) to encourage forest stewards to lower deforestation and forest degradation to limit carbon emissions and sequester carbon (Angelsen et al, 2012) To reach these goals, REDD+ implementers employ diverse tools, including conditional payments, forest law enforcement, support for sustainable forest management, and alternative livelihood enhancements (Petkova et al, 2010; Sills et al, 2014; Luttrell and Betteridge, 2017). Given the importance of forests to local well-being, it is widely accepted that REDD+ must minimize risks to local people and produce livelihood benefits to be effective and equitable (Duchelle et al, 2018a) This may be difficult to accomplish in the early phase of REDD+, when there is pressure to conserve forest but not yet carbon revenue to share with local people. One possible solution is to promote sustainable forest management as a way to both incentivize conservation and generate revenues from forest products
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
