aCentre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, Bern 3012, Switzerland
bFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy
cFacultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, La Pradera E7-174 y Av. Diego de Almagro-PBX, Quito, Ecuador
dInstitute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland
Received 18 January 2013. Revised 25 April 2013. Accepted 7 May 2013. Available online 30 May 2013.
Highlights
REDD + could incentivize labour input in sustainable forest management (SFM).
•
In forest communities, SFM is more cost-effective than compensated reduction.
•
SFM enhances permanence, reduces leakage, and improves livelihoods.
Abstract
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus (REDD +) encourages economic support for reducing deforestation and conserving or increasing existing forest carbon stocks. The way in which incentives are structured affects trade-offs between local livelihoods, carbon emission reduction, and the cost-effectiveness of a REDD + programme. Looking at first-hand empirical data from 208 farming households in the Bolivian Amazon from a household economy perspective, our study explores two policy options: 1) compensated reduction of emissions from old-growth forest clearing for agriculture, and 2) direct payments for labour input into sustainable forest management combined with a commitment not to clear old-growth forest. Our results indicate that direct payments for sustainable forest management – an approach that focuses on valuing farmers' labour input – can be more cost-effective than compensated reduction and in some cases is the most appropriate choice for achieving improved household incomes, permanence of changes, avoidance of leakages, and community-based institutional enforcement for sustainable forest management.
No comments:
Post a Comment