Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.25338/b8405m
The reduced emissions in deforestation and degradation (REDD+) initiative uses payments for ecosystem services as incentives for developing countries to manage and protect their forests. REDD+ initiatives also prioritize social (and environmental) co-benefits aimed at improving the livelihoods of communities that are dependent on forests. Despite the incorporation of co-benefits into REDD+ goals, carbon sequestration remains the primary metric for which countries can receive payments from REDD+, but after more than 10 years of REDD+, many site-specific programs have failed to complete the carbon verification process. Here, we examine whether the REDD+ social co-benefits alone are sufficient to have slowed deforestation in the absence of carbon payments on Pemba, Tanzania. Using satellite imagery (Landsat archive), we quantified forest cover change for the period before (2001–2010) and after (2010–2018) the launch in 2010–2011 of Pemba island's REDD+ readiness project. We then compared rates of forest cover change between shehia (administrative units) that were part of REDD+ readiness intervention and those that were not, adjusting for confounding variables and the non-random selection of REDD+ shehia with a statistical matching procedure. Despite considerable variation in forest outcomes among shehia, the associated co-benefits with the Pemba REDD+ project had no discernible effect on forest cover change. Likewise, we did not detect an effect of socioecological covariates on forest cover change across all shehia, though island-wide human population growth since 2012 may have played a role. These findings are unsurprising given the failure to secure carbon payments on Pemba and indicate that co-benefits alone are insufficient to reduce deforestation. We conclude that better oversight of all-involved parties is needed to ensure that REDD+ interventions satisfactorily conclude the process of securing a mechanism for carbon payments, if slowing deforestation is to be achieved.
Please refer to ReadMe file.
FOS: Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
FOS: Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 30 | |
| downloads | 4 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts