Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD

• Published in: Current opinion in environmental sustainability 2012-12, Vol.4 (6), p.646-653
• Main Authors: Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J, McDermott, Constance, Vijge, Marjanneke J, Cashore, Benjamin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: biodiversity; carbon payments; climate-change; conservation; deforestation; forest degradation; management; opportunities; plus; reduced emissions
• ISSN: 1877-3435; 1877-3443
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.005

► REDD+ incorporates trade-offs between carbon, economic development, biodiversity, agriculture and energy. ► REDD+ can contribute to biodiversity and livelihoods if these are incorporated in design and implementation. ► REDD+ success needs to be redefined to include climate, biodiversity and livelihoods goals. ► Scientists can support the development of an integrative REDD+ through a ‘learning architecture’ dedicated to find durable solutions. Fundamental trade-offs exist between different land uses for carbon, livelihoods, economic development, biodiversity, agriculture and energy (especially biofuels). This article analyses the scientific debates on REDD+ trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards, and shows how the development and expanded scope of REDD+ mechanisms have shaped these debates over time. We find substantial evidence that the non-carbon values of biodiversity conservation, equity and sustainable livelihoods are critical to both the legitimacy and effectiveness of REDD+, and argue that they therefore are better viewed as prerequisites than as values to be safeguarded. Scientists can contribute to the development of a more integrative REDD+ through interdisciplinary research and through a ‘learning architecture’ that supports the REDD+ policy development process with research dedicated to finding durable solutions.