Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: implications for social safeguards

dc.contributor.authorDuchelle, Amy
dc.contributor.authorde Sassi, Claudio
dc.contributor.authorJagger, Pamela
dc.contributor.authorCromberg, Marina
dc.contributor.authorLarson, Anne M
dc.contributor.authorSunderlin, William
dc.contributor.authorAtmadja, Stibniati S
dc.contributor.authorResosudarmo, Daju
dc.contributor.authorPratama, Christy Desta
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-12T03:14:24Z
dc.date.available2021-05-12T03:14:24Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.date.updated2020-11-23T10:14:39Z
dc.description.abstractReducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+) is key to mitigating global climate change. The aim of REDD+ social safeguards is to ensure that REDD+ does not harm, and actually benefits, local people. To be eligible for results-based compensation through REDD+, countries should develop national-level safeguard information systems to monitor and report on the impacts of REDD+. Although safeguards represent a key step for promoting social responsibility in REDD+, they are challenging to operationalize and monitor. We analyzed the impacts of different types of REDD+ interventions (incentives vs. disincentives) on key safeguard-relevant indicators, i.e., tenure security, participation, and subjective well-being, as well as on reported forest clearing. We used household-level data collected in Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam from approximately 4000 households in 130 villages at two points in time (2010-2012 and 2013-2014). Our findings highlight a decrease in perceived tenure security and overall perceived well-being over time for households exposed to disincentives alone, with the addition of incentives helping to alleviate negative effects on well-being. In Brazil, although disincentives were associated with reduced reported forest clearing by smallholders, they were the intervention that most negatively affected perceived well-being, highlighting a clear trade-off between carbon and noncarbon benefits. Globally, although households exposed to REDD+ interventions were generally aware of local REDD+ initiatives, meaningful participation in initiative design and implementation lagged behind. Our analysis contributes to a relatively small literature that seeks to operationalize REDD+ social safeguards empirically and to evaluate the impacts of REDD+ interventions on local people and forests.en_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.issn1708-3087en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/232681
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenanceThis article is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work for noncommercial purposes provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.en_AU
dc.publisherResilience Allianceen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright © 2017 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Allianceen_AU
dc.rights.licenseCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licenseen_AU
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_AU
dc.sourceEcology and Societyen_AU
dc.subjectclimate change mitigationen_AU
dc.subjectlivelihoodsen_AU
dc.subjectmonitoringen_AU
dc.subjectsocial impact assessmenten_AU
dc.subjectwell-beingen_AU
dc.titleBalancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: implications for social safeguardsen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Accessen_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.issue3en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage13en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage1en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationDuchelle, Amy, Center for International Forestry Researchen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationde Sassi, Claudio, Center for International Forestry Researchen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationJagger, Pamela, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationCromberg, Marina, CIFORen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationLarson, Anne M, CIFORen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationSunderlin, William, Center for International Forestry Researchen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationAtmadja, Stibniati S, CIFORen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationResosudarmo, Daju Pradnja, College of Asia and the Pacific, ANUen_AU
local.contributor.affiliationPratama, Christy Desta, Conservation Strategy Funden_AU
local.contributor.authoremailu2512008@anu.edu.auen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidResosudarmo, Daju Pradnja, u2512008en_AU
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor060299 - Ecology not elsewhere classifieden_AU
local.identifier.absfor111799 - Public Health and Health Services not elsewhere classifieden_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB9840en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume22en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.5751/ES-09334-220302en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85025632124
local.identifier.uidSubmittedBya383154en_AU
local.publisher.urlhttp://www.ecologyandsociety.org/en_AU
local.type.statusPublished Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
01_Duchelle_Balancing_carrots_and_sticks_2017.pdf
Size:
1.92 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format