Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

BOX 4.1 REDD AND COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT:REDUCING POVERTY, REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONST H E B E N E F I T S O F L O C A L N AT U R A L R E S O U R C Emanagement and nature-based enterprises reach far beyondthe local or even national level: they can also help mitigateclimate change.As we have seen in Guatemala and elsewhere, sustainablemanagement plans that provide local populations witheconomic alternatives to converting forestlands for agriculturecan be highly effective at protecting valuable forest resources,increasing forest cover, and providing a host of other ecosystemservices to the surrounding region.The case study in Chapter 3 describes in detail efforts to establishcommunity enterprises in the Petén region of Guatemala,based on sustainable management of designated forest concessionsin the Maya Biosphere Reserve. The program wasdesigned to help alleviate poverty in local communities as wellas to combat illegal logging and forest conversion in one of thelast unspoiled forest tracts in Latin America.The environmental benefits were realized within a few years ofthe program’s start, with significant reduction in illegal loggingand other forest degradation. Ironically, in the nearby nationalpark, which is a designated “no-harvest” zone, cutting foragriculture and timber poaching have increased. An addeddividend is the potential for climate benefits resulting from theimproved stewardship of these forest resources.Climate change now dominates environmental discussionsbecause of the profound effects it is predicted to have onecosystems around the world. In response, policymakers areseeking fast, effective, and inexpensive ways to mitigate carbonreleases. One strategy that has surfaced in international climatechange negotiations is referred to as Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation in Developing Countries, or REDD.REDD would function as a global payment for ecosystemsservices (PES) arrangement, wherein forest owners—eitherstates, communities, companies, or individuals—would becompensated to lower the rate of carbon emissions from theirforests below a given reference scenario by reducing forestcover loss. An effective REDD program could become onepotentially important option within a menu of global carbonreduction tools, since land use changes account for at least20 percent of annual carbon emissions worldwide (Myers2007:19; Huberman 2007: 6-7; IPCC 2007:543). It isunlikely, though, that REDD will ever become a major sourceof revenue to countries or communities.There are certain technical issues that REDD must satisfy,however, prior to being accepted by the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change—the broad-based treaty that acts as aforum for international climate negotiations. Carbon emissionreference scenarios must be established. Monitoring tools mustbe created and implemented. Payment mechanisms need to bedeveloped. A robust and accepted carbon trading market has tobe in place (Myers 2007:18–19, 26–37).REDD Flag for the PoorBut even settling these and other technical issues does notguarantee REDD’s adoption or success. Experience shows thatwithout careful attention to issues of equity and respect forcommunity rights and rural livelihoods, actions taken underPES programs can backfire, working against the interests of thepoor and failing to achieve their environmental objectives. Arecent example in Uganda illustrates the potential hurdles forREDD-associated projects that ignore community concerns.In Mount Elgon National Park, a reforestation program negotiatedin the 1990s between a Dutch nonprofit and the nationalgovernment was designed to offset carbon releases by Dutchpower companies. From the government’s point of view, the treeplanting would improve the landscape of the national park at nocost to the government, attracting more tourists. But the localpeople who had been evicted from their lands in preparation forreforestation were unwilling to accept the new circumstancesimposed upon them by the government. In 2006, after years offighting to regain their livelihoods, three communities weregranted a court injunction that overturned the evictions. Aftermoving back onto their lands, the farmers chopped down thenew trees. The Dutch nonprofit that managed the reforestationproject was helpless to secure its 12-year, US$4 million investment,and the carbon benefits were lost as well (Faris 2007).What went wrong? This was a project dictated by the nationalgovernment, with no involvement by local communities. Thetraditional tenure rights and livelihoods of local residents wereignored. None of the benefits generated by the project flowedto the local communities.The outcome could have been different if the program was poorfriendlyand created community self-interest by recognizing therights and needs of the local residents. If the local farmers hadbeen given the opportunity to earn their livelihoods throughsustainable management of the new forests or by combiningtree planting with their traditional agriculture in an agroforestryscheme, both the economic needs of local residents and theenvironmental goals of the government and investors wouldhave been served.164