REDD+ initiatives for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services: harmonizing sets of standards for national application

Published Date
October 2014, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 427–436

Original Article

First Online: 

22 December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10310-013-0429-7

Cite this article as: 

Ehara, M., Hyakumura, K. & Yokota, Y. J For Res (2014) 19: 427. doi:10.1007/s10310-013-0429-7

Author

• Makoto EharaEmail author
• Kimihiko Hyakumura
• Yasuhiro Yokota

Abstract

In the context of growing concerns about environmental aspects of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (acronym REDD+), we conducted a comparative analysis of three sets of globally-applicable standards and one instrument of REDD+ initiatives for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services: (1) social and environmental principles and criteria, (2) REDD+ social and environmental standards, (3) climate, community, and biodiversity project design standards, and (4) strategic environmental and social assessment. We found that their projected proximal outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystem service treatments, and approaches to achieve them, are not uniform (e.g., differences in spatial coverage for expecting positive impacts, prioritized REDD+ activities, and expected level of rigor in biodiversity and ecosystem service monitoring). We also found that all four include identification of the priority areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services, plus monitoring and mitigation of the negative impacts of REDD+ activities. These all require substantial time and resources to fully address what the three standards and the instrument actually stipulate. We thus propose options for harmonizing their use to facilitate scaling-up of efforts to strengthen safeguards, from the project level to the national level, while respecting individual national contexts and taking advantage of each standard’s characteristics.

References 

1. Angelsen A (2009) Introduction. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (eds) Realising REDD-plus: national strategy and policy options. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, pp 1–9Google Scholar
2. Ansell FA, Edwards DP, Hamer KC (2011) Rehabilitation of logged rain forests: avifaunal composition, habitat structure, and implications for biodiversity-friendly REDD. Biotropica 43:504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bonfante TM, Voivodic M, Filho LM (2010) Developing social and environmental safeguards for REDD+: A guide for bottom-up approach. Imaflora, PiracicabaGoogle Scholar
5. Caplow S, Jagger P, Lawlor K, Sills E (2011) Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ Sci Policy 14:152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. CCBA (2008) Climate, community & biodiversity project design standards, 2nd edn. CCBA, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
7. CCBA (2010) CCB Standards Rules (Version June 21, 2010). CCBA, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
8. CCBA (2012) Terms of reference, procedures and work plan for revision of CCB Standards including modifications that support smallholder- and community-led projects. CCBA, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
9. Edwards D, Fisher B, Boyd E (2010) Protecting degraded rainforests: enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD. Conserv Lett 3:313–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Engel V, Jobbágy EG, Stieglitz M, Williams M, Jackson RB (2005) Hydrological consequences of eucalyptus afforestation in the Argentine pampas. Water Resour Res 41(10):W10409. doi:10.1029/2004WR003761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Entenmann S (2010) Certification of REDD+ pilot projects for biodiversity conservation. In: Douglas S, Putz FE, Zagt RJ (eds) Biodiversity conservation in certified forests. Tropenbos International, Wageningen, pp 157–162Google Scholar
12. FAO (2010) Managing forests for climate change. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
13. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) (2010) Readiness fund: incorporating environmental and social considerations into the process of getting ready for REDD plus, revised draft—March 7, 2010
14. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) (2012) Readiness fund: common approach to environmental and social safeguards for multiple delivery partners
15. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and UNREDD Programme (2012a) R-PP template version 6, for Country Use (April 20, 2012)
16. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and UNREDD Programme (2012b) FCPF readiness fund: guidelines and generic terms of reference for SESAs and ESMF (Annexes to the R-PP v. 6 draft revised) (April 20, 2012)
17. Gardner TA, Burgess ND, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Barlow J, Berenguer E, Clements T, Danielsen F, Ferreira J, Foden W, Kapos V, Khan SM, Lees AC, Parry L, Roman-Cuesta RM, Schmitt CB, Strange N, Theilade I, Vieira ICG (2012) A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol Conserv 154:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Guariguata MR, Balvanera P (2009) Tropical forest service flows: improving our understanding of the biophysical dimension of ecosystem services. For Ecol Manag 258:1825–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Guariguata MR, Cornelius J, Locatelli B, Forner C, Sánchez-Azofeifa G (2008) Mitigation needs adaptation: tropical forestry and climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg for Glob Change 13:793–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (2011) Strategic environmental assessment in policy and sector reform conceptual model and operational guidance. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
22. International secretariat of the REDD+ SES initiative (2011) Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards at country level
23. International secretariat of the REDD+ SES initiative (2012) REDD+ Social & environmental standards REDD+ SES Version 2 (10th September 2012)
24. Jagger P, Sills EO, Lawlor K, Sunderlin WD (2010) A guide to learning about livelihood impacts of REDD+ projects, Occasional paper 56. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor
25. Jagger P, Lawlor K, Brockhaus M, Gebara MF, Sonwa DJ, Resosudarmo IAP (2012) REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD+ challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, pp 301–316Google Scholar
26. Kaimowitz D, Sheil D (2007) Conserving what and for whom? Why conservation should help meet basic human needs in the tropics. Biotropica 39:567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Merger E, Dutschke M, Verchot L (2011) Options for REDD+ voluntary certification to ensure net GHG benefits, poverty alleviation, sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. Forests 2:550–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Miles L, Dunning E, Doswald N (2010) Safeguarding and enhancing the ecosystem-derived benefits of REDD-plus Multiple Benefits Series 2. Prepared on behalf of the UN-REDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge
29. Minang PA, Noordwijk MV (2013) Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins. Land Use Policy 31:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Moss N, Nussbaum R (2011) A review of three REDD+ safeguard initiatives. ProForest, OxfordGoogle Scholar
31. Palmer MA, Filoso S (2009) Restoration of ecosystem services for environmental markets. Science 325:575–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Pasgaard M (2013) The challenge of assessing social dimensions of avoided deforestation: examples from Cambodia. Environ Impact Asses 38:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Pistorius T, Schmitt CB, Benick D, Entenmann S (2010) Greening REDD+ challenges and opportunities for forest biodiversity conservation. University of Freiburg, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
34. Prabhu R, Ritenbeek HJ, Boyle TJB, Colfer CJP (2001) Between voodoo science and adaptive management: the role and research needs for indicators of sustainable forest management. In: Raison RJ, Brown AG, Flinn DW (eds) Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. IUFRO research series 7. CABI Publications, Oxon
35. Robards MD, Schoon ML, Meek CL, Engle NL (2011) The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 21:522–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Rossi PH, Freeman HE, Lipsey MW (1999) Evaluation a systematic approach, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
37. Sasaki N, Asner GP, Knorr W, Durst PB, Priyadi HR, Putz FE (2011) Approaches to classifying and restoring degraded tropical forests for the anticipated REDD plus climate change mitigation mechanism. iForest 4:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Secretariat of the CBD (2011a) CBD technical series no. 59 REDD-plus and Biodiversity, Montreal
39. Secretariat of the CBD (2011b) Submission by the secretariat of the convention on biological diversity to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. On methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD-plus), specifically related to systems for providing information on how safeguards referred to in appendix I to UNFCCC decision 1/CP.16 are addressed and respected. 26 September 2011
40. Sheil D, Wunder S (2002) The value of tropical forest to local communities: complications, caveats, and cautions. Conserv Ecol 6(2):22Google Scholar
41. Sheil D, Puri R, Wan M, Basuki I, van Heist M, Liswanti N, Rukmiyati IR, Samsoedin I (2006) Recognizing local people’s priorities for tropical forest biodiversity. Ambio 35:17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Stickler CM, Nepstad DC, Coe MT, McGrath DG, Rodrigues HO, Walker WS, Soares-filho BS, Davidson EA (2009) The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region. Glob Change Biol 15:2803–2824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Thompson I, Mackey B, McNulty S, Mosseler A (2009) Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change: a synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
44. UNFCCC (2011) Report of the conference of the parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, addendum part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its sixteenth session. Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties. decision 1/CP.16 The Cancun agreements: outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention (FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1)
45. UNFCCC (2012) Report of the conference of the parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011, addendum part two: action taken by the conference of the parties at its seventeenth session. Decisions adopted by the conference of the parties. Decision 12/CP.17 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 (FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2)
46. UN-REDD Programme (2012) UN-REDD programme social and environmental principles and criteria UN-REDD programme sixth policy board meeting, 25–26 March 2012, Asunción, Paraguay (UNREDD/PB8/2012/V/1)
47. Verified Carbon Standard (2012) Jurisdictional & Nested REDD+: Scaling Up REDD. Washington
48. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Angelsen A (2009) Global and national REDD+ architecture: linking institutions and actions. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M, Sills E, Sunderlin WD, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (eds) Realising REDD-plus: National strategy and policy options. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, pp 13–24Google Scholar
49. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Kongphan-apirak M (2009) Working paper no. 46 Emerging REDD+ A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor
50. World Bank (2012) OP 4.01, Annex A—definitions. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0contentMDK:20066691~menuPK:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html
51. Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65:834–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10310-014-0450-5