A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: Compensated Successful Efforts for “avoided deforestation” (REDD)

Climate change mitigation would benefit from Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) in developing countries. The REDD mechanism is in charge of distilling the right incentives for fostering forest conservation with appropriate compensation of foregone revenues, which in turn is related to avoided deforestation (how many hectares of forests are saved). Although any prediction of deforestation rates (i.e. business-as-usual scenarios) is challenging, and any negotiated target is subject to political influence, these two ways have been prioritirized so far. In other words, proposals have focused on a baseline (or cap)-and-trade approach, which relevance is questionable because resulting financial compensations are subject to unfairness if estimations of avoided deforestation are not reliable. Rather than considering overall deforestation (predicted and observed), we argue that a REDD mechanism would gain from linking compensations to real efforts that developing countries implement for slowing deforestation rates. This would provide more efficient incentives to design and enforce suitable policies and measures. The methodology we present to measure these efforts (labeled Compensated Successful Efforts) is based on the rationale that overall deforestation is due partly to structural factors, and partly to domestic policies and measures. This typology differs from others presented in the literature such as proximate / underlying causes, or economic / institutional factors. Using an econometric model, our approach estimates efforts that are (i) independent of structural factors (economic development, population, initial forest area, agricultural export prices), (ii) estimated ex post at the end of the crediting period, and (iii) relative to other countries. In order to illustrate the methodology we apply the model to a panel of 48 countries (Asia, Latin America, Africa) and four periods between 1970 and 2005. We conclude on the feasibility to estimate avoided deforestation using the Compensated Successful Efforts approach. In addition to being conservative from an environmental perspective, this approach guarantees fairness by accounting for dramatic changes during the commitment period.avoided deforestation, REDD, climate change, baseline scenario, Forest

A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: Compensated Successful Efforts for “avoided deforestation” (REDD)

Climate change mitigation would benefit from Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) in developing countries. The REDD mechanism is in charge of distilling the right incentives for fostering forest conservation with appropriate compensation of foregone revenues, which in turn is related to avoided deforestation (how many hectares of forests are saved). Although any prediction of deforestation rates (i.e. business-as-usual scenarios) is challenging, and any negotiated target is subject to political influence, these two ways have been prioritirized so far. In other words, proposals have focused on a baseline (or cap)-and-trade approach, which relevance is questionable because resulting financial compensations are subject to unfairness if estimations of avoided deforestation are not reliable. Rather than considering overall deforestation (predicted and observed), we argue that a REDD mechanism would gain from linking compensations to real efforts that developing countries implement for slowing deforestation rates. This would provide more efficient incentives to design and enforce suitable policies and measures. The methodology we present to measure these efforts (labeled Compensated Successful Efforts) is based on the rationale that overall deforestation is due partly to structural factors, and partly to domestic policies and measures. This typology differs from others presented in the literature such as proximate / underlying causes, or economic / institutional factors. Using an econometric model, our approach estimates efforts that are (i) independent of structural factors (economic development, population, initial forest area, agricultural export prices), (ii) estimated ex post at the end of the crediting period, and (iii) relative to other countries. In order to illustrate the methodology we apply the model to a panel of 48 countries (Asia, Latin America, Africa) and four periods between 1970 and 2005. We conclude on the feasibility to estimate avoided deforestation using the Compensated Successful Efforts approach. In addition to being conservative from an environmental perspective, this approach guarantees fairness by accounting for dramatic changes during the commitment period.avoided deforestation;REDD;climate change;baseline scenario;Forest

A response to the commentary on “Compensated Successful Efforts”

xxxx

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation: a way out of the deadlock?

The rural poor often depend on biodiversity for a wide range of natural resources and ecosystem services essential for their well-being, and are therefore potentially affected by its degradation. Against this backdrop, conservationists, development practitioners and policy makers often have differing opinions on how—and whether—to link biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction. Nonetheless, the growing volume of literature on the subject often results in platitudes that fail to confront real problems faced by development projects, plans and policies. Indeed, the linkages between biodiversity and poverty are much more complex and dynamic that often assumed; this is why endeavours to address the real issues—rather than pretending they do not exist—as well as efforts to be more specific about definitions, contexts and activities when undertaking assessments, are so badly needed. As a result, this paper first synthesises the biodiversity-poverty debate in a static perspective by investigating scientific evidence on the links between biodiversity per se, ecosystems and well-being; it further questions whether poor households particularly rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods. In dynamic terms, it thereafter explores whether biodiversity conservation is a route to poverty alleviation, and conversely if poverty alleviation is a route to better biodiversity management. We continue by presenting two emerging (or re-emerging) issues which challenge some key preconceived ideas about the poverty-biodiversity nexus: the “environmentalist paradox” and the need to re-open the Millennium consensus so as to give more weight to inequalities reduction as opposed to poverty alleviation

Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation: a way out of the deadlock?

The rural poor often depend on biodiversity for a wide range of natural resources and ecosystem services essential for their well-being, and are therefore potentially affected by its degradation. Against this backdrop, conservationists, development practitioners and policy makers often have differing opinions on how—and whether—to link biodiversity conservation with poverty reduction. Nonetheless, the growing volume of literature on the subject often results in platitudes that fail to confront real problems faced by development projects, plans and policies. Indeed, the linkages between biodiversity and poverty are much more complex and dynamic that often assumed; this is why endeavours to address the real issues—rather than pretending they do not exist—as well as efforts to be more specific about definitions, contexts and activities when undertaking assessments, are so badly needed. As a result, this paper first synthesises the biodiversity-poverty debate in a static perspective by investigating scientific evidence on the links between biodiversity per se, ecosystems and well-being; it further questions whether poor households particularly rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods. In dynamic terms, it thereafter explores whether biodiversity conservation is a route to poverty alleviation, and conversely if poverty alleviation is a route to better biodiversity management. We continue by presenting two emerging (or re-emerging) issues which challenge some key preconceived ideas about the poverty-biodiversity nexus: the “environmentalist paradox” and the need to re-open the Millennium consensus so as to give more weight to inequalities reduction as opposed to poverty alleviation

A systematic review of the socio-economic impacts of large-scale tree plantations, worldwide

Corrigendum: The author regrets to inform readers about an error in the legend of Fig. 8. Currently the legend reads "Fig. 8. Associations between cate-gories." However, the correct version is "Fig. 8. Associations betweencategories. Yellow lines refer to both mutually-reinforcing and negatingassociations. Linewidth reflects the relative abundance of such asso-ciations in the evidence base."The author apologizes for this error and any consequent incon-venience to readers. (Global Environmental Change Volume 57, July 2019, 101931)Since their widespread introduction in the 1980s, large-scale tree plantations have seen contestations over their socio-economic impacts. With the establishment of new plantations on the rise, a review of the literature examining their impacts on local communities is needed to inform policies and practices. In this systematic review, we followed an a priori protocol to reduce the selection biases inherent to conventional literature reviews, and considered both grey and peer-reviewed literature. Of the 20,450 studies identified in our literature search, only 92 studies met our predefined inclusion criteria. However, only 22 studies presented a clear comparator and considered confounding factors in their analysis. Of the 251 impacts identified in this sample, most impacts across the nine categories were characterised as predominantly negative impacts attributed to large-scale tree plantations. Impacts on employment (22% of reported impacts/of which 41% predominantly negative), land (21%/81%), livelihoods (12%/48%) and the often intertwined social impacts (20%/69%) were the most commonly considered categories, within which a majority of studies agreed on the impact dynamics when in similar contexts, resembling the dynamics observed in other large-scale land-based investments. Most impacts were reported from Southeast Asia (34% of reported impacts), South America (29%), Africa (23%) and Australasia (12%). We corroborate that costs of large-scale tree plantations for residents tend to be front-loaded, especially when plantations have displaced customary land uses, and possible benefits to accrue over time, moderated by the emergence of local processing and complementary livelihood activities. However, given the methodological inconsistencies in our sample and the under-representation of areas known to have undergone plantation development, strong global evidence on the long-term socio-economic impacts of large-scale tree plantations remains limited.Peer reviewe

The socioeconomic impacts of large-scale tree plantations on local communities : A systematic review protocol

Background. To meet increasing demand for forest products and services, the global area of planted forests has increased dramatically over the past 25 years. Further increases in large-scale tree plantations are expected due to their high productivity, economic profitability and contribution to climate change mitigation targets. This raises questions about their long-term sustainability, as well as their impacts on forest ecosystem services and local livelihoods, particularly in countries characterized by rural poverty and insecure property rights. Previous studies have revealed mixed impacts, but there is a lack of research on the contexts and practices that can contribute to positive and/or negative socioeconomic impacts. This protocol provides guidelines for a systematic review that synthesizes the current literature on the direct and indirect impacts of large-scale plantations on local communities, and which will also identify trends, bias and gaps in the empirical evidence base. Methods. The primary research question of the systematic review asks “What are the direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts of large-scale tree plantations on local human populations?” We apply a Population-Exposure-Comparator-Outcome-Context (PECOC) framework to structure each stage of the systematic review, which comprises a comprehensive literature search, screening, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis.We define the exposure of interest to be the establishment or management of a large-scale tree plantation by external actors, population of interest as households and communities living in close proximity to plantation sites, comparators as other communities who have not experienced the same exposure as well as the same communities prior to plantation establishment, outcomes as the direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts felt by the population as a result of plantation establishment, and context as the social, political and environmental factors that may have led to differences in experienced impacts. We will search multiple bibliographic databases and organizational websites for relevant studies in both the published and grey literatures. These results will be screened by their titles and abstracts followed by their full texts based on predetermined eligibility criteria. To ensure that selected studies have controlled for potential biases, quality assessment will then take place alongside data extraction. Finally, the results of quantitative and qualitative analyses will be reported in a narrative synthesis