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.

Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+

Export citation

The 'Bali Road Map' of UNFCCC COP-13 calls for sharing lessons learned from demonstration activities that aim to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation and enhance forest carbon stocks (now known as ‘REDD+'). To develop a feasible yet rigorous strategy for learning from these REDD+ pilots, it is critical to assess previous efforts to evaluate the impacts of 'pre-REDD+' avoided deforestation projects. Further, because REDD+ remains a politically volatile issue, with both critics and supporters pointing to the impacts (or lack thereof) of these pre-REDD+ projects, it is important to critically examine the methods employed to assess those impacts. We review the body of literature that makes claims about the socioeconomic and biophysical impacts of pre-REDD+ projects. We find assessments of outcomes or impacts for only five pre-REDD projects. The design, data collection, and analysis methods for understanding the impacts of pre-REDD+ projects frequently lack rigor. In particular, the counterfactual scenarios for establishing socioeconomic impacts are vague, unscientific, or omitted completely. We conclude that drawing specific lessons from pre-REDD+ projects for the design or evaluation of current REDD+ projects is tenuous. Rigorous project evaluations are challenging, expensive, and time-consuming, but because they are so critical for learning about what works for people and forests, evaluations of current REDD+ projects must use improved methods. In particular, much better care should be taken to construct credible - and where possible, consistent - counterfactuals for both biophysical and socioeconomic outcomes.

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003
Altmetric score:
Dimensions Citation Count:

Related publications