ArticlePDF Available

The implications of ignoring smallholder agriculture in climate-financed forestry projects: empirical evidence from two REDD+ pilot projects

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Changes in agricultural practices can play a pivotal role in climate change mitigation by reducing the need for land use change as one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions, and by enabling carbon sequestration in farmers’ fields. Expansion of smallholder and commercial agriculture is often one of the main driving forces behind deforestation and forest degradation. However, mitigation programmes such as REDD+ are geared towards conservation efforts in the forestry sector without prominently taking into account smallholder agricultural interests in project design and implementation. REDD+ projects often build on existing re- and afforestation projects without major changes in their principles, interests and assumptions. Informed by case study research and interviews with national and international experts, we illustrate with examples from Ethiopia and Indonesia how REDD+ projects are implemented, how they fail to adequately incorporate the demands of smallholder farmers and how this leads to a loss of livelihoods and diminishing interest in participating in REDD+ by local farming communities. The study shows how the conservation-based benefits and insecure funding base in REDD+ projects do not compensate for the contraction in livelihoods from agriculture. Combined with exclusive benefit-sharing mechanisms, this results in an increased pressure on forest resources, diverging from the principal objective of REDD+. We note a gap between the REDD+ narratives at international level (i.e. coupling development with a climate agenda) and the livelihood interests of farming communities on the ground. We argue that without incorporating agricultural interests and a review of financial incentives in the design of future climate finance mechanisms, objectives of both livelihood improvements and GHG emission reductions will be missed. Key policy insights • REDD+ is positioned as a promising tool to meet climate, conservation and development targets. However, these expectations are not being met in practice as the interests of smallholder farmers are poorly addressed. • REDD+ policy developers and implementers need more focus on understanding the interests and dynamics of smallholder agriculturalists to enable inclusive, realistic and long-lasting projects. • For REDD+ to succeed, funders need to consider how to better ensure long-term livelihood security for farming communities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcpo20
Climate Policy
ISSN: 1469-3062 (Print) 1752-7457 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcpo20
The implications of ignoring smallholder
agriculture in climate-financed forestry projects:
empirical evidence from two REDD+ pilot projects
A. E. C. Duker, T. M. Tadesse, T. Soentoro, C. de Fraiture & J. S. Kemerink-
Seyoum
To cite this article: A. E. C. Duker, T. M. Tadesse, T. Soentoro, C. de Fraiture & J. S. Kemerink-
Seyoum (2018): The implications of ignoring smallholder agriculture in climate-financed
forestry projects: empirical evidence from two REDD+ pilot projects, Climate Policy, DOI:
10.1080/14693062.2018.1532389
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1532389
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 09 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 10
View Crossmark data
The implications of ignoring smallholder agriculture in climate-nanced
forestry projects: empirical evidence from two REDD+ pilot projects
A. E. C. Duker
a
, T. M. Tadesse
b
, T. Soentoro
c
, C. de Fraiture
a,d
and J. S. Kemerink-Seyoum
e,f
a
Department of Water Science and Engineering, IHE Delft, Delft, Netherlands;
b
Hawassa University, Awasa, Ethiopia;
c
Aksi!,
Jakarta, Indonesia;
d
Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen,
Netherlands;
e
Department of Integrated Water Systems and Governance, IHE Delft, Delft, Netherlands;
f
Governance and Inclusive
Development Group, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Changes in agricultural practices can play a pivotal role in climate change mitigation by
reducing the need for land use change as one of the biggest sources of GHG emissions,
and by enabling carbon sequestration in farmerselds. Expansion of smallholder and
commercial agriculture is often one of the main driving forces behind deforestation and
forest degradation. However, mitigation programmes such as REDD+ are geared
towards conservation eorts in the forestry sector without prominently taking into
account smallholder agricultural interests in project design and implementation.
REDD+ projects often build on existing re- and aorestation projects without major
changes in their principles, interests and assumptions. Informed by case study
research and interviews with national and international experts, we illustrate with
examples from Ethiopia and Indonesia how REDD+ projects are implemented, how
they fail to adequately incorporate the demands of smallholder farmers and how this
leads to a loss of livelihoods and diminishing interest in participating in REDD+ by
local farming communities. The study shows how the conservation-based benets
and insecure funding base in REDD+ projects do not compensate for the contraction
in livelihoods from agriculture. Combined with exclusive benet-sharing
mechanisms, this results in an increased pressure on forest resources, diverging from
the principal objective of REDD+. We note a gap between the REDD+ narratives at
international level (i.e. coupling development with a climate agenda) and the
livelihood interests of farming communities on the ground. We argue that without
incorporating agricultural interests and a review of nancial incentives in the design
of future climate nance mechanisms, objectives of both livelihood improvements
and GHG emission reductions will be missed.
Key policy insights
.REDD+ is positioned as a promising tool to meet climate, conservation and
development targets. However, these expectations are not being met in practice
as the interests of smallholder farmers are poorly addressed.
.REDD+ policy developers and implementers need more focus on understanding the
interests and dynamics of smallholder agriculturalists to enable inclusive, realistic
and long-lasting projects.
.For REDD+ to succeed, funders need to consider how to better ensure long-term
livelihood security for farming communities.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 29 March 2018
Accepted 28 September 2018
KEYWORDS
REDD+; smallholder
agriculture; livelihoods;
deforestation; Indonesia;
Ethiopia
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CONTACT A.E.C. Duker a.duker@un-ihe.org Department of Water Science and Engineering, IHE Delft, PO Box 3015, Delft 2601 DA,
Netherlands
CLIMATE POLICY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1532389
1. Introduction
REDD+ projects,
1
as part of broader REDD+ national programmes, represent a promising instrument to substan-
tially contribute to climate change mitigation. In fact, REDD+ is one of the mechanisms supported by the Green
Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF is meant to provide the main funding opportunities for climate change mitigation
and adaptation in the Global South for the coming years, with an aspirational budget of 100 billion US$ in 2020
(UNFCCC, 2018). However, the development and implementation of REDD+ pilot projects have been heavily
challenged and criticized by scholars for various reasons, including poor governance and insecure tenure
systems (Davis, Daviet, Nakhooda, & Thuault, 2010; Gupta, 2012; Kanowski, McDermott, & Cashore, 2010;
Phelps, Guerreo, Dalabajan, Young, & Webb, 2010), too little inclusion of rights, interests and benets for com-
munities (Anderson, 2011; Lyster, 2011; Shankland & Hasenclever, 2011; Visseren-Hamakers, McDermott, Vijge, &
Cashore, 2012), constrained participation of the private sector in absence of a properly functioning carbon
market (Corbera & Schroeder, 2011), and limited cost-eectiveness due to high transaction and opportunity
costs (Huettner, 2012; Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012).
REDD+ projects can be market-based, whereby funding is sourced from carbon markets, while others derive
their funds from more conventional aid and nature conservation funds. Often, a combination of nancial incen-
tives and resources from public and private investors is found. This paper reviews two projects in the Global
South that serve as trial sites for implementing REDD+ programmes at the national level. These perform-
ance-based pilot projects still rely on the voluntary carbon market in anticipation of rolling out fully-edged
national REDD+ programmes, which eventually are expected to source funding from the compliance oset
markets for greenhouse gases.
2
It is estimated that 80% of global deforestation is caused by agriculture, including logging. Although it is
often assumed that subsistence farming is the dominant contributor to deforestation, commercial farming is
more signicantly impacting forests in both Indonesia and Ethiopia, the focus countries of this paper (Kis-
singer, Herold, & de Sy, 2012). Furthermore, diverging interests between farmers, pastoralists and forest dwell-
ers are often assumed to be at the root of conicts over natural resources and accelerated degradation,
despite contradictory evidence (Geist & Lambin, 2002). Hence, based on these two assumptions, it would
be logical for subsistence farmers to play a central role in the design and implementation of REDD+ pro-
grammes. However, as this paper will illuminate, this is not the case, and the smallholder sector is insuciently
considered in the design and implementation of REDD+ projects. Although previous research has shown that
overall REDD+ strategies as proposed on paper generally fail to address agricultural drivers of deforestation,
limited empirical evidence is at hand to assess the mechanisms relating to this omission (Kissinger, 2013). This
paper therefore seeks to identify factors and processes that play a role in this apparent challenge of including
the smallholder agricultural sector in REDD+ programmes. We will thereby demonstrate the discrepancy
between international and national policy rhetoric on the one hand, and the complex political realities on
the ground on the other.
The paper starts with a description of the selected case studies and the chosen methodology (Section 2). This
is followed by outlining the main research ndings related to the challenges of incorporating smallholder
farmersinterests in REDD+ projects (Section 3). The paper ends with a discussion of these ndings, drawing
specic lessons based on this research to enhance policies on climate nancing mechanisms (Section 4).
2. Case studies and methodology
The scope of this study concerns the role of smallholder agriculture in climate nanced forestry eorts, in par-
ticular REDD+ projects. The projects selected are the Meru Betiri National Park in Indonesia and the Bale Moun-
tain Eco-region REDD+ Project in Ethiopia. We selected these two case studies because smallholder agriculture
and use of forest products by villagers were regarded as the main causes of deforestation and therefore chan-
ging this behaviour was the primary target of the projects. In addition, both projects serve as test cases in prep-
aration for the implementation of fully-edged REDD+ programmes at the national level, in line with the REDD+
strategies and action plans developed by the respective government. In these national plans, both the Indone-
sian and Ethiopian governments have committed to safeguarding the interests of local communities; in the
2A. E. C. DUKER ET AL.
implementation documents of the selected projects, reference is made to improving the livelihoods of rural
households and the sharing of benets with local communities. It is important to evaluate and draw lessons
from the progress made so far in each of these pilot projects in the hope of steering the direction to be
taken by the broader REDD+ programmes, as well as other climate nanced forestry programmes.
2.1. Meru Betiri National Park
The Meru Betiri National Park (MBNP), located on East Java, Indonesia, comprises 58,000ha of mangrove swamp
forest and lowland rain forest. In 1999, an agroforestry programme to tackle deforestation was initiated by an
Indonesian NGO, in which communities planted trees and at the same time were allowed to grow food crops
inside the national park. Five villages were involved in these agroforestry activities, and in 2009, about half of the
village population participated in this programme (Harada, Prabowo, Aliadi, Ichihara, & Ma, 2015). In 2010, this
programme was transformed into a demonstration REDD+ project by the International Tropical Timber Organ-
isation as the main funder together with a private sector company. The REDD+ consortium also includes two
Indonesian NGOs, which were previously involved in the agroforestry programme, and the Forest Research
and Development Agency, which focuses on carbon monitoring. The initiation of the REDD+ programme
oered an opportunity for the implementing agencies to secure funding to continue their reforestation
eorts, with the aim of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by enhancing carbon stocks in more
and bigger trees. However, avoiding emissions by reducing deforestation, allegedly caused by illegal logging
and encroachment of the forest by smallholder farmers, was also used as a rationale to acquire the project.
The target area for REDD+ project in the rehabilitation zone is 400 ha where the consortium expects to
reduce emissions by around 9.8 tCO
2
per year for a period of 30 years (Wibowo, 2015). The demonstration
project ran from 2010 to 2013, but since then progress towards a fully-edged REDD+ project, as part of the
national REDD+ programme with carbon credits to be sold on the (voluntary) market, has been stagnant.
Under the REDD+ project, ve dierent zones were demarcated and permitted activities were prescribed for,
and monitored in, each zone: a core zone of 27,900 ha and an intact forest zone of 22,600 ha that are both strictly
protected; a rehabilitation zone of over 4000 ha where limited agroforestry activities take place including
nursing and planting medicinal species; and the buer and utilization zones (together over 3000 ha) where
limited economic activities are allowed, such as harvesting forest products, plantations, agroforestry and eco-
tourism. The people living in the 10 bordering villages and 2 villages inside the national park primarily
depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, both as land-owning farmers and land labourers. Moreover,
several enclaves of labourers for teak and rubber plantation companies live inside the national park. Crops
grown by subsistence farmers include mainly rice, vegetables and fruits. In the outer rehabilitation, buer
and utilization zones, pressure on the land is the highest through illegal logging and (unsustainable) agricultural
activities. The rehabilitation zone used to be a teak plantation but was completely logged at the end of the
1990s after the fall of President Suharto. Nevertheless, who is actually responsible for current illegal logging
in the park remains debated: the management of the park blames the villagers, while the villagers in the
park accuse outsiders of organized logging backed by the military and police forces.
2.2. Bale Mountain Ecoregion REDD+ project
The Bale Mountain Ecoregion REDD+ Project (BMERP) is located in Oromia state, Ethiopia, where 70% of the
countrys remaining forest is present (OFWE, 2014). The area of over 260,000 ha encompasses mainly moist
forest, while a small portion (<10%) is classied as dry forest. It experiences high annual deforestation rates,
ranging from 1.1 to 6.6% (OFWE, 2014). The REDD+ project is anticipated to run from 2012 to 2031 and
expects to reduce carbon emissions by almost 38 million tCO2 through avoided deforestation (OFWE, 2014).
A major aim behind choosing the REDD+ approach was to secure long-term sustainable funding that would
oer alternative livelihoods to rural households, so that they would not engage in deforestation, thus reducing
anticipated carbon dioxide emissions (Tadesse, 2016). The project is still in its initial stages and depends on
donor funds, but once fully operational, it aims to receive performance-based payments from the World
Bank as the primary credit buyer in the voluntary carbon credit market.
CLIMATE POLICY 3
About 1.6 million people live in the ecoregion and their livelihoods depend mainly on crop production, live-
stock and forest-based income. These smallholder farmers are considered to form the major driver for defores-
tation, combined with natural and induced forest res. The research focuses on the Dodola and Adaba districts,
where a participatory forest management (PMF) project was introduced in 2000 in order to protect the forests
while reducing poverty. When funding sources to continue this PMF project dried up, the REDD+ programme
oered an opportunity to continue eorts to substitute smallholder agricultural production with income from
forest conservation activities. Since deforestation and overexploitation of the forest continued under the PMF
project, the rational for the REDD+ project was to generate extra income from carbon credits to increase
eorts to conserve and protect the forest. The organizational set-up of the REDD+ project was not changed
from the previous PMF project, in which members of forest dweller associations were provided with 12 ha of
forest for which they received restricted use rights. With each association having up to 30 members, the
forest was divided into blocks of maximum 360 ha to be managed collectively. Non-members were denied
access to the forest and mainly depend on plots for agricultural production outside the national park (see
also Kemerink-Seyoum, Tadesse, Mersha, Duker, & de Fraiture, in press).
2.3. Methodology
For both areas, an extended case study approach was chosen. This enabled the analysis of relevant interactions
and processes over a longer period of time and at dierent spatial levels. Besides desk reviews, eld work with
semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions was carried out with (in)direct beneciaries, project sta,
and local governments, amongst other stakeholders. In addition, residents who were not involved in the pro-
jects were interviewed to obtain their views and to discuss the implications of the projects for them. In both
cases, initial eld visits were organized prior to the interviews and focus group discussions to determine the
main actors involved in the REDD+ projects. Validation workshops were held to discuss and validate research
ndings in each of the case studies. In total, 57 interviews were carried out in the Ethiopian case and 32 in
the Indonesian case in several eld visits between November 2014 and September 2016 (Soentoro, 2017;
Tadesse, 2016). Table 1 shows a summary for the research methods and targeted actors in each case study.
Thematic analysis (Petty, Thomson, & Stew, 2012) was used to explore variations, similarities, and relation-
ships within the qualitative collected data to study how the various actors have been involved in designing
and implementing the projects; how they perceived the projects; how the projects aected their daily activities
and livelihoods; and how the projects fostered and/or jeopardized relationships between various actors.
3. Results
Although the two case studies involved completely dierent institutional and climatological environments, we
found similar challenges and constraints in executing the activities for realizing the objectives in both cases. We
analysed the case studies to see how agricultural interests were addressed in the design and implementation of
REDD+ projects. In both cases we found that these were not well incorporated and the analysis brought us to
three common elements that played a major role in this omission, as discussed below.
Table 1. Data collection methods and target actors per case study.
Meru Betiri, Indonesia No. Bale Mountains, Ethiopia No.
Semi-structured
interviews
Farmer group members 19 Forest association members 37
Community leaders 4 Non-forest association members 9
National Park sta2 NGOs 3
NGOs 4 Government bodies 8
Government bodies 3
Total 32 Total 57
Focus-group
discussions
Farmer groups (1520) 4 Forest association members (6) 1
Community entrepreneur groups 2
Validation workshop Community members, national park, project implementers, local
government, NGOs
1 Project implementers, NGOs,
governments
1
4A. E. C. DUKER ET AL.
3.1. Benets from REDD+ projects do not substitute for agricultural outputs
The major rationale on which the REDD+ projects are based is that the income from carbon credits will substi-
tute for income from activities causing deforestation and forest degradation. Hence, REDD+ resources may be
the most useful where the opportunity costs of deforestation are the lowest, and least likely to be eective
where the opportunity costs of deforestation are higher, like with palm oil plantations in Indonesia (Gupta,
2012). In fact, Butler, Koh, and Ghazoul (2009) reveal that the protability of converting forest into palm oil plan-
tations is up to 10 times as protable as preserving it for carbon credits, which currently rely on the prices of the
voluntary carbon market.
As prot margins in smallholder agriculture are much lower, REDD+ projects can theoretically be more
eective, assuming that smallholder agriculture is a major driver for deforestation. However, in the two analysed
cases we nd that the material and non-material gains derived from REDD+ projects did not compensate the
losses in benets from smallholder agricultural production and forest use. Although their agricultural activities
are considered to be the root cause for deforestation, the nature of the benets from these activities for their
livelihoods are not well understood nor compensated.
This mismatch between smallholder famers needs and benets provided by REDD+ projects is illustrated in
the case of the BMERP project in Ethiopia. All community members were previously allowed to let their cattle
graze in the forest during the dry season, grow crops on rotation in the forest, and collect forest products such as
herbs and honey, which constitute essential parts of their diets. Under the PFM, and not redressed within the
REDD+ project, a minority of residents could become members of the forest dwellers association and were
as such appointed to manage 12 ha of forest land each. This responsibility came with limited use rights of
the forest in terms of timber, re wood collection, restricted grazing and beekeeping. However, the majority
of residents of the project area were not allowed to become a member of this association and were denied
access to the forest, without the provision of compensation or alternative source of livelihood. The only
direct benet they continued to receive from the forest was (fuel) wood that they occasionally got on
request for special family events (e.g. weddings, funerals). Inequity in the distribution of forest resources has
thus increased. As a result, for instance, non-members now buy fodder from association members or illegally
pay them to have cattle graze in the forest for several months during the dry season. The lack of substitute
for grazing cattle thus leads to a situation where the pressure on the forest is not reduced.
In addition, the actual benets from forest products for the members of the forest association are less than
anticipated because of practical concerns not addressed by project implementers. As the following interviewee
explains:
In my [forest association] there are 30 members and based on the membersagreement each member is allowed to cut one
tree a year for personal benet. Accordingly, last year I cut one tree that was my share However, since I lack the skill of
making lumber, I contracted someone owning a pitsaw. The contracted person made 20 pieces of lumber from each tree
and took 12 for himself as part of the agreement. I got only 8, which is unfair as I benetted less than envisaged. (Interview
with M7; see Tadesse, 2016)
These ndings on the ground contrast with the foreseen benets as stated in the REDD+ project implemen-
tation document:
Social benets of the project could include boosting productivity of small holder agriculture, the generation of new income
sources based on sustainable alternatives, the creation of direct and indirect jobs in monitoring and land management activi-
ties, health improvement, education (sic). And (sic) enhance the capacity of the forest management cooperatives in sustainably
managing the forests in their vicinity. (OFWE, 2014)
Another factor contributing to this mismatch between interests and benets results from the fact that REDD+
projects are often based on already existing nature conservation projects. Assumptions and objectives are
hardly adjusted from previous conservation eorts and therefore do not position the livelihoods of subsistence
farmers at the core of the project. As a result, project activities tend to focus on forest conservation activities with
limited benets for a few, often already advantaged, smallholder farmers. Local forest dwellers in the MBNP
project in Indonesia benet from the project through wages earned from tree planting and, indirectly, by receiv-
ing training on how to protect forests and measure carbon. Agricultural activities such as planting crops, grazing
CLIMATE POLICY 5
livestock or collecting herbs are banned from most of the project area and restricted in the buer zones of the
national park. These conventional nature conservation activities are cheaper and easier to implement, and show
results in the shorter term, but do not meet the livelihood needs of the residents of the targeted villages,
let alone compensate for losses. A study in two villages in MBNP by Harada et al. (2015) shows that current agri-
cultural income from the park (primarily rice, vegetables, and fruits) is 4 to 7 times higher than the maximum
nancial (indirect) benet to be derived from tree planting. Both participants and non-participants of the
project use land outside the park, but the land holdings of the residents who participate in the project are
much smaller. Giving up agricultural production within the park without realistic compensation therefore has
a signicant impact on their livelihoods.
3.2. Funding remains insecure
The concept of REDD+ was formalized during the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in
2009. Although the years in which countries were preparing for REDD readinesshave gone by, the international
carbon market has only made moderate progress to becoming functional. Some current REDD+ projects rely on
voluntary carbon markets, resulting in very low prices, but a large investment share originates from donor funds,
either performance-based or not, which focus on REDD readiness (Watson, Patel, & Schalatek, 2016). These orig-
inate from governmental or non-governmental conservation or development agencies, or from companies that
are implementing their corporate social responsibility policies. Although it can be advantageous for an acceler-
ated fund dispersion process, using existing nancing channels comes with the risk of losing the opportunity to
introduce a performance-based system, a lack of coordination among REDD+ donor agencies, a fragmentation
of the incentive system due to dierent donor requirements, and a missing link between results and nance
(Streck, 2012).
Both case studies strive for a performance-based system in which payments are based on actually achieved
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and, to this end, both adopt a benets-sharing mechanism in which the
revenue goes to local actors. This set-up has the potential to provide a secure long-term ow of funding to pay
residents to maintain the forest. However, in both cases, this promise is not being met for dierent reasons. In
the case of MBNP in Indonesia, where farmers will be paid according to the density and variety of trees planted
on their agricultural land, funding from both private and non-governmental sources was ad-hoc and did not
provide any secure long-term commitment. Initial steps were taken to apply for the Plan Vivo scheme, a volun-
tary carbon certication programme, but so far the payments are not yet directly linked to a carbon accounting
system or market, and instead depend on short-term external funding from donors. Furthermore, the addition-
ality of REDD+ in this area is questionable, because the net deforestation rate is actually negative, which might
limit the attractiveness of the project for buyers in the carbon market (Wibowo, 2015). Consequently, there is no
long-term income security for the farmers involved. As they earn a substantial portion of their total income from
agricultural products from the National Park, estimated at 2540% (Harada et al., 2015), there needs to be a
secure mechanism in place to substitute for potential losses. However, payments from the agroforestry pro-
gramme completely stopped after the initial demonstration phase because of a lack of capital from donors. Dis-
appointment and distrust among participants have consequently arisen, since they feel they have been used to
showcase performance of the project, without long term prospects. As farmers lose interest, the project fails to
deliver its promises of avoided deforestation.
Additionally, tenure security is a highly debated concern in the MBNP area. There was supposed to be an
ocial memorandum of understanding signed between the 5 villages and the park management allowing
the farmers to manage and use the lands in the rehabilitation zone for 35 years, but so far, this has not materi-
alized. Hence, a source of conict remains as land use rights, which are required to secure income generation by
farmers, are not clearly dened.
The BMERP project in Ethiopia illustrates that, even though a performance-based carbon-accounting system
is under development, revenues remain uncertain. Under a planned benet-sharing mechanism, members of
the forest associations were initially promised direct monetary benets in cash from the foreseen carbon
credit sales. Specically, they negotiated that they would receive 60% of the revenue generated by any
carbon credit sales in the future. They have thus high expectations concerning the benets that they will
6A. E. C. DUKER ET AL.
receive from the REDD+ project, and are anticipating that they will be compensated for conserving the forest.
Meanwhile, however, the Ethiopian government and the World Bank, as the carbon credit buyer, favour a so-
called jurisdictional approach whereby several REDD+ projects in the south of Ethiopia will be monitored
together. In this revised set-up, members of the forest associations will only benet through climate-nanced
community projects (schools, hospitals, roads etc.), as opposed to the individual monetary payments. This is
not well received by most of them as they now need to buy their food, fodder and charcoal, as their own agri-
cultural production is severely hampered. Thus, a yet undetermined negotiation about benet-sharing at local
and national level restricts secure cash benets to smallholder farmers and the question of who owns and
decides about the carbon credits remains debated. In addition, long term prospects are uncertain, because
the price and benets of carbon will be renegotiated every ve years.
Overall, evidence from these two projects suggests that engagement in REDD+ activities remains an insecure
investment, especially if people are expected to give up the lands that they use for their own production and
income. In both projects, these aws have led to farmers losing condence and trust in the project implementers
and the implementation process. This has led to delays in the projects and has allowed lingering conicts to amplify
(see also Kemerink-Seyoum et al., in press). This lack of long term security in the case of rural Ethiopia is especially
staggering considering that cattle are regarded not only asa source of nutrition, but also as an asset forovercoming
dicult periods, such as a drought or a family (health) emergency. It is precisely this cattle grazing that is restricted
under the REDD+ programme, without any alternative security mechanism being introduced.
3.3. Exclusions weaken incentives
Exclusiveness in the implementation of REDD+ projects portrays itself in two dierent ways. Firstly, the output-
based nature of benet-sharing in REDD+, that is, benet-sharing based on the changes in carbon stocks, raises
fundamental equity concerns as individual contributions towards avoided deforestation are hard to dene
(Skutsch et al., 2014). In Indonesia this issue has been addressed by assigning individual plots to farmers. Indi-
viduals are currently compensated for the successes they achieve on their plots by planting more and a higher
diversity of trees. In the case of the Bale Mountains, carbon monitoring will be carried out on the lands allocated
to the associations and hence individual contributions will be invisible. Consequently, incentives for avoiding
deforestation are undermined, which leads to distrust and illegal use of forest resources.
The second manifestation of exclusiveness relates to the criteria that are in place for selecting participants for
REDD+ projects. In the Ethiopian case, access to REDD+ benets is based on previously dened arrangements in
which village residents are denied access to the forest, except for those who are members of the forest dwellers
association. As a result, the use of the forest resources, i.e. mainly cattle grazing and timber and fuel wood, is
conditionally allowed only for a minority group whereas others are not compensated for their loss in livelihood.
The REDD+ project is following the same principle and hence a majority of the villagers is thus deprived of the
benets of REDD+, having already faced a loss in livelihood due to the previous PFM approach. The feeling of
injustice felt by those excluded from the forest is illustrated by this interviewee who is not a member of the
forest association:
At that time [of the introduction of project], though we were excluded from membership, they [project sta] promised us that
we will also benet from the protection of forest resources. However, gradually they have started to clearly exclude us from the
benet by denying us use rights, even for grazing, which is not fair. (Interview I2; see Tadesse, 2016)
Enclosingthese forests, which were previously de facto considered as common pool resources, leads to per-
verse incentives to use the forest illegally. A rise in fuel wood prices was in fact further exacerbated by the
project as wood became exclusively available to a small group of people, creating an incentive for more
illegal logging by non-members, and for association members to become engaged in both legal and illegal
fuel wood businesses. Moreover, this inequitable access to forest resources led to an aggravation of existing
conicts, among non-members and members, and also between members and their ospring who are not auto-
matically entitled to forest use rights (Kemerink-Seyoum et al., in press).
In Indonesia, a similar process took place at dierent levels. Firstly, out of the 12 villages residing inside or
adjacent to the national park, only 5 were selected to participate in the project, because they were already
CLIMATE POLICY 7
cooperating with the previous project owners. Secondly, within the participating villages, only farmers who were
a member of the forest farmers groups were selected for the initial agroforestry programme. A total of 42 forest
farmer groups joined the project, and these farmers were assigned an individual plot in the rehabilitation zone.
REDD+ activities were built on the existing agroforestry project and involved only the people who had pre-
viously received a permit to manage lands in the rehabilitation zone. However, there are many more farmers
inside the forest who are now deprived of forest resources. This exclusive character of the project has thus
created tension among those villagers who are, and those who are not, allowed to participate in the REDD+
project, and triggered conicts over forest resources within the villages.
4. Discussion and conclusions
4.1. Learning from implementing REDD+
For the future success of REDD+ programmes, a thorough understanding by policy makers of REDD+ (pilot) pro-
jects based on empirical research is of crucial importance (see also Negra & Wollenberg, 2012). This study, and
specically the examples from the eld, aims to contribute to this need by zooming in on the smallholder agricul-
tural sector. Kissinger (2013) assessed the extent to which twenty REDD+ readiness proposals as submitted to the
World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) address agriculture as the main driver for deforestation. She
concluded that these strategies and planned activities in general fail to do so. We can add to this nding that, in
the cases studied, the implementation of REDD+ (pilot) projects on the ground has similarly failed to respond to
the root causesof deforestation by ignoring the needs and interests of those who allegedly are involved in clearing
the forests, namely smallholder farmers. The three main reasons why smallholder farmersneeds and interests
were not met in our case study projects are (1) the limited benets obtained from REDD+ (pilot) initiatives to sub-
stitute for livelihood losses caused by enclosing forests that are de facto used for agricultural activities; (2) the inse-
cure ows of funding within REDD+ programmes in the long term; and (3) the exclusive character of the
implemented (pilot) projects, which has marginalized the majority of smallholder farmers in the case study areas.
The case studies in Ethiopia and Indonesia demonstrate that this omission leads to a distrust and loss of inter-
est of smallholder farmers to participate in REDD+ projects and a loss in livelihoods for these farmers. Moreover,
the case studies show how the project leads to an increased pressure on forest resources and enhanced incen-
tives for (illegal) exploitation of forest products. In addition, carbon leakage, which occurs when deforestation is
halted in one area but at the same time triggered in another because the demand for forest resources is not
being reduced, is likely to occur in both cases. Because farmers have not been provided with long-term alterna-
tives to their diverse agricultural benets, such as re wood and grazing ground, they will go elsewhere to access
these, either directly or indirectly. Hence, it is unlikely that there will be a real reduction in greenhouse gas emis-
sions that can be attributed to these projects.
Realizing eectiveness and equity remains challenging in applying innovative nancial incentive-schemes
that aim, at least in rhetoric, to reconcile development and conservation eorts (Gross-Camp, Martin,
McGuire, Kebede, & Munyarukaza, 2012; Pascual et al., 2014). Likewise, we found that the two REDD+ pilot pro-
jects were based on existing community forest or nature conservation projects, whereby actors and institutions
continued working on previously dened principles, interests and assumptions geared towards nature conser-
vation. In our cases, this nature conservation perspective has resulted in a bias that is preventing the fullment
of livelihood needs of the households that are dependent on smallholder farming. The funds disseminated in
the case studies were insecure and largely insucient to substitute for livelihood losses. Thus, the major prin-
ciple of REDD+, i.e. the concept of results-based payments whereby funds originate either through (voluntary)
carbon markets or development or conservation funds, has so far seen limited progress in the two study areas,
and is far from the success it promised to be.
4.2. Lessons for future policy developments
This research shows that the understanding and acknowledgment of the interests of smallholder farmers is
insucient, not least regarding monetary and non-monetary needs for enhancing food security in the short
8A. E. C. DUKER ET AL.
and longer term. These ndings are not stand alone cases, as we recognize that similar challenges have been
encountered in other parts of the world, e.g. in Peru, Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania and Vietnam (Sills et al., 2014).
They highlight problems related to tenure, nance facilities, adopting and implementing safeguards and nding
sustainable alternative livelihoods for subsistence farmers. Hence, there is substantial evidence from recent
empirical research that calls for improved recognition and action on enhancing livelihood security of farmers
involved in REDD+ programmes and projects.
The major international arena to address these concerns is the Green Climate Fund, which promotes REDD+
as a promising tool to meet carbon targets. We note that there is a gap between local practice and realities on
the ground and the rhetoric of REDD+ at this international level, where it is often portrayed as if a reduction of
carbon emissions, poverty alleviation and nature conservation could easily go hand in hand (UN REDD, 2012).
The reviewed projects were based on the contested narrative of subsistence farming being the main driver for
deforestation and related carbon emissions, and on the promise of project activities to promote socioeconomic
development and combat climate change. However, our research ndings imply that smallholder agricultural
interests are not thoroughly understood nor recognized in the objectives and implementation of REDD+.
Focus is centred on conservation targets with a narrow perspective on meeting socioeconomic development
goals. This omission results not only in REDD+ missing out in realizing the overall target of reducing carbon
emissions, but also in exacerbating poverty and fuelling looming conicts over resources at the local level. In
addition, funders for these projects, either market-based or from development or nature conservation
sources, need to consider how to engage in and support long-term livelihood security on an inclusive basis
for smallholder farmers in order for REDD+ to succeed.
Finally, the ndings call for a debate on how the smallholder agricultural sector could benet from climate
change mitigation programmes and vice versa. In this respect, attention needs to be given not only to the
potential threats of (subsistence) agriculture to our climate as result of deforestation but also to the opportu-
nities and synergies oered by reducing carbon emissions through improved farming practices and by seques-
tering carbon in agricultural lands. These can be implemented at plot, farm and landscape level, e.g. reduced use
of inputs, generation of biogas from manure, and restoration of degraded lands and wetlands through land-
scape governance (Harvey et al., 2014). We therefore recommend promoting more and stronger feedback
from (smallholder) farmers to policy makers, to ensure joint learning and improvement of climate nance pol-
icies and strategies. Or, as one of the interviewed NGO stamembers in Indonesia stated:
The government should think beyond buying and selling carbon in regard to REDD+, but recognize activities of local com-
munities in the conservation area as a contribution to forest conservation. Communities should not be considered as a threat
but as partners to work collaboratively for forest. (Soentoro, 2017)
Notes
1. REDD+: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, with the +referring to conservation of forest carbon
stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (UN-REDD Programme, 2018).
2. In the voluntary carbon market, buyers can purchase carbon credits to voluntarily oset their emissions, while in the compli-
ance market, a regulatory instrument, e.g. an emission cap set by a governmental body, denes the demand for carbon credits
to be purchased by buyers who need to comply with respective regulations.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the respondents in the two case study areas in Ethiopia and Indonesia for sharing their knowledge and experiences, Dr.
Almaz Tadesse and Dr. Woldemariam Tadesse and their colleagues from HoAREC&N for facilitating the research activities, and mr.
Dardiri Dardak and other team members from Aksi! and the Centre of EnvironmentalStudies of the University of Brawijaya for contribut-
ing to the eld work. We are grateful to Esteve Corbera and the anonymous reviewers who commented on an earlier version of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
CLIMATE POLICY 9
Funding
This work was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientic Research/Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk
Onderzoek (NWO) [grant number W 07.68.414].
ORCID
A. E. C. Duker http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5653-1834
References
Anderson, P. (2011). Free, prior, and informed consent in REDD+: Principles and approaches for policy and project development (Technical
Report, RECOFTC and GIZ).
Butler, R. A., Koh, L. P., & Ghazoul, J. (2009). REDD in the red: Palm oil could undermine carbon payment schemes. Conservation Letters,
2,6773.
Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy,14(2), 8999.
Davis, C., Daviet, F., Nakhooda, S., & Thuault, A. (2010). A review of 25 readiness plan idea notes from the World Bank forest carbon part-
nership facility (WRI Working Paper). World Resources Institute.
Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience,52(2), 143150.
Gross-Camp, N. D., Martin, A., McGuire, S., Kebede, B., & Munyarukaza, J. (2012). Payments for ecosystem services in an African pro-
tected area: Exploring issues of legitimacy, fairness, equity and eectiveness. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx,46(1), 2433.
Gupta, J. (2012). Glocal forest and REDD+ governance: Win-win or lose-lose? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,4(6),
620627.
Harada, K., Prabowo, D., Aliadi, A., Ichihara, J., & Ma, H. O. (2015). How can social safeguards of REDD+ function eectively conserve
forests and improve local livelihoods? A case from Meru Betiri National Park, East Java, Indonesia. Land,4(1), 119139.
Harvey, C. A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C. I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., Wollenberg, E. (2014). Climate-smart landscapes:
Opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conservation Letters,7(2), 7790.
Huettner, M. (2012). Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility.
Environmental Science & Policy,15(1), 412.
Kanowski, P. J., McDermott, C. L., & Cashore, B. W. (2010). Implementing REDD+: Lessons from analysis of forest governance.
Environmental Science & Policy,14(2), 111117.
Kemerink-Seyoum, J. S., Tadesse, T. M., Mersha, W. K., Duker, A. E. C., & de Fraiture, C. (in press). Sharing benets or fueling conicts? The
elusive quest for organizational blueprints in climate nancing projects in Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change.
Kissinger, G. (2013). Linking forests and food production in the REDD+ context. In M. Behnassi, O. Pollmann, & G. Kissinger (Eds.),
Chapter 4 from sustainable food security in the era of local and global environmental change (pp. 4165). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kissinger, G., Herold, M., & de Sy, V. (2012). Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (A Synthesis Report for REDD+
Policymakers).
Lyster, R. (2011). REDD+, transparency, participation ad resource rights: The role of law. Environmental Science & Policy,14(2), 118126.
Negra, C., & Wollenberg, E. (2012). Lessons learned from REDD for agriculture. In E. Wollenberg, A. Nihart, M. L. Tapio-Bistrom, & M.
Grieg-Gran (Eds.), Chapter 10 from climate change mitigation and agriculture (pp. 113122). New York: Routledge.
Oromia Forest and Wildlife Enterprise. (2014). Bale Mountains eco-region reduction of emission from deforestation and forest degradation
(REDD+) project Ethiopia. VCS + CCBA Standards Project Description/Project Design Document.
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., & Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for
ecosystem services. BioScience,64(11), 10271036.
Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and
methods. Manual Therapy,17, 378384.
Phelps, J., Guerreo, M. C., Dalabajan, D. A., Young, B., & Webb, E. L. (2010). What makes a REDDcountry? Global Environmental Change,
20(2), 322332.
Shankland, A., & Hasenclever, L. (2011). Indigenous peoples and the regulation of REDD+ in Brazil: Beyond the war of worlds? IDS
Bulletin,42(3), 8088.
Sills, E. O., Atmadja, S. S., de Sassi, C., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D. L., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2014). REDD+ on the ground.
A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Bogor: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Skutsch, M., Turnhout, E., Vijge, M. J., Herold, M., Wits, T., den Besten, J. W., & Balderas Torres, A. (2014). Options for national framework
for benet distribution and their relation to community-based and national REDD+ monitoring. Forests,5(7), 15961617.
Soentoro, T. (2017). Cooperation and conict in the management of climate change: In the case of a CDM project in Bromo-Tengger-
Semeru National Park and a REDD+ project in Meru Betiri National Park in Indonesia (Project Case Study Report).
Streck, C. (2012). Financing REDD+: Matching needs and ends. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,4(6), 628637.
Tadesse, T. M. (2016). Benet-sharing in participatory forest management: Lessons for anticipated benet-sharing mechanism of Bale
Mountains Eco-region REDD+ project (Masters thesis). WorldCat.org. UNESCO-IHE, Delft.
10 A. E. C. DUKER ET AL.
UNFCCC. (2018). Green Climate Fund. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/bodies/green_climate_fund_board/body/6974.php
UN REDD. (2012, March 2526). UN-REDD Programme social and environmental principles and criteria. Eighth Policy Board Meeting,
Asunción.
UN REDD Programme. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.unredd.net/about/what-is-redd-plus.html
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., McDermott, C., Vijge, M. J., & Cashore, B. (2012). Trade-os, co-benets and safeguards: Current debates on the
breadth of REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,4(6), 646653.
Watson, C., Patel, S., & Schalatek, L. (2016). Climate Finance Thematic Brieng: REDD+ Finance. Climate Finance Fundamentals 5,
November 2016. Heinrich Böll Stiftung and Overseas Development Institute.
Wibowo, A. (2015). Implementation of demonstration activity of REDD+ in Meru Betiri National Park, East Java, Indonesia (Technical
Report No 31). Published by the Center for Climate Change and Policy Research and Development, Forestry Research and
Development Agency.
CLIMATE POLICY 11
... To address this (and other) concerns within climate finance projects, several safeguards have been established including the "full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities" based on the principle of free, prior and informed consent (UN-REDD+, 2012, p. 2; see also Poudyal et al., 2016). It is for this reason that particularly existing (approaches to) community based forest conservation projects lend themselves for climate financed forestry projects as they aim to reconcile both livelihood improvement and ecological conservation through participatory methods (Streck, 2012;Chapman et al., 2014;Duker et al., 2018). The set-up of these projects is often shaped by neo-institutional thinking that assumes that institutions can be externally designed and locally crafted following certain principles to achieve a shared goal, namely sustainable management of the forest resource (see also Kemerink, 2015). ...
... Based on this we argue that there is no simple relationship between institutional form and outcomes (see also Cleaver and De Koning, 2015). This does not only points to the elusiveness of the quest for the best organizational model to implement such projects, but also questions the rhetoric at international level in climate finance mechanisms as a tool for both achieving carbon emission reductions as well as socio-economic development (see also Duker et al., 2018). Moreover, it challenges the effectiveness of the considerable efforts made by advocacy groups to establish safeguards to minimize possible negative outcomes of climate financed interventions at local level. ...
... Despite endeavors at policy level to manage forest resources since the late 1930s, the efforts failed to conserve the natural forests (Mersha, 2016). Population growth and persistent poverty is the main driving force behind the clearing of land as most people are directly dependent on small-scale agriculture for their subsistence and need the biomass as a source of energy and construction materials (for more details see Duker et al., 2018). Since the early 1990s the Ethiopian government has followed an agriculture-led economic policy in an attempt to increase the food security of the country, including the stateled expansion of agricultural land. ...
Article
Full-text available
p>Despite euphoria at international level there is a growing concern that participatory forest conservation projects established with climate finance might not lead to the assumed win-win solution expressed in policy rhetoric of addressing both forest degradation and persistent poverty. Based on two climate financed forestry (pilot) projects in Ethiopia, this paper shows that the strong reliance on organizational blueprints and the focus on crafting institutions concealed the more pertinent issues at stake, in particular the unequal distributions of natural resources as result of the enclosure of the commons. The logic and rules on which the projects have been designed have been superimposed on existing social relations of power and prevailing organizational configurations, leading to aggravation of conflicts over resources as result of social exclusion, elite capture and even state-sanctioned land grab. This does not only points to the elusiveness of the quest for the best organizational model to implement such forestry projects, but also questions the faith in climate finance mechanisms at international level and the effectiveness of the efforts made by advocacy groups to establish safeguards to minimize possible negative outcomes at local level.</p
... It also goes beyond general stakeholder consultation, which we understood to also include outreach to different actor groups such as government, academia, and civil society (n = 52). Nevertheless, these processes and inclusion criteria are meaningless if they do not account for local ways of life (Dawson et al 2018, Duker et al 2018. This recognition of traditional values and local norms was discussed in 13% of observations (n = 32). ...
... The most mentioned economic factor in our review was the delivery of benefits (n = 70). In observations on Ethiopia and Indonesia, for example, researchers noted that project implementation was hampered due to a mismatch or insufficient benefits (Duker et al 2018). In the latter, while people earned wages from tree planting and received training to support forest conservation, these did not compensate for losses on banned agricultural activities or meet farmers' livelihoods needs. ...
... This can take the form of payments for ecosystem services (PES) (n = 65), where 'providers' of clean air, water, and other healthy ecosystem services are compensated for their actions; benefits-sharing mechanisms (n = 24), which aim to ensure that benefits received are equitably distributed to participating groups of people or communities; or results-based finance (n = 23), in which program or project participants are paid for emissions reductions. The caveat was often that the incentives need to be appropriate to the local context (n = 68) and payments have to be enough to maintain a consistent quality of life for IPLCs changing their practices and engaging in new NCS activities (Duker et al 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Emerging research points to large greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities for activities that are focused on the preservation and maintenance of ecosystems, also known as natural climate solutions (NCS). Despite large quantifications of the potential biophysical and carbon benefits of these activities, these estimates hold large uncertainties and few capture the socio-economic bounds. Furthermore, the uptake of NCS remains slow and information on the enabling factors needed for successful implementation, co-benefits, and trade-offs of these activities remain underrepresented at scale. As such, we present a systematic review that synthesizes and maps the bottom-up evidence on the contextual factors that influence the implementation of NCS in the peer-reviewed literature. Drawing from a large global collection of (primarily case study-based, N=211) research, this study (1) clarifies the definition of NCS, including in the context of nature-based solutions and other ecosystem-based approaches to addressing climate change; (2) provides an overview of the current state of literature, including research trends, opportunities, gaps, and biases; and (3) critically reflects on factors that may affect implementation in different geographies. We find that the content of the reviewed studies overwhelmingly focuses on tropical regions and activities in forest landscapes. We observe that implementation of NCS rely, not on one factor, but a suite of interlinked enabling factors. Specifically, engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC), performance-based finance, and technical assistance are important drivers of NCS implementation. While the broad categories of factors mentioned in the literature are similar across regions, the combination of factors and how and for whom they are taken up remains heterogeneous globally, and even within countries. Thus our results highlight the need to better understand what trends may be generalizable to inform best practices in policy discussions and where more nuance may be needed for interpreting research findings and applying them outside of their study contexts.
... Evidence proving that REDD+ delivers socio-economic co-benefits is scarce, and little attention has been given to monitoring non-carbon benefits in REDD + initiatives (Vijge et al., 2016). In many cases, REDD+ projects revealed that the opportunity costs of implementing the activities were higher than the income received through carbon payments, and that participants were not adequately compensated for these opportunity costs (Duker et al., 2019;Ickowitz et al., 2017;Sunderlin et al., 2018). In many field observations of REDD+ projects, the expectations of local communities that projects would support the creation of alternative livelihood opportunities (e.g., ecotourism, improved agricultural practices and inputs) were not fulfilled (Sunderlin et al., 2017). ...
... In many field observations of REDD+ projects, the expectations of local communities that projects would support the creation of alternative livelihood opportunities (e.g., ecotourism, improved agricultural practices and inputs) were not fulfilled (Sunderlin et al., 2017). However, without fair compensation for forest users, pressures on forest resources may actually increase, thereby realising the opposite of what REDD+ seeks to achieve (Duker et al., 2019;Massarella et al., 2018). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This paper aims to contribute to emerging debates on soil carbon sequestration by investigating the conditions required to deliver multiple benefits for smallholder farmers. We argue that there are many parallels with, and opportunities to learn from, the long-standing REDD+ mechanism. Our analysis draws on a literature review of scientific articles and reports assessing the past ten years of REDD+ implementation. With a focus on local land users, we address issues of local governance such as land tenure, legitimacy and participation, local support organisations, social inclusion, and non-carbon benefits.
... Thus, they end up cultivating a small area that comes with small outputs. Additionally, protracted problems associated with land tenure system worsen the challenge of agribusinesses to acquire lands (Duker et al., 2019;Fernando, 2020). 4.4.5 B5: food insecurity. ...
... Agribusiness owners who are not part of the party in government in oftentimes are denied access to governmental guarantees and technical expertise to expand (Malorgio and Marangon, 2021). Political volatility within a country also pose a challenge to the sustainability to agribusiness as political violence, conflict and war can erupt anytime curtailing the long-term growth agenda of agribusinesses (Duker et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose - As global concerns for sustainability have gained traction in all sectors of every economy including agribusiness, the need to investigate the critical barriers that could hamper this novelty has also risen. In that regard, this study presents a comprehensive overview of the dominant barriers encountered by agribusinesses to ensure long-term success through the lenses of literature review. Design/methodology/approach - The study used a systematic literature review (SLR) of 43 relevant articles. The study applies content analysis to identify and analyze the selected articles. The conceptual framework underlines the three principal barriers to sustainable agribusinesses. Findings - The results from the SLR demonstrates that inadequate financial support, excessive post-harvest loss, gender inequality, non-climate-smart policies, and weak institutional controls constitute the major challenges to the sustainability of agribusinesses. Originality – This study’s uniqueness is twofold. First, it provides a checklist for practice with the goal of addressing problems that hamper the sustainability of agribusinesses. Second, the findings and research gaps in this study are important to support future studies. Research limitations/implications - The study is limited in scope to barriers to the sustainability of agribusiness only not the broad spectrum of the concept of agriculture. Managerial or Policy Implication - This review holds immense meaning especially in the area of novel adoption of the sustainability of agribusiness enabling stakeholders to be aware of the probable difficulties awaiting.
... In Nepal, goat herders were displaced from their grazing area and blacksmiths had reduced access to charcoal due to the restrictions imposed by the REDD+ project, yet did not receive compensation, leading to negative impacts (Poudel et al., 2014(Poudel et al., , 2015. In the Bale Mountain ecoregion REDD+ project (Ethiopia) the majority of residents were excluded from the forest dwellers association and were denied access to the forest, without compensation (Duker et al., 2019). In Brazil and Tanzania, although costs were unequal, payments under REDD+ were not based on the costs, and thus the net impact was unequal (Nantongo, 2017). ...
Book
Full-text available
In 2012, IUFRO launched the GFEP report “Understanding Relationships between Biodiversity, Carbon, Forests and People: The Key to Achieving REDD+ Objectives”. It analysed the implications of the newly evolving REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) framework of the UNFCCC and potential impacts of activities foreseen under REDD+. The publication received considerable attention from policymakers and stakeholders and was used as guidance for policy development and implementation related to REDD+. In the ten years since the publication of the report, REDD+ has made considerable progress and the landscape of related international agreements has also expanded. UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. REDD+ contributes directly to achieving SDG 13 on Climate Action and SDG 15 on Life on Land, and indirectly to several other SDGs. Most recently, the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use confirmed the critical role of forests in meeting the SDGs and combatting climate change while maintaining other ecosystem services. At the same time, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is negotiating a post-2020 global biodiversity framework to respond to the continuing rapid decline of biodiversity. However, the gap between the political will to meet these global goals and their successful implementation still needs to be closed. In light of this, a thorough scientific review of the REDD+ framework, its impacts and its successes in meeting the related goals, is a timely response to the ongoing global discussions. This report titled “Forests, Climate, Biodiversity and People: Assessing a Decade of REDD+” revisits the questions examined in the earlier GFEP assessment, and analyses and synthesises scientific information published and lessons learned since 2012.
... Projects such as those under the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries) and REDD+ programmes can exacerbate income inequalities and increase the risk of conflict if the financial benefits are not equally distributed, if property rights are granted to only some of the local beneficiaries, or if marginalised groups such as women or indigenous communities or distant forest users, whose participation may be constrained by informal rules, customary laws, social norms, and bias, are not given opportunities to engage with the projects (Bee, 2017;Work, 2017;Duker et al., 2018). ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report presents the results of the work carried out at ETC/WMGE on Green economy transition: Macroeconomic analytical framework in 2020 and 2021. The main aim was to provide the arguments for adopting a macro-level perspective to the green economy transition and to the European Green Deal.
... Because of the above reasons, the community in general and the CBOs and Forest-Dwellers Associations in particular had great hopes to benefit from the selling of carbon that has been sequestered. In support of this, Duker et al. (2018) stated that the local communities had high expectations concerning the benefits that they would receive from the REDD+ project, and they were anticipating that they would be compensated for forest conservation. This is because REDD+ is meant to incentivize the forest-dependent communities of developing countries for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation or for increasing carbon stocks within their forests compared to a reference emissions level (Vanderhaegen et al. 2015). ...
Article
Reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is an internationally accepted mechanism for encouraging developing countries to contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by preventing forest loss and degradation; and by increasing removal of GHGs from the earth’s atmosphere through the conservation, management and expansion of forests. This mechanism, however, has failed to bring the desired results in the Bale Eco-Region. Thus, the purpose of this study is to identify the main challenges of forest governance in addressing the implementation of REDD+ projects. Mixed research approach was employed. Relevant qualitative data were gathered through key informant interviews and focus group discussions. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires. This study revealed that the community produced a total of 5.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in three years (between 2012 and 2015) as a contribution to the global environment. But, they were not received any economic incentives from the REDD+. Generally, while implementing the REDD+ project, forest governance of the Bale Eco-Region has faced different challenges, such as weak institutional arrangements, continuation of deforestation, low enforcement capacity, low economic benefit of the community, lack of strong coordination with media and research institutes, conflict of interest among sectors over forest land, and lack of adequate budget and logistics to undertake proper monitoring and evaluation. All these challenges have in one way or another contributed to the failure of the REDD+ project in the Bale Eco-Region.
... As the theoretical design of REDD+ is quite imprecise regarding the consideration of subsistence, the authors fall back on an example taken from REDD+ projects to peak into actual implementation. Duker, et al. [212] analysed two REDD+ project sides and came to the result "that smallholder agricultural interests are not thoroughly understood nor recognized in the objectives and implementation of REDD+". This might be rooted in the overall design of REDD+ as framework for the forest sector, not directly linked to the other land uses [213]. ...
Article
Full-text available
After years of multilateral deliberations on how to stop global deforestation, such as REDD+ under the UNFCCC, deforestation-free supply chain (DFSC) initiatives emerged from the private sector. Linking both concepts conceptually and in policy practice could provide for synergies and enable more effective approaches against global deforestation. To operationalise such a linkage, a prerequisite is the knowledge of both concepts’ key characteristics, as well as resulting similarities and differences. This literature review firstly identifies key characteristics that affects the potential impact of such concepts, secondly analyses if and how REDD+ and DFSC define these characteristics, and thirdly compares both concepts towards a potential linkage. The results show that a linkage of REDD+ and DFSC provides numerous complementarities which could foster the goal of halting deforestation. This includes for example the driver commercial agriculture, and in terms of permanence, leakage, and degradation. But close coordination is needed to avoid unintended negative consequences, especially for subsistence and smallholder agriculture. The comparison shows that the political consensus found under REDD+ provides a good basis to be supplemented with private sectors’ DFSC initiatives, but additional initiatives like the Bonn Challenge and investments in agroforestry are needed in order to ensure the long-term effect on forest conversion.
Article
Full-text available
The Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set ambitious targets for environmental, economic and social progress. Climate change mitigation policies play a central role in this process. To maximize the benefits and minimize the negative effects of climate change mitigation policies, policymakers need to be aware of the indirect and often complex social and inequality impacts that these policies may have and the pathways through which these impacts emerge. Better understanding of the distributional and inequality impacts is important to avoid negative social and distributional outcomes as countries ratchet up their climate policy ambition in the post-Paris context. This paper synthesizes evidence from the existing literature on social co-impacts of climate change mitigation policy and their implications for inequality. The analysis shows that most policies are linked to both co-benefits and adverse side-effects, and can compound or lessen inequalities depending on contextual factors, policy design and policy implementation. The risk of negative outcomes is greater in contexts characterized by high levels of poverty, corruption and economic and social inequalities, and where limited action is taken to identify and mitigate potentially adverse side-effects. Key policy insights • The risk of adverse social outcomes associated with climate change mitigation policies, including worsening inequality, increases as countries ratchet up their ambition to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Many policies that have so far only been piloted will need to be up-scaled. • Negative inequality impacts of climate policies can be mitigated (and possibly even prevented), but this requires conscious effort, careful planning and multi-stakeholder engagement. Best results can be achieved when potential inequality impacts are taken into consideration in all stages of policy making, including policy planning, development and implementation. • Climate change mitigation policies should take a pro-poor approach that, in best case scenarios, can also lead to a reduction of existing inequalities.
Article
Full-text available
p>Despite euphoria at international level there is a growing concern that participatory forest conservation projects established with climate finance might not lead to the assumed win-win solution expressed in policy rhetoric of addressing both forest degradation and persistent poverty. Based on two climate financed forestry (pilot) projects in Ethiopia, this paper shows that the strong reliance on organizational blueprints and the focus on crafting institutions concealed the more pertinent issues at stake, in particular the unequal distributions of natural resources as result of the enclosure of the commons. The logic and rules on which the projects have been designed have been superimposed on existing social relations of power and prevailing organizational configurations, leading to aggravation of conflicts over resources as result of social exclusion, elite capture and even state-sanctioned land grab. This does not only points to the elusiveness of the quest for the best organizational model to implement such forestry projects, but also questions the faith in climate finance mechanisms at international level and the effectiveness of the efforts made by advocacy groups to establish safeguards to minimize possible negative outcomes at local level.</p
Chapter
Full-text available
In order for REDD+ carbon emission mitigation targets to be reached, the primary driver of forest clearing globally—agriculture—must be fundamentally addressed by governments implementing REDD+ Programmes. This chapter evaluates the extent to which countries participating in the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) readiness activities are actively linking REDD+ and agriculture policies, programmes, institutional and governance arrangements. Based on 20 current country readiness proposals (R-PPs) submitted to the FCPF, the analysis reveals that overall, REDD+ strategies and actions generally fail to address agricultural drivers. The paper poses a general roadmap for how countries can more adequately address agricultural drivers in their REDD+ strategies, including: identifying clear strategies to address demand-side and market pressures, and how government action can influence those; sorting out tenure and land access rights; strengthening cross-sectoral policies; linking mitigation to adaption; boosting efficiency and production of agricultural systems; and incorporating agricultural carbon measurement in national MRV systems. Brazil and Acre State, Brazil, are highlighted as a case study, as both jurisdictions have overcome, at the national and sub-regional scale, many of the hurdles faced by other governments analyzed in this chapter.
Article
Full-text available
The National REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-Plus) Strategy in Indonesia highlights the importance of local participation and the reform of land tenure in the success of forest conservation. National parks are a main target area for REDD+. National parks in Indonesia have been suffering from forest destruction and conflicts between governments and local communities. This study investigated: (1) the historical process of developing the REDD+ project in collaboration with multiple stakeholders including government authorities, local NGOs, and local people; (2) the social and economic impacts of the REDD+ project on local people; and (3) the local awareness of and motivations to participate in the REDD+ project in Meru Betiri National Park in Indonesia. Interviews of stakeholders including village leaders, NGO staff, and park staff were conducted to obtain an overview of the REDD+ project in the national park. Interviews with a questionnaire were also conducted among randomly selected heads of households who participated or did not participate in the REDD+ project and lived adjacent to the national park. Our analysis revealed that participants in the project obtained the right to use illegally harvested bared lands for intercropping while planting trees to recover forest ecosystems inside the national park. This opportunity could have contributed to a drastic increase in income, particularly for economically disadvantaged people, and to the recovery of forest ecosystems. Although local people did not fully recognize the meaning of REDD+ or carbon credits, they were enthusiastic to join in managing and patrolling forests because of their satisfaction with the income generated by the national park. However, the challenge is how both the recovery of forests and income generation from the project can be maintained in a situation of insufficient funding from donors and unsettled arguments about the benefit of sharing carbon credits with local people.
Article
Full-text available
Although conservation efforts have sometimes succeeded in meeting environmental goals at the expense of equity considerations, the changing context of conservation and a growing body of evidence increasingly suggest that equity considerations should be integrated into conservation planning and implementation. However, this approach is often perceived to be at odds with the prevailing focus on economic efficiency that characterizes many payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. Drawing from examples across the literature, we show how the equity impacts of PES can create positive and negative feedbacks that influence ecological outcomes. We caution against equity-blind PES, which overlooks these relationships as a result of a primary and narrow focus on economic efficiency. We call for further analysis and better engagement between the social and ecological science communities to understand the relationships and trade-offs among efficiency, equity, and ecological outcomes.
Article
Full-text available
We explore the potential for payments for ecosystem services (PES) to reconcile conservation and development goals, using a case study of an experimental PES intervention around the Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. The scheme involves the purchase of biodiversity conservation services from local communities in four selected locations. Although a portion of the payment is awarded at the household level, it is the collective action of the community that determines the level of the payment. Contracts are negotiated annually and include performance indicators within each participating community. We examine the ability of PES to achieve conservation and development objectives, through three sub-questions: Is the PES scheme effective? Is it legitimate and fair? Is it equitable? Our findings indicate that the relationship between these evaluation criteria is complex, with both trade-offs and synergies. In this case study the effectiveness of PES is dependent on the equitable distribution of the payment, participants’ belief and acceptance of the service being paid for, institutional histories that aid in the establishment of legitimacy and fairness, and the complementary nature of PES to more conventional enforcement methods.
Article
Monitoring is a central element in the implementation of national REDD+ and may be essential in providing the data needed to support benefit distribution. We discuss the options for benefit sharing systems in terms of technical feasibility and political acceptability in respect of equity considerations, and the kind of data that would be needed for the different options. We contrast output-based distribution systems, in which rewards are distributed according to performance measured in terms of carbon impacts, with input-based systems in which performance is measured in term of compliance with prescribed REDD+ activities. Output-based systems, which would require regular community OPEN ACCESS Forests 2014, 5 1597 carbon inventories to produce Tier 3 data locally, face various challenges particularly for the case of assessing avoided deforestation, and they may not be perceived as equitable. Input-based systems would require data on activities undertaken rather than change in stocks; this information could come from community-acquired data. We also consider how community monitored data could support national forest monitoring systems and the further development of national REDD+.
Article
Fundamental trade-offs exist between different land uses for carbon, livelihoods, economic development, biodiversity, agriculture and energy (especially biofuels). This article analyses the scientific debates on REDD+ trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards, and shows how the development and expanded scope of REDD+ mechanisms have shaped these debates over time. We find substantial evidence that the non-carbon values of biodiversity conservation, equity and sustainable livelihoods are critical to both the legitimacy and effectiveness of REDD+, and argue that they therefore are better viewed as prerequisites than as values to be safeguarded. Scientists can contribute to the development of a more integrative REDD+ through interdisciplinary research and through a 'learning architecture' that supports the REDD+ policy development process with research dedicated to finding durable solutions.
Article
Highlights ► The availability of sufficient, predictable and long-term finance is essential for the eventual success of REDD+. ► Fast-start finance for REDD+ is slow in being disbursed, while long-term strategies for REDD+ remain missing. ► With stable demand and strong safeguards, carbon markets could facilitate investment into REDD+. ► Given the insecurities in REDD+ financing developing countries will have to develop financing strategies that rely on a mix of public and private funding sources.