Can REDD+ achieve its goal? An examination of the effect of various combinations of interventions

Key messages

• Many subnational REDD+ initiatives are continuations of, and elaborations upon, pre-existing Integrated Conservation and Development projects (ICDPs), which combine negative incentives (e.g. prohibition against forest conversion) and positive incentives (e.g. alternative livelihoods).
• While in ICDPs livelihood benefits were not conditional, the key intended innovation in REDD+ was a conditional positive incentive (i.e., direct livelihood benefit) to participating households.
• To date little is known about (a) the frequency and distributions of diverse kinds of interventions in subnational REDD+ initiatives (whether positive, negative or enabling), or about (b) whether these combinations of interventions have served the REDD+ climate change mitigation goal of reduced forest carbon emissions.
• Field research conducted through 2,118 household interviews in 67 villages at 17 REDD+ sites during 2013–2014 helps fill these knowledge gaps.
• The research method involved asking respondents about the effects of specific interventions on household land and forest management practices.
• Among the findings are that fewer than a third of households had been offered conditional benefits, and that households were more likely to report land-use changes that result in reduced forest carbon emissions when they were exposed to both more interventions and at least one negative intervention.

---

Download :

English 0.3 MB

---

This works is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

---

---