CIFOR-ICRAF s’attaque aux défis et aux opportunités locales tout en apportant des solutions aux problèmes mondiaux concernant les forêts, les paysages, les populations et la planète.

Nous fournissons des preuves et des solutions concrètes pour transformer l’utilisation des terres et la production alimentaire : conserver et restaurer les écosystèmes, répondre aux crises mondiales du climat, de la malnutrition, de la biodiversité et de la désertification. En bref, nous améliorons la vie des populations.

CIFOR-ICRAF publie chaque année plus de 750 publications sur l’agroforesterie, les forêts et le changement climatique, la restauration des paysages, les droits, la politique forestière et bien d’autres sujets encore, et ce dans plusieurs langues. .

CIFOR-ICRAF s’attaque aux défis et aux opportunités locales tout en apportant des solutions aux problèmes mondiaux concernant les forêts, les paysages, les populations et la planète.

Nous fournissons des preuves et des solutions concrètes pour transformer l’utilisation des terres et la production alimentaire : conserver et restaurer les écosystèmes, répondre aux crises mondiales du climat, de la malnutrition, de la biodiversité et de la désertification. En bref, nous améliorons la vie des populations.

CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

Effectiveness of forest conservation interventions: An evidence gap map

Exporter la citation

This paper presents an evidence gap map of forest conservation interventions in low- and middle income countries based on evidence published over the period 2016 to mid-2018. It serves as an update to a similar effort by 3ie, with refinements to the framework that distributes studies across three tiers based on quality and considers environmental and socioeconomic outcomes. Compared to the previous evidence gap map, the evaluation of forest conservation outcomes has clearly accelerated in recent years, but from a modest base: the body of evidence still remains insufficient across most intervention types. Community-based management (especially in South Asia) and protected areas are well represented, though the latter distinguishes few subcategories. In turn, both PES and REDD+ evaluations are less available, and the latter surprisingly features more welfare than forest conservation or carbon impacts. Capacity-building interventions are almost absent in the matrix. It is also notable that policy mixes, often dominant in real-world implementation, have so far received little scrutiny. Among forest types, conservation interventions in mangroves lag behind, despite their environmental importance. Geographically, Asia and Latin America generally publish much more evaluated evidence than Africa. In conclusion, despite the incipient progress we have undoubtedly seen, many important knowledge gaps still remain.
Download:

Publications connexes