The Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services and Implications for REDD+

Abstract

International discussions on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) foresee payment for environmental services (PES) schemes as an important mechanism to provide local incentives for the conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks. There are concerns, however, about the potential impacts of REDD+ and PES on local livelihoods. This article assesses the livelihood impacts of seven existing PES schemes using a comparative case study approach, and reviews lessons for the design of REDD+. It finds that PES schemes provided some livelihood benefits to participants, particularly in terms of building individual participants’ and community institutions’ capacity, and in some cases contributing to income. Insights for the design of PES for REDD+ schemes are derived in relation to the issues of the role of intermediaries, individual versus collective contracts, payment schedules and amounts, conditionality and permanence, and property and access rights.

Keywords:

• deforestation
• livelihoods
• payments for environmental services
• REDD+

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from the Australian Development Agency for International Development through the Australian Development Research Awards, project EFCC083, “Assessing the livelihood impacts of incentive payments for avoided deforestation.” We thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Notes

Note. Asterisk indicates that these countries were in the top 20 deforesting countries (FAO, 2006) and can be expected to be high priority for REDD+. na: No data available.

^a Estimated annual income to participating households.

^b Calculated on the basis of $US120/ha × average farm size of 0.2–0.5 ha (0.35 ha).

^c This figure represents an average based on the payment schedule described.

^d Not actually a written contract.

^e This figure represents the year 1 payment from the payment schedule as previously described.

Note. “Low,” “medium,” and “high” income significance are judged according to case-study authors’ assessments, rather than an independent benchmark. na: No data available.

http://www.redd-standards.org/files/pdf/lang/english/REDD_Social_Environmental_Standards_06_01_10_final -English.pdf.