Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities
2. The UN-REDD Program and the FCPF
2.1. The UN-REDD Program
- REDD+ activities are consistent with objectives of national forest programs and international conventions and agreements.
- Transparent and effective national forest governance, which takes a nation’s sovereignty and national legislation into account.
- Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous and local communities, taking international treaties and conventions into account.
- Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, and indigenous and local communities in particular.
- REDD+ activities are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biodiversity.
- Actions to address the risks and reversals, and to reduce displacement of emissions.
2.2. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)
3. Institutional Impact
3.1. Restructuring of Forest Governance
3.2. Funding of REDD+ and Multi-level Governance
3.3. Exclusion of Local People
“[We] recognize the importance and special status of indigenous peoples in terms of their historical and cultural connection to forests and are committed to applying specific policies to safeguard their rights and interests. ”(p. 2)
3.4. Emergence of Private Stakeholders
4. Livelihood Impact
4.1. REDD+ and Poverty Alleviation
4.2. Income Distribution and Equity
4.3. Forestland and Carbon Tenure and Rights
4.4. Food Security
4.6. Social Safeguards
5. Socio-Cultural Impact
5.1. Loss of Traditional Knowledge and Practices
“There is a concern that forest and natural resource-based livelihoods [of ethnic/indigenous minorities] can be identified as drivers of deforestation and therefore, its practice may be curtailed or banned altogether. [...] These forms of livelihoods are linked to their identities and traditional culture. This will therefore have serious implications on the ways of life, food security and traditional knowledge of ethnic minorities.”(p. 11)
5.2. Cultural and Social Deterioration
6. Environmental Impact
6.1. The Scope of REDD+
“Crucial challenges in REDD+ policy design are to prevent deforestation without creating a perverse incentive to threaten forests and to reward successful forest stewards like indigenous peoples.”(p. 22)
6.2. Impacts on Biodiversity
7. Discussion and Conclusions
“1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. [..] 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. [..] 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.”(p. 10)
Conflicts of Interest
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000; FAO and United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sobrevila, C. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but often Forgotten Partners; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bayrak, M.M.; Tu, T.N.; Burgers, P. Restructuring space in the name of development: The sociocultural impact of the forest land allocation program on the indigenous Co Tu people in central Vietnam. J. Polit. Ecol. 2013, 20, 37–52. [Google Scholar]
- Macchi, M.; Oviedo, G.; Gotheil, S.; Cross, K.; Boedhihartono, A.; Wolfangel, C.; Howell, M. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Climate Change; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Sunderlin, W.D.; Sills, E.O.; Duchelle, A.E.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Kweka, D.; Toniolo, M.A.; Ball, S.; Doggart, N.; Pratama, C.D.; Padilla, J.T.; et al. REDD+ at a critical juncture: Assessing the limits of polycentric governance for achieving climate change mitigation. Int. For. Rev. 2015, 17, 400–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minang, P.A.; van Noordwijk, M.; Duguma, L.A.; Alemagi, D.; Do, T.H.; Bernard, F.; Agung, P.; Robiglio, V.; Catacutan, D.; Suyanto, S.; et al. REDD+ Readiness progress across countries: Time for reconsideration. Clim. Policy 2014, 14, 685–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Nepstad, D.; Chhatre, A. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011, 36, 373–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghazoul, J.; Butler, R.A.; Mateo-Vega, J.; Koh, L.P. REDD+: A reckoning of environment and development implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Atmadja, S.; Verchot, L. A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2012, 17, 311–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The UN-REDD Programme Strategy 2011–2015. Available online: https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2011/redd_programme_strategy_2011_2015_en.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Lyster, R. International legal frameworks for REDD+: Ensuring legitimacy. In Law, Tropical Forests, and Carbon: The Case for REDD+, 1st ed.; Lyster, R., MacKenzie, C., McDermott, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 3–25. [Google Scholar]
- Parrotta, J.A.; Gardner, T.; Kapos, V.; Kurz, W.A.; Mansuorian, S.; McDermott, C.L.; Strassburg, B.B.N.; Thompson, I.D.; Vira, B.; Wildburger, C. Understanding Relationships between Biodiversity, Carbon, Forests and People: The Key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives; IUFRO World Series; Vienna, Austria, 2012; Volume 31, pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar]
- UN-REDD. Fifth consolidated annual progress report of the UN-REDD programme fund. In Proceedings of the UN-REDD Programme Twelfth Policy Board Meeting, Lima, Peru, 7–9 July 2014.
- Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Available online: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/June/FMT%20Note%202010-12%20Carbon_Fund_Update_03-14-10.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Davis, C.; Daviet, F.; Nakhooda, S.; Thuault, A. A Review of 25 Readiness Plan Idea Notes from the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Phelps, J.; Webb, E.L.; Agrawal, A. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 2010, 328, 312–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agrawal, A.; Chhatre, A.; Hardin, R. Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science 2008, 320, 1460–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UN, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, C.C.; Williams, J.T.; Ostrom, E. Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev. 2004, 33, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neilson, J.; Leimona, B. Payment for ecosystem services and environmental governance in Indonesia. In Law, Tropical Forests, and Carbon: The Case for REDD+, 1st ed.; Lyster, R., MacKenzie, C., McDermott, C., Eds.; Cambridge University press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 207–229. [Google Scholar]
- Sandbrook, C.; Nelson, F.; Adams, W.M.; Agrawal, A. Carbon, forests and the REDD+ Paradox. Oryx 2010, 44, 330–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, T.; Persha, L. Nesting local forestry initiatives: Revisting community forest management in a REDD+ world. For. Pol. Econ. 2010, 12, 545–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronkleton, P.; Bray, D.B.; Medina, G. Community forest management and the emergence of multi-scale governance institutions: Lessons for REDD+ development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2011, 2, 451–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbera, E. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelsen, A.; Streck, C.; Peskett, L.; Brown, J.; Luttrell, C. What is the right scale for REDD+? In Moving Ahead with REDD+: Issues, Options and Implications; Angelsen, A., Ed.; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 31–40. [Google Scholar]
- Blom, B.; Sunderland, T.; Murdiyarso, D. Getting REDD+ to work locally: Lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- To, P.X.; O’Sullivan, R.; Olander, J.; Hawkins, S.; Hung, P.Q.; Kitamura, N. REDD+ in Vietnam: Integrating National and Subnational Approaches; Forest Trends Association and Climate Focus: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ravikumar, A.; Larson, A.; Duchelle, A.; Myers, R.; Tovar, J.G. Multilevel governance challenges in transitioning towards a national approach for REDD+: Evidence from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives. Int. J. Commons 2015, 9, 909–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijge, M.J.; Brockhaus, M.; Di Gregorio, M.; Muharrom, E. Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 39, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, L.G. Putting the Pieces Together for Good Governance of REDD+: An Analysis of 32 REDD+ Country Readiness Proposals; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Romero, M.Z.; Trærup, S.; Wieben, E.; Møller, L.R.; Koch, A. Economics of Forest and Forest Carbon Projects. Translating Lessons Learned into National REDD+ Implementation; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya; UN-REDD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, M.C.; Baruah, M.; Carr, E.R. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2011, 14, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadman, T.; Maraseni, T. The governance of REDD+: An institutional analysis in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 2011, 55, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsen, F.; Skutsch, M.; Burgess, N.D.; Jensen, P.M.; Andrianandrasana, H.; Karky, B.; Lewis, R.; Lovett, J.C.; Massao, J.; Ngaga, Y.; et al. At the heart of REDD+: A role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loaiza, T.; Nehren, U.; Gerold, G. REDD+ implementation in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Why land configuration and common-pool resources management matter. For. Pol. Econ. 2016, 70, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wollenberg, E.; Springate-Baginski, O. Introduction. In REDD+, Forest Governance and Rural Livelihoods: The Emerging Agenda; Wollenberg, E., Springate-Baginski, O., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2010; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- UN-REDD Programme; the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness with a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest-Dependent Communities; FAO: Rome, Italy; UNDP: New York, NY, USA; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012; Available online: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/May2013/Guidelines%20on%20Stakeholder%20Engagement%20April%2020,%202012%20(revision%20of%20March%2025th%20version).pdf (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP). REDD+ Implementation in Asia and the Concerns of Indigenous Peoples; Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact: Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2010; Available online: http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/0654_REDD_Plus_Implementation_in_Asia_and_the_Concerns_of_Indigenous_Peoples.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Leggett, M.; Lovell, H. Community perceptions of REDD+: A case study from Papua New Guinea. Clim. Policy 2012, 12, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolin, A.; Tassa, D.T. Exploring climate justice for forest communities engaging in REDD+: Experiences from Tanzania. Forum Dev. Stud. 2012, 39, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awono, A.; Somorin, O.A.; Eba’a Atyi, R.; Levang, P. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: Insights from Southern Cameroon. Environ. Sci. and Policy 2014, 35, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, Q.T.; Luong, T.T.; Nguyen, T.H.V.; Enters, T.; Yasim, Y.; Vickers, B. Evaluation and Verification of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam; RECOFTC—The Center for People and Forests: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2010; Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiDirq9xsrNAhVFv48KHV6CD6AQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unredd.net%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D6819%26Itemid%3D53&usg=AFQjCNF6Ap3CHxjWQ98U0int9JG4GiRHfw (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Griffiths, T.; Martone, F. Seeing “REDD”: Forests, Climate Change Mitigation and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities; Update for Poznan (UNFCCC COP 14); Forest Peoples Programme: Moreton-in-Marsh, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Espinoza Llanos, R.; Feather, C. The reality of REDD+ in Peru: Between Theory and Practice. Indigenous Amazonian Peoples’ Analyses and Alternatives, Forest Peoples Forest Progrmme. 2011. Available online: http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/11/reality-redd-peru-between-theory-and-practice-website-english-low-res.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2016).
- Campbell, B.M. Beyond copenhagen: REDD+, agriculture, adaptation strategies and poverty. Global Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 397–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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.; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 107–118. [Google Scholar]
- Bayrak, M.M.; Tu, T.N.; Marafa, L.M. Creating social safeguards for REDD+: Lessons learned from benefit sharing mechanisms in Vietnam. Land 2014, 3, 1037–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, J.; Cao, J.; Han, X.; Miao, Z. Incentive modes and reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation: Who can benefit most? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- To, P.X.; Dressler, W.H.; Mahanty, S.; Pham, T.T.; Zingerli, C. The prospects for payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Vietnam: A look at three payment schemes. Hum. Ecol. 2012, 40, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoang, M.H.; Do, T.H.; Pham, M.T.; van Noordwijk, M.; Minang, P.A. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnsley, I. UNU–IAS Guide: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+): A Guide for Indigenous Peoples; United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies: Yokohama, Japan, 2009. Available online: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4980736 (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Nasi, R.; Putz, F.E.; Pacheco, P.; Wunder, S.; Anta, S. Sustainable forest management and carbon in Tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+. Forests 2011, 2, 200–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, P. REDD+ and the indigenous question: A case study from ecuador. Forests 2011, 2, 525–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunderlin, W.D.; Larson, A.M.; Duchelle, A.E.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Huynh, T.B.; Awono, A.; Dokken, T. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Dev. 2014, 55, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Atmadja, S.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Intarini, D.Y.; Indriatmoko, Y.; Astri, P. Does tenure security lead to REDD+ project effectiveness? Reflections from five emerging sites in Indonesia. World Dev. 2014, 55, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbera, E.; Estrada, M.; May, P.; Navarro, G.; Pacheco, P. Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: Insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests 2011, 2, 301–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peskett, L.; Brodnig, G. Carbon Rights in REDD+: Exploring The Implications for Poor and Vulnerable People; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Cotula, L.; Mayers, J. Tenure in REDD+—Start–Point or Afterthought? Natural Resource Issues No. 15; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lawlor, K.; Weinthal, E.; Olander, L. Institutions and policies to protect rural livelihoods in REDD+ regimes. Global Environ. Polit. 2010, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunderlin, W. Tenure: What will REDD+ mean for forest communities? In Tenure in REDD+—Start-Point or Afterthought? Cotula, L., Mayers, J., Eds.; Natural Resource Issues No. 15; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lemaitre, S. Indigenous peoples’ land rights and REDD+: A case study. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 2011, 20, 150–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Day, C.; Naughton–Treves, L. Introduction lessons from early efforts to secure land tenure within forest carbon management projects. In Lessons about Land Tenure, Forest Governance and REDD+: Case Studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America; Naughton-Treves, L., Day, C., Eds.; UW-Madison Land Tenure Center: Madison, WI, USA; pp. 1–10.
- Huettner, M. Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.P. Exploring biodiversity and climate change benefits of community-based forest management. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhital, N. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Nepal: Exploring the possibilities. J. For. Livelihood 2009, 8, 57–62. [Google Scholar]
- Sponsel, L.E.; Headland, T.N.; Bailey, R.C. Anthropological perspectives on the causes, consequences and solutions of deforestation. In Tropical Deforestation: The Human Dimension; Sponsel, L.E., Headland, T.N., Bailey, R.C., Eds.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA.
- Dove, M.R. Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance. Agrofor. Syst. 1983, 1, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loaiza, T.; Nehren, U.; Gerold, G. REDD+ and incentives: An analysis of income generation in forest-dependent communities of the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve, Ecuador. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 62, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutabazi, K.D.; George, C.K.; Dos Santos, A.S.; Felister, M.M. Livelihood implications of REDD+ and costs-benefits of agricultural intensification in REDD+ pilot area of Kilosa, Tanzania. J. Ecosyst Ecograph. 2014, 4, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chhatre, A.; Lakhanpal, S.; Larson, A.M.; Nelson, F.; Ojha, H.; Rao, J. Social safeguards and co–benefits in REDD+: A review of the adjacent possible. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strassburg, B.; Vira, B.; Mahanty, S.; Mansourian, S.; Martin, A.; Dawson, N.M.; Gross-Camp, N.; Latawiec, A.; Swainson, L. Social and economic considerations relevant to REDD+. In Understanding Relationships between Biodiversity, Carbon, Forests and People: The key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives. A Global Assessment Report, 1st ed.; Parrotta, J.A., Wildburger, C., Mansuorian, S., Eds.; IUFRO World Series; Vienna, Austria, 2012; Volume 31, pp. 84–112. [Google Scholar]
- McDermott, C.L.; Coad, L.; Helfgott, A.; Schroeder, H. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 21, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, C. The Warsaw Framework for REDD Plus: The Decision on Summary of Information on Safeguards. REDD Monitor. 2013. Available online: http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/12/17/the-warsaw-framework-for-redd-plus-the-decision-on-summary-of-information-on-safeguards/ (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Lang, C. “REDD+ Threatens the Survival of Indigenous Peoples”: New Statement from Indigenous Peoples rejects REDD+. REDD Monitor. 2011. Available online: http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/11/28/redd-threatens-the-survival-of-indigenous-peoples-new-statement-from-indigenous-peoples-rejects-redd/ (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Castree, N. Neoliberalising nature: The logics of deregulation and reregulation. Env. Plan. A 2008, 40, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redford, K.H.; Adams, W.M. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 785–787. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Anderson, N. REDDy or not? The effects on indigenous peoples in Brazil of a global mechanism for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. J. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 2, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newton, P.; Schaap, B.; Fournier, M.; Cornwall, M.; Rosenbach, D.W.; DeBoer, J.; Whittemore, J.; Stock, R.; Yoders, M.; Brodnig, G.; et al. Community forest management and REDD+. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 56, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Angelsen, A. Using Community forest Management to Achieve REDD+ Goals. Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, R.; Lyster, R. Land resource tenure: The rights of indigenous peoples and forest dwellers. In Law, Tropical Forests, and Carbon: The Case for REDD+, 1st ed.; Lyster, R., MacKenzie, C., McDermott, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 187–206. [Google Scholar]
- Poudel, M.; Thwaites, R.; Race, D.; Dahal, G.R. REDD+ and community forestry: Implications for local communities and forest management-a case study from Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 2014, 16, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosoy, N.; Corbera, E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1228–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. Global REDD+ negotiation: Update and key issues. In REDD+, Forest Governance and Rural Livelihoods: The Emerging Agenda; Wollenberg, E., Springate-Baginski, O., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2010; pp. 21–30. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, C. Guyana’s President Jagdeo Launches “Avoided Threatened Deforestation” Scheme. REDD Monitor, 2013. Available online: http://www.REDD+–monitor.org/2009/02/02/guyanas–president–jagdeo–launches–avoided–threatened-deforestation-scheme/ (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Dickson, B.; Kapos, V. Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panfil, S.N.; Harvey, C.A. REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: A review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conserv. Lett. 2015, 9, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, C. The Warsaw Framework for REDD Plus: The Decision on National Forest Monitoring Systems. Available online: http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/12/10/the-warsaw-framework-for-redd-plus-the-decision-on-national-forest-monitoring-systems (accessed on 13 April 2016).
- Vanderhaegen, K.; Verbist, B.; Hundera, K.; Muys, B. REALU vs. REDD+: Carbon and biodiversity in the Afromontane landscapes of SW Ethiopia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 343, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 07–58681, 2008. Available online: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf (accessed on 13 April 2016).
|Dimension||How Could it Be Harmful?||Indicators||Possible Solutions|
|Institutional||Recentralization of forest governance; exclusion of local communities in forest management and decision-making; forest loss; global land grabs; loss of traditional institutions [7,16,21,22,23,24,29,38,44].|
|Participation of local people|
|Livelihoods||Unequal distribution of income; people losing access to the forests; people losing forest tenure rights; people having less farmland; intra–and inter-community conflicts; REDD+ does not cover the opportunity costs; marginalization; discrepancies among definitions [8,11,26,35,45,46,47,48,49,51,52,53,54,55,59,60].|
|Forest tenure Carbon rights|
|Food security Co-benefits|
|Socio–cultural||Loss of traditional or indigenous ecological knowledge; loss of forest management practices; commodification of nature [24,35,38,75,76,77,82].|
|Traditional knowledge and practices|
|Social and cultural deterioration|
|Environmental||Introducing mono tree plantations and high-carbon production forests; more pressure on land outside REDD+ forests; threat to ecosystems with high biodiversity but low carbon sequestration [7,21,53,63,85,86].|
|Biodiversity Scope of REDD+|
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Bayrak, M.M.; Marafa, L.M. Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620
Bayrak MM, Marafa LM. Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities. Sustainability. 2016; 8(7):620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620Chicago/Turabian Style
Bayrak, Mucahid Mustafa, and Lawal Mohammed Marafa. 2016. "Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities" Sustainability 8, no. 7: 620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620