Search

Carbon offsets from voluntary avoided-deforestation projects are generated on the basis of performance in relation to ex ante deforestation baselines. We examined the effects of 26 such project sites in six countries on three continents using synthetic control methods for causal inference. We found that most projects have not significantly reduced deforestation. For projects that did, reductions were substantially lower than claimed. This reflects differences between the project ex ante baselines and ex post counterfactuals according to observed deforestation in control areas. Methodologies used to construct deforestation baselines for carbon offset interventions need urgent revisions to correctly attribute reduced deforestation to the projects, thus maintaining both incentives for forest conservation and the integrity of global carbon accounting.

Hundreds of projects to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks (REDD+) are implemented globally, many by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or for-profit companies. Yet, at the global level, the Paris Agreement focuses on jurisdictional (national and subnational) REDD+. We ask: (1) How much can REDD+ projects contribute to achieving national and international climate objectives? (2) What are the issues in integrating REDD+ projects into national carbon accounting? Our snapshot of 377 REDD+ projects covering 53 million ha in 56 countries is based on data from the International Database on REDD+ Projects (ID-RECCO) supplemented with new data on projects' accounting methods. The number of new REDD+ projects declined steadily from 45 new projects in 2011 to five in 2019. We examined 161 certified projects that started between 2007 and 2017; 96 of these could sell carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets by 2020 and spent on average 4.7 (± 2.4) years between project start and sales in voluntary carbon markets. Globally, REDD+ projects claim to reduce an average of 3.67 tCO2e/ha annually. This figure - combined with projects limited coverage - implies that projects need to be upscaled more than 40x to fulfil the potential contribution of tropical and subtropical forests towards limiting global warming to well below 2oC. Compared to the national carbon accounting methods, most projects in Colombia, Indonesia and Peru (63 of 86) use at least one different carbon accounting parameter. Carbon accounting inconsistencies across levels need to be addressed. Overall, the argument for REDD+ projects lies in the emissions reductions they can achieve, diversifying participation in REDD+ and providing non-carbon benefits to local communities, potentially leading to broader support for climate action.

Hundreds of projects to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks (REDD+) are implemented globally, many by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or for-profit companies. Yet, at the global level, the Paris Agreement focuses on jurisdictional (national and subnational) REDD+. We ask: (1) How much can REDD+ projects contribute to achieving national and international climate objectives? (2) What are the issues in integrating REDD+ projects into national carbon accounting? Our snapshot of 377 REDD+ projects covering 53 million ha in 56 countries is based on data from the International Database on REDD+ Projects (ID-RECCO) supplemented with new data on projects' accounting methods. The number of new REDD+ projects declined steadily from 45 new projects in 2011 to five in 2019. We examined 161 certified projects that started between 2007 and 2017; 96 of these could sell carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets by 2020 and spent on average 4.7 (± 2.4) years between project start and sales in voluntary carbon markets. Globally, REDD+ projects claim to reduce an average of 3.67 tCO2e/ha annually. This figure - combined with projects limited coverage - implies that projects need to be upscaled more than 40x to fulfil the potential contribution of tropical and subtropical forests towards limiting global warming to well below 2oC. Compared to the national carbon accounting methods, most projects in Colombia, Indonesia and Peru (63 of 86) use at least one different carbon accounting parameter. Carbon accounting inconsistencies across levels need to be addressed. Overall, the argument for REDD+ projects lies in the emissions reductions they can achieve, diversifying participation in REDD+ and providing non-carbon benefits to local communities, potentially leading to broader support for climate action.

Interventions to strengthen forest conservation in tropical biomes face multiple challenges. Insecure land tenure and unequal benefit sharing within forest user groups are two of the most important. Using original household level survey data from 130 villages in six countries, we assess how current wealth inequality relates to tenure security and benefit flows from forest use. We find that villages with higher wealth inequality report lower tenure security and more unequal flows from forest income and externally sourced income. Furthermore, we find that wealthier individuals within villages capture a disproportionately larger share of the total amount of forest benefits available to each village, while external income often benefits poorer individuals more. These findings suggest that unless future forest conservation interventions actively work to mitigate inequalities linked to existing forest benefit flows, there is a risk that these interventions-including those associated with REDD + activities reproduce or even aggravate pre-existing socioeconomic inequalities within user groups, potentially undermining both their conservation and economic objectives.

Attention to tenure is a fundamental step in preparation for REDD+ implementation. Unclear and conflicting tenure has been the main challenge faced by the proponents of subnational REDD+ initiatives, and accordingly, they have expended much effort to remedy the problem. This article assesses how well REDD+ has performed in laying an appropriate tenure foundation. Field research was carried out in two phases (2010-2012 and 2013-2014) in five countries (Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia) at 21 subnational initiatives, 141 villages (half targeted for REDD+ interventions), and 3,754 households. Three questions are posed: 1) What was the effect of REDD+ on perceived tenure insecurity of village residents?; 2) What are the main reasons for change in the level of tenure insecurity and security from Phase 1 to Phase 2 perceived by village residents in control and intervention villages?; and 3) How do intervention village residents evaluate the impact of tenure-related interventions on community well-being? Among the notable findings are that: 1) tenure insecurity decreases slightly across the whole sample of villages, but we only find that REDD+ significantly reduces tenure insecurity in Cameroon, while actually increasing insecurity of smallholder agricultural land tenure in Brazil at the household level; 2) among the main reported reasons for increasing tenure insecurity (where it occurs) are problems with outside companies, lack of title, and competition from neighboring villagers; and 3) views on the effect of REDD+ tenure-related interventions on community well-being lean towards the positive, including for interventions that restrain access to forest. Thus, while there is little evidence that REDD+ interventions have worsened smallholder tenure insecurity (as feared by critics), there is also little evidence that the proponents' efforts to address tenure insecurity have produced results. Work on tenure remains an urgent priority for safeguarding local liveli

After more than 20 years and substantial investments of time and money, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of tropical forest management is due for a stringent impact evaluation. For any social, ecological, and economic outcomes to be attributed to FSC certification, rival explanations need to be ruled out. We recognize that different types of knowledge about FSC impacts derived from information gathered through a range of methods can satisfy the evidence-needs of different stakeholders. But this paper describes a roadmap based on rigorous methods to assess whether FSC certification delivers on its expected outcomes and the underlying mechanisms through which changes can be attributable to FSC. To this end, background studies that provide contextual knowledge related to implementation of FSC certification are proposed to account for any positive self-selection biases and to capture the temporal dynamics of certification including changes in the sociopolitical and economic contexts that influence certification decisions.

After more than 20 years and substantial investments of time and money, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of tropical forest management is due for a stringent impact evaluation. For any social, ecological, and economic outcomes to be attributed to FSC certification, rival explanations need to be ruled out. We recognize that different types of knowledge about FSC impacts derived from information gathered through a range of methods can satisfy the evidence-needs of different stakeholders. But this paper describes a roadmap based on rigorous methods to assess whether FSC certification delivers on its expected outcomes and the underlying mechanisms through which changes can be attributable to FSC. To this end, background studies that provide contextual knowledge related to implementation of FSC certification are proposed to account for any positive self-selection biases and to capture the temporal dynamics of certification including changes in the sociopolitical and economic contexts that influence certification decisions.

The central role of forests in climate change mitigation, as recognized in the Paris agreement, makes it increasingly important to develop and test methods for monitoring and evaluating the carbon effectiveness of REDD+. Over the last decade, hundreds of subnational REDD+ initiatives have emerged, presenting an opportunity to pilot and compare different approaches to quantifying impacts on carbon emissions. This study (1) develops a Before-After-Control-Intervention (BACI) method to assess the effectiveness of these REDD+ initiatives; (2) compares the results at the meso (initiative) and micro (village) scales; and (3) compares BACI with the simpler Before-After (BA) results. Our study covers 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives in Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia and Vietnam. As a proxy for deforestation, we use annual tree cover loss. We aggregate data into two periods (before and after the start of each initiative). Analysis using control areas ('control-intervention') suggests better REDD+ performance, although the effect is more pronounced at the micro than at the meso level. Yet, BACI requires more data than BA, and is subject to possible bias in the before period. Selection of proper control areas is vital, but at either scale is not straightforward. Low absolute deforestation numbers and peak years influence both our BA and BACI results. In principle, BACI is superior, with its potential to effectively control for confounding factors. We conclude that the more local the scale of performance assessment, the more relevant is the use of the BACI approach. For various reasons, we find overall minimal impact of REDD+ in reducing deforestation on the ground thus far. Incorporating results from micro and meso level monitoring into national reporting systems is important, since overall REDD+ impact depends on land use decisions on the ground.

FSC natural forest management certification has been implemented for >20 years. FSC's goal is to provide a system through which responsible forest management is recognized by consumers and others. Our team works on the design of an empirical theory-based impact evaluation (IE) of the biophysical, social, economic, and policy impacts of this intervention in Brazil, Peru and Indonesia. The range of expected outcomes, and the scales at which impacts ensue, forced us to use inter and trans-disciplinary approaches to define the IE scope and goals. While this research is still ongoing, our goal is to share lessons learned in tackling the complexity of the social-ecological systems where the FSC intervention occurs. We present ideas that see evaluation as a knowledge-generating process as well as a goal in itself. Thus, we introduce the rationale for a multi-stakeholder platform to assure the IE design would be built upon discussions with a range of social actors on the value of this knowledge-generation research to improve their conservation practice. We introduce a conceptual framework that lays out the foundation for the IE work, tightly linked to relevant concepts for conservation biologists such as adaptive management and systems thinking. We discuss results of preparatory studies that provide information used as a backbone for the IE design and that attempts, from the different angles where conservation trade-offs occur, to provide a roadmap for the IE. Studies include a descriptive analysis of auditing and accreditation activities aimed at providing transparency and accountability to the audit component behind certification. We developed country-based studies of political economy factors that underlie historical issues regarding forested lands use and analyze these issues across countries. We ground on these quantitative and qualitative studies hypotheses on how forest management decisions in general and FSC certification in particular, have occurred.

FSC natural forest management certification has been implemented for >20 years. FSC's goal is to provide a system through which responsible forest management is recognized by consumers and others. Our team works on the design of an empirical theory-based impact evaluation (IE) of the biophysical, social, economic, and policy impacts of this intervention in Brazil, Peru and Indonesia. The range of expected outcomes, and the scales at which impacts ensue, forced us to use inter and trans-disciplinary approaches to define the IE scope and goals. While this research is still ongoing, our goal is to share lessons learned in tackling the complexity of the social-ecological systems where the FSC intervention occurs. We present ideas that see evaluation as a knowledge-generating process as well as a goal in itself. Thus, we introduce the rationale for a multi-stakeholder platform to assure the IE design would be built upon discussions with a range of social actors on the value of this knowledge-generation research to improve their conservation practice. We introduce a conceptual framework that lays out the foundation for the IE work, tightly linked to relevant concepts for conservation biologists such as adaptive management and systems thinking. We discuss results of preparatory studies that provide information used as a backbone for the IE design and that attempts, from the different angles where conservation trade-offs occur, to provide a roadmap for the IE. Studies include a descriptive analysis of auditing and accreditation activities aimed at providing transparency and accountability to the audit component behind certification. We developed country-based studies of political economy factors that underlie historical issues regarding forested lands use and analyze these issues across countries. We ground on these quantitative and qualitative studies hypotheses on how forest management decisions in general and FSC certification in particular, have occurred.

Human wellbeing depends on nature, but in spite of much work by and since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, it is not clear whether existing frameworks adequately analyze this relationship given our increasing market based societies. We report on a reassessment of this situation, developed at the recent workshop "Quantification of Ecosystem Services: concepts and measurement", co-organized by the World Agroforestry Centre, the Centre for International Forestry Research, Bioversity International and Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre. We assessed the need for a new framework, and sought consensus on the meaning of the term "ecosystem services" (ES), on approaches to their measurement and valuation along the full gradient of human modification of landscapes and on how to capture this vital knowledge in green accounting in a way that speaks to policy makers. A new framework is presented that combines both the ES and the livelihood capitals approaches. The ES concept emphasizes the benefits obtained by people from ecosystems and their economic value. In contrast, the multiple-capital livelihood framework has reframed debates on poverty by focusing on assets and resource access, not just on income. However, to maintain ES we need investment in natural capital. New standards for green accounting require clarity on "stocks", "stock change" and "flows". The agro-ecosystems managed to maximize "provisioning services" are both recipients and providers of ES - understanding and managing these dual roles require a framework that can apply to all phases of "forest and rural transitions", as well as the processes of change, so that strategic interventions can be planned. The proposed framework includes direct and indirect ES where benefits are derived from presence of natural capital respectively without and with the involvement of market economy. Thus human, social, cultural and political capitals (human wellbeing) are directly affected by natural capi

Human wellbeing depends on nature, but in spite of much work by and since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, it is not clear whether existing frameworks adequately analyze this relationship given our increasing market based societies. We report on a reassessment of this situation, developed at the recent workshop "Quantification of Ecosystem Services: concepts and measurement", co-organized by the World Agroforestry Centre, the Centre for International Forestry Research, Bioversity International and Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre. We assessed the need for a new framework, and sought consensus on the meaning of the term "ecosystem services" (ES), on approaches to their measurement and valuation along the full gradient of human modification of landscapes and on how to capture this vital knowledge in green accounting in a way that speaks to policy makers. A new framework is presented that combines both the ES and the livelihood capitals approaches. The ES concept emphasizes the benefits obtained by people from ecosystems and their economic value. In contrast, the multiple-capital livelihood framework has reframed debates on poverty by focusing on assets and resource access, not just on income. However, to maintain ES we need investment in natural capital. New standards for green accounting require clarity on "stocks", "stock change" and "flows". The agro-ecosystems managed to maximize "provisioning services" are both recipients and providers of ES - understanding and managing these dual roles require a framework that can apply to all phases of "forest and rural transitions", as well as the processes of change, so that strategic interventions can be planned. The proposed framework includes direct and indirect ES where benefits are derived from presence of natural capital respectively without and with the involvement of market economy. Thus human, social, cultural and political capitals (human wellbeing) are directly affected by natural capi