Adaptive management of jurisdictional REDD + programs: a methodology illustrated for Ecuador

References

• Special report on climate change and land — IPCC site [Internet]. [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.
   Google Scholar
• Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(44):11645–11650. doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roe S, Streck C, Obersteiner M, et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat Clim Change. 2019;9(11):817–828. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Nepstad D, Chhatre A. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2011;36: 373–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelsen A, Martius C, de Sy V, et al. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions [Internet]. Center for International Forestry Research; 2018. Available from: https://books.google.fi/books?id=7bSFDwAAQBAJ.
   Google Scholar
• Donofrio S, Maguire P, Zwick S, et al. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-markets-2020-2/.
   Google Scholar
• Winrock International. The REDD + environmental excellence standard (TREES). 2020; Available from https://www.artredd.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/TREES-v1-February-2020-FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• California Air resources board. California tropical forest standard: criteria for assessing jurisdiction-scale programs that reduce emissions from tropical deforestation. 2019. Available from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/ghgsectors/tropicalforests/ca_tropical_forest_standard_english.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Duchelle AE, Seymour F, Brockhaus M, et al. REDD+: lessons from national and subnational implementation : ending tropical deforestation: a stock-take of progress and challenges [Internet]. World Resources Institute; 2018. [cited 2021 Jan 31]. Available from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/299239.
   Google Scholar
• Viergever M, Santos P. Mid-term evaluation report on the effectiveness of the Amazon Fund, 2008–2018. 2019. Available from http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/export/sites/default/en/.galleries/documentos/monitoring-evaluation/Independent-evaluations/Amazon-Funds-Benefits-Distribuitions-Study.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Correa J, van der Hoff R, Rajão R. Amazon Fund 10 years later: lessons from the world’s largest REDD + program. Forests. 2019;10(3):272. doi:10.3390/f10030272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nepstad D, McGrath D, Stickler C, et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science. 2014;344(6188):1118–1123. doi:10.1126/science.1248525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). Methodology for Forest Monitoring used in Prodes and Deter Projects. Available from: http://mtc-m21c.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.inpe.br/mtc-m21c/2021/01.25.19.14/doc/publicacao.pd
   Google Scholar
• Stickler C, David O, Chan C, Ardila JP and Bezerra T . The Rio Branco declaration: assessing progress toward a near-term voluntary deforestation reduction target in subnational jurisdictions across the tropics. Front for Glob Change. 2020;3: 50. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00050/full.
   Google Scholar
• Nepstad D. Opinion | How to help Brazilian farmers save the Amazon. N Y Times [Internet]. 2019 Dec 24 [cited 2020 Jan 13]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/opinion/amazon-deforestation.html.
   Google Scholar
• Stickler C, Duchelle A, Nepstad D, et al. Subnational jurisdictional approaches: Policy innovation and partnerships for change. Angelsen Martius C Sy V Al Ed Transform REDD Lessons New Dir Bogor Indones Cent Int for Res. 2018;145–159.
   Google Scholar
• Stickler CM, Nepstad DC, Azevedo AA, et al. Defending public interests in private lands: compliance, costs and potential environmental consequences of the Brazilian Forest Code in Mato Grosso. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2013;368(1619):20120160. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allan C, Stankey GH, editors. Adaptive environmental management: a practitioner’s guide [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2009 [cited 2021 Jan 31]. Available from: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048127108.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy M, Possingham H. Active adaptive management for conservation. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:956–963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Ambiente. Plan de acción REDD + del Ecuador “Bosques para el buen vivir” (2016-2025) [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://reddecuador.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MAE_2016_11_21_ART_LIBRO_REDD_17_nov%202016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• de Koning F, Aguiñaga M, Bravo M, et al. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environ Sci Policy. 2011;14(5):531–542. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Global Environmental Facility. The GEF incentive mechanism for forests a new REDD + multilateral finance program [Internet]. 2010. Available from: http://www.thegef.org/.
   Google Scholar
• McFarland BJ. International finance for REDD + within the context of conservation financing instruments. J Sustain For. 2015;34(6-7):534–546. doi:10.1080/10549811.2015.1017109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauffman CM. Financing watershed conservation: lessons from Ecuador’s evolving water trust funds. Agric Water Manag. 2014;145:39–49. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.09.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of the Republic of Ecuador. La política agropecuaria Ecuatoriana: hacia el desarrollo territorial rural sostenible: 2015–2025. 2016. Available from: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ecu183434.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wallbott L, Recio E. Practicing human rights across scale: indigenous peoples’ affectedness and recognition in REDD + governance. Third World Themat TWQ J. 2018;3(5-6):785–806. doi:10.1080/23802014.2018.1599691.
   Google Scholar
• Nepstad D, Ardila J, Vargas R, Rojas J, et al. Evaluación del Impacto de políticas públicas destinadas a reducir la deforestación y degradación y acciones destinadas a la gestión sostenible de los bosques en Ecuador. 2019. Available from: http://proamazonia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/EIIProductoDos-Evaluacio%CC%81n-de-Impacto-Ecuador_P2-min.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gachet I, Grijalva DF, Ponce PA, et al. Vertical and horizontal inequality in Ecuador: the lack of sustainability. Soc Indic Res. 2019;145(3):861–900. doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1810-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierra R. Patrones y factores de deforestación en el Ecuador continental, 1990-2010. Y un acercamiento a los próximos 10 años. Trends Int Conserv Ecuad. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• López S, Sierra R. Agricultural change in the Pastaza River Basin: a spatially explicit model of native Amazonian cultivation. Appl Geogr. 2010;30(3):355–369. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VAN DER Hoek Y. The potential of protected areas to halt deforestation in Ecuador. Envir Conserv. 2017;44(2):124–130. doi:10.1017/S037689291700011X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuenca P, Robalino J, Arriagada R, et al. Are government incentives effective for avoided deforestation in the tropical Andean forest? PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0203545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.020 3545.
   Google Scholar
• Castro M, Sierra R, Calva O, et al. Zonas de Procesos Homogéneos de Deforestación del Ecuador. Factores Promotores y Tendencias al 2020. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Baylis K, Honey‐Rosés J, Börner J, et al. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conserv Lett. 2016;9(1):58–64. doi:10.1111/conl.12180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Velly G, Dutilly C. Evaluating payments for environmental services: methodological challenges. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0149374. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andam K, Ferraro P, Pfaff A, et al. Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(42):16089–16094. doi:10.1073/pnas.0800437105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santilli M, Moutinho P, Schwartzman S, et al. Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol. Clim Change. 2005;71:267–276. doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-8074-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FONAQ. Protegiendo el agua para conservar la biodiversidad: Mecanismos financieros para la protección de las cuencas hidrográficas del Ecuador [Internet]. 2019. Available from: http://www.fonag.org.ec/web/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/13-min.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bremer LL, Auerbach DA, Goldstein JH, et al. One size does not fit all: natural infrastructure investments within the Latin American Water Funds Partnership. Ecosyst Serv. 2016;17:217–236. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arriagada R, Cotacachi D. Comunidades Sostenibles: Evaluación de Impacto del Programa Socio Bosque en Poblaciones Indígenas y Afrodescendientes [Internet]. Inter-American Development Bank. 2018 [cited 2021 Jan 31]. Available from: https://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/9357.
   Google Scholar
• Holling CS. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Chichester (UK): John Wiley and Sons; 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Rasch D, Walters C. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company; 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Schreiber SG, Bearlin AR, Nicol SJ, et al. Adaptive management: a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecol Manage Restor. 2004;5(3):177–182.
   Google Scholar
• Benson MH, Garmestani AS. Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act (2011). J Environ Manage. 2011;92:1420–1427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan BA, Kandulu J, Deere DA, et al. Adaptive management for mitigating Cryptosporidium risk in source water: a case study in an agricultural catchment in South Australia. J Environ Manage. 2009;90:3122–3134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens PN. Adaptive management frameworks for natural resource management at the landscape scale: implications and applications for sediment resources. J Soils Sediments. 2009;9:578–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio del A. Tercera comunicación nacional de cambio climático a la convención marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el cambio climático. 2017. Available from: https://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2017/10/TERCERA-COMUNICACION-BAJA-septiembre-20171-ilovepdf-compressed1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sabet SM, Brown AN. Is impact evaluation still on the rise? The new trends in 2010–2015. J Dev Eff. 2018;10(3):291–304. doi:10.1080/19439342.2018.1483414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savedoff W, Levine R, Birdsall N. When will we ever learn? Improving lives through impact evaluation. Wash DC Cent Glob Dev [Internet]. 2006. Available from: https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/7973_file_WillWeEverLearn.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Levine R, Savedoff W. Aid at the frontier: building knowledge collectively. J Dev Eff. 2015;7(3):275–289. doi:10.1080/19439342.2015.1068354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 2006;4(4):e105. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green Climate Fund. Learning-oriented real-time impact assessment (Lorta) Programme. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jones KW, Lewis DJ. Estimating the counterfactual impact of conservation programs on land cover outcomes: the role of matching and panel regression techniques. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0141380. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Börner W, Reimer B. Promoting forest stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: local livelihood strategies and preliminary impacts [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2019 Nov 7]. Available from: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/95053.
   Google Scholar
• Romero C, Sills E, Guariguata M, et al. Evaluation of the impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of natural forest management in the tropics: a rigorous approach to assessment of a complex conservation intervention. Int For Rev. 2017;19:36–49.
   Google Scholar
• Stern E, Stame N, Mayne J, et al. Broadening the range of designs and methods for impact evaluation. [Internet]. DFID. London: Department for international Development; 2012. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08a6740f0b6497400059e/DFIDWorkingPaper38.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bamberger M, Vaessen J, Raimondo E. Dealing with complexity in development evaluation. SAGE Publications; 2016. doi: 10.4135/9781483399935
   Google Scholar
• Befani B, Ramalingam B, Stern E. Introduction: towards systemic approaches to evaluation and impact. IDS Bull. 2015;46(1):1–6. doi:10.1111/1759-5436.12116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Befani B, Ramalingam B, Stern E. Introduction – towards systemic approaches to evaluation and impact. IDS Bull. 2015;46(1):1–6. doi:10.1111/1759-5436.12116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattyn V, Molenveld A, Befani B. Qualitative comparative analysis as an evaluation tool: lessons from an application in development cooperation. Am J Eval. 2019;40(1):55–74. doi:10.1177/1098214017710502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagger PA. Guide to learning about livelihood impacts of REDD + projects. 2010. Available from: https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/WP56Jagger.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nepstad D, Shimada J. Soybeans in the Brazilian Amazon and the case of the Brazilian Soy Moratorium [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://earthinnovation.org/publications/soybeans-in-the-brazilian-amazon-and-the-case-of-the-brazilian-soy-moratorium/.
   Google Scholar
• Servicio Florestal Brasileiro. Sicar - Sistema Nacional de Cadastro Ambiental Rural [Internet]. 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 8]. Available from: http://www.car.gov.br/#/.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería del Ecuador. Catastro rural en el Ecuador. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Watts J, Nepstad D, Irawan S. Can jurisdictional certification curb palm oil deforestation in Indonesia? [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://news.mongabay.com/2019/07/can-jurisdictional-certification-curb-palm-oil-deforestation-in-indonesia/.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd W, Stickler C, Duchelle A, et al. Jurisdictional approaches to REDD + and low emissions development: progress and prospects. Wash DC World Resour Inst [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/ending-tropical-deforestation-jurisdictional-approaches-redd.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Busch J, Nepstad D. California just approved the Tropical Forest Standard—what happens next? [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://earthinnovation.org/2019/10/california-just-approved-the-tropical-forest-standard-what-happens-next/.
   Google Scholar