Advanced

Are social safeguards in forestry carbon projects fair and useful? A case study in a REDD+ area in Madagascar

Brodin, Turid (2018) BIOM01 20161
Degree Projects in Biology
Abstract
Climate change, deforestation and poverty are big threats for today’s society. One way the United Nations has chosen to combat this is through a project named REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). In short, REDD+ allows countries to be compensated if they change their way of using the forest into methods more likely to conserve the ecosystem and eliminate or minimize the emission of carbon. In conservation, it is generally agreed that actions and restrictions should not have negative effects for the livelihood of people living nearby. Therefore, social safeguards are also included in REDD+ and other conservation projects. However there is a growing concern that REDD+ social safeguards are not reaching those... (More)
Climate change, deforestation and poverty are big threats for today’s society. One way the United Nations has chosen to combat this is through a project named REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). In short, REDD+ allows countries to be compensated if they change their way of using the forest into methods more likely to conserve the ecosystem and eliminate or minimize the emission of carbon. In conservation, it is generally agreed that actions and restrictions should not have negative effects for the livelihood of people living nearby. Therefore, social safeguards are also included in REDD+ and other conservation projects. However there is a growing concern that REDD+ social safeguards are not reaching those who should rightly receive them, and that they are not working when it comes to compensating for peoples’ opportunity costs from protected areas. The new protected area Corridor Ankeniheny Zahamena in Eastern Madagascar is a REDD+ pilot project supported by the World Bank. It is an area of high biodiversity and there are many households in, or close to the protected area. Through the social safeguards people have received compensation projects as they can no longer use the forest that has been protected. The compensation was handed out in 2014 and was in the form of beans, chickens or bees, as well as equipment and training. The aim was to improve the agricultural outcome and in that way help to reduce poverty. In 2016, we conducted interviews with 62 persons who had received compensation projects to find out how they valued their received projects now that they had experienced the outcome. During the interviews an interactive method, called Random Card Sort method, was used to value their projects. Most people tried to adapt to the new technique of farming, but they found it ineffective and expensive. Almost no one thought that their received projects compensated them for the negative effects caused by the forest protection. On average the interviewees valued the projects at 79 USD per household. Earlier research in the area estimated their opportunity costs for not being able to use the forest to be a net present value per household of 2375 USD on average. Many people have already abandoned the project, so in reality it was a one-time compensation project, contrary to the aim that it would give sustained or increasing returns. However, the negative effects of not being able to use the forest continues. This shows that the way the social safeguards is carried out today is not working. It is not helping the people out of poverty and there is a risk that the protection of the forests fails, since the best possibility for the people to improve their livelihood is to expand their fields into the forest. This may also lead to both negative impacts on ecosystem services, loss of biodiversity and deforestation as well as increased carbon emission as a result. (Less)
Popular Abstract (Swedish)
Kan kompensationsprojekt rädda Madagaskars regnskog?

Några av de globala utmaningar vi står inför för en hållbar värld är klimatförändringar, fattigdom och utrotning av arter. FN har storskaliga projekt, sponsrade av världsbanken, där de försöker lösa flera problem samtidigt. Ett pilotprojekt sker i östra Madagaskars artrika regnskog, Corridor Ankeniheny Zahamena. Ett stort område av skogen har skyddats, och det bor många människor både i och runtomkring det skyddade området. De försörjer sig mestadels genom jordbruk och bryter ny mark genom att hugga ner skog. FNs projekt syftar till att minska utsläpp av koldioxid genom att minska avskogningen, och samtidigt bidra till bevarande av biologisk mångfald och minskad fattigdom. För att... (More)
Kan kompensationsprojekt rädda Madagaskars regnskog?

Några av de globala utmaningar vi står inför för en hållbar värld är klimatförändringar, fattigdom och utrotning av arter. FN har storskaliga projekt, sponsrade av världsbanken, där de försöker lösa flera problem samtidigt. Ett pilotprojekt sker i östra Madagaskars artrika regnskog, Corridor Ankeniheny Zahamena. Ett stort område av skogen har skyddats, och det bor många människor både i och runtomkring det skyddade området. De försörjer sig mestadels genom jordbruk och bryter ny mark genom att hugga ner skog. FNs projekt syftar till att minska utsläpp av koldioxid genom att minska avskogningen, och samtidigt bidra till bevarande av biologisk mångfald och minskad fattigdom. För att inte invånarna ska drabbas negativt av att inte längre kunna använda skogen ska det finnas socialt skydd med kompensationsprojekt, men fungerar skyddet?

Madagaskar har ett unikt växt och djurliv, som är hotat av olika anledningar, tex avskogning av kommersiella eller privata aktörer. Madagaskar är även hårt drabbat av klimatförändringar i form av oregelbundna regn och torka, vilket både drabbar växt och djurliv och jordbrukare. De stora naturvärdena, problemen med klimatförändringar och matförsörjning har lett till många forskningsprojekt, och många bistånd/utvecklingsprojekt. P4ges är ett forskningsprojekt som gjort flera olika studier på om det går minska fattigdom genom att betala hushållen i skyddsvärda områden för att bevara ekosystemtjänster som har globalt värde. De har beräknat förlusten av att inte längre kunna använda sig av skogen per hushåll i pilotprojektet, till i genomsnitt 2372 USD.

Kompensationsprojekten i det här området var i form av några dagars utbildning samt utdelning av höns, bin eller bönor samt utrustning, och skedde år 2014. Tanken var att när hushållen förlorade sin möjlighet till försörjning från skogens resurser, och möjligheten att bryta mer odlingsmark, skulle kompenseras genom att öka sina inkomster från jordbruket. Två år senare intervjuade vi 62 personer och bad dem tänka på hur väl projekten hade fungerat. Därefter fick de tänka sig tillbaka när de erbjöds att få projekten. Sedan föreställa sig att det hade fått välja mellan samma projekt igen, eller en viss summa pengar. Vi frågade vilken summa som vore den lägsta de skulle acceptera istället för projekten. I genomsnitt värderades projekten till 79 USD.

På FNs klimatmöte i Paris 2015 bestämdes att de fortsatt skulle använda sig av den här typen av projekt för att motverka klimatförändringar, skydda regnskog och minska fattigdom. Grundat på våra studier hävdar vi att det är nödvändigt att se över de sociala skyddet för att kompensationsprojekten ska fungera. Det är svårt att förutsäga konsekvenser av projekten, personerna som bor i skyddade områden får varken tillräcklig kompensation eller information för att fullfölja projekten. Många kompensationsprojekt avslutas helt enkelt i förtid då de av olika anledningar inte fungerar. Konsekvensen blir alltså att området inte skyddas, och personerna som skulle fått kompensation istället fortsätter att bruka skogen, eftersom det är bästa sättet för matförsörjning på kort sikt. Men på längre sikt påverkas ekosystemen negativt, tex leder det till minskad vattentillgång, vilket behövs för att odla. Så de som blir begränsade av det skyddade området får inte rimlig ersättning, och dessutom fortsätter avskogningen med förlust av biologisk mångfald och fortsatt utsläpp av koldioxid.

Examensarbete för masterexamen i biologi 30hp 2018
Biologiska institutionen, Lunds universitet

Handledare Ola Olsson
Biologiska institutionen, Lund universitet (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Brodin, Turid
supervisor
organization
course
BIOM01 20161
year
type
H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
subject
language
English
id
8934261
date added to LUP
2018-01-29 09:46:48
date last changed
2018-01-29 09:46:48
@misc{8934261,
  abstract     = {Climate change, deforestation and poverty are big threats for today’s society. One way the United Nations has chosen to combat this is through a project named REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). In short, REDD+ allows countries to be compensated if they change their way of using the forest into methods more likely to conserve the ecosystem and eliminate or minimize the emission of carbon. In conservation, it is generally agreed that actions and restrictions should not have negative effects for the livelihood of people living nearby. Therefore, social safeguards are also included in REDD+ and other conservation projects. However there is a growing concern that REDD+ social safeguards are not reaching those who should rightly receive them, and that they are not working when it comes to compensating for peoples’ opportunity costs from protected areas. The new protected area Corridor Ankeniheny Zahamena in Eastern Madagascar is a REDD+ pilot project supported by the World Bank. It is an area of high biodiversity and there are many households in, or close to the protected area. Through the social safeguards people have received compensation projects as they can no longer use the forest that has been protected. The compensation was handed out in 2014 and was in the form of beans, chickens or bees, as well as equipment and training. The aim was to improve the agricultural outcome and in that way help to reduce poverty. In 2016, we conducted interviews with 62 persons who had received compensation projects to find out how they valued their received projects now that they had experienced the outcome. During the interviews an interactive method, called Random Card Sort method, was used to value their projects. Most people tried to adapt to the new technique of farming, but they found it ineffective and expensive. Almost no one thought that their received projects compensated them for the negative effects caused by the forest protection. On average the interviewees valued the projects at 79 USD per household. Earlier research in the area estimated their opportunity costs for not being able to use the forest to be a net present value per household of 2375 USD on average. Many people have already abandoned the project, so in reality it was a one-time compensation project, contrary to the aim that it would give sustained or increasing returns. However, the negative effects of not being able to use the forest continues. This shows that the way the social safeguards is carried out today is not working. It is not helping the people out of poverty and there is a risk that the protection of the forests fails, since the best possibility for the people to improve their livelihood is to expand their fields into the forest. This may also lead to both negative impacts on ecosystem services, loss of biodiversity and deforestation as well as increased carbon emission as a result.},
  author       = {Brodin, Turid},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Are social safeguards in forestry carbon projects fair and useful? A case study in a REDD+ area in Madagascar},
  year         = {2018},
}