Modest forest and welfare gains from initiatives for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) projects and programmes promise to deliver performance-based, cost-effective climate change mitigation. Fifteen years after its conception, we analysed the rigorous counterfactual-based evidence for environmental and welfare effects...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Communications earth & environment 2024-07, Vol.5 (1), p.394-11, Article 394
Main Authors: Wunder, Sven, Schulz, Dario, Montoya-Zumaeta, Javier G., Börner, Jan, Ponzoni Frey, Gabriel, Betancur-Corredor, Bibiana
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Climate change
Climate change mitigation
Cost analysis
Deforestation
Degradation
Effectiveness
Emissions
Emissions control
Environmental impact
Forest conservation
Forest degradation
Forest management
Forests
Land degradation
Literature reviews
Machine learning
Meta-analysis
Performance degradation
Quantitative analysis
Quantitative research
Socioeconomics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) projects and programmes promise to deliver performance-based, cost-effective climate change mitigation. Fifteen years after its conception, we analysed the rigorous counterfactual-based evidence for environmental and welfare effects from such national and subnational initiatives, along with a Theory of Change. Using machine-learning tools for literature review, we compared 32 quantitative studies including 26 primary forest-related and 12 socioeconomic effect sizes. Average environmental impacts were positively significant yet moderately sized, comparable to impacts from other conservation tools, and mostly impermanent over time. Socioeconomic impacts were welfare-neutral to slightly positive. Moderator analysis showed that environmental additionality was likely restricted by project proponents’ adverse spatial targeting of low-threat areas. Scarce funding flows from carbon markets and ill-enforced conditionality probably also limited impacts. Hence, important policy and implementation lessons emerge for boosting effectiveness in the current global transition towards larger-scale, jurisdictional action.
ISSN:2662-4435
2662-4435
DOI:10.1038/s43247-024-01541-1