Modeling trade-offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD+ funds

Significance Deforestation is a key driver of climate change. The program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one of the major attempts to tackle climate change mitigation in developing countries. The program intends to provide result-based incentives to countries that reduce deforestation. We model various future scenarios of the distribution of REDD+ funds and assess how each scenario would contribute to reducing carbon emissions and to conserving biodiversity under different distributional equity rules. Results help to understand how the inclusion of distributional equity affects biodiversity and climate objectives under REDD+, and they provide insights about potential synergies and trade-offs between environmental and equity targets in broader policy arenas such as those related to the Sustainable Development Goals. The program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is one of the major attempts to tackle climate change mitigation in developing countries. REDD+ seeks to provide result-based incentives to promote emission reductions and increase carbon sinks in forest land while promoting other cobenefits, such as the conservation of biodiversity. We model different scenarios of international REDD+ funds distribution toward potential recipient countries using 2 carbon emission reduction targets (20% and 50% compared to the baseline scenario, i.e., deforestation and forest degradation without REDD+) by 2030. The model combines the prioritization of environmental outcomes in terms of carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation and social equity, accounting for the equitable distribution of international REDD+ funds. Results highlight the synergy between carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation under alternative fund allocation criteria, especially for scenarios of low carbon emission reduction. Trade-offs increase when distributional equity is considered as an additional criterion, especially under higher equity requirements. The analysis helps to better understand the inherent trade-offs between enhancing distributional equity and meeting environmental targets under alternative REDD+ fund allocation options.

[1]  M. Tavoni,et al.  Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals , 2019, Nature Sustainability.

[2]  N. Diffenbaugh,et al.  Global warming has increased global economic inequality , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  N. Gross-Camp,et al.  Progress toward Equitably Managed Protected Areas in Aichi Target 11: A Global Survey , 2019, Bioscience.

[4]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Barriers to equity in REDD+: Deficiencies in national interpretation processes constrain adaptation to context , 2018, Environmental Science & Policy.

[5]  L. Aragão,et al.  Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[6]  Tara L. Teel,et al.  Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation , 2018 .

[7]  A. Vatn,et al.  Institutional analysis of causes of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur province: Implication for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo , 2018, Land Use Policy.

[8]  Johanne M. Pelletier,et al.  Anticipating social equity impacts in REDD+ policy design: An example from the Democratic Republic of Congo , 2018, Land Use Policy.

[9]  Elizabeth A. Law,et al.  Equity trade‐offs in conservation decision making , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[10]  H. Possingham,et al.  The extent and predictability of the biodiversity-carbon correlation. , 2018, Ecology letters.

[11]  David N. Pellow,et al.  Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research , 2017 .

[12]  Adeniyi P. Asiyanbi,et al.  Framing justice in REDD+ governance: centring transparency, equity and legitimacy in readiness implementation in West Africa , 2017, Environmental Conservation.

[13]  Yann Dujardin,et al.  Solving multi-objective optimization problems in conservation with the reference point method , 2016, PloS one.

[14]  M. Pasgaard,et al.  Challenges and opportunities for REDD+: A reality check from perspectives of effectiveness, efficiency and equity , 2016 .

[15]  João V. Siqueira,et al.  Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation , 2016, Nature.

[16]  L. Gerber.  Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species recovery , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  C. Harvey,et al.  REDD+ and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review of the Biodiversity Goals, Monitoring Methods, and Impacts of 80 REDD+ Projects , 2016 .

[18]  B. Halpern,et al.  Social equity and the probability of success of biodiversity conservation , 2015 .

[19]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Effective conservation requires clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet , 2015, Science.

[21]  S. Speelman,et al.  Institutional dimensions of the developing REDD+ process in Cameroon , 2014 .

[22]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services , 2014 .

[23]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Beyond Carbon: Enabling Justice and Equity in REDD+ Across Levels of Governance , 2014 .

[24]  S. Fankhauser,et al.  Understanding the adaptation deficit: why are poor countries more vulnerable to climate events than rich countries? , 2013 .

[25]  Christina C. Hicks,et al.  A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations , 2013 .

[26]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  David Isaacs,et al.  Making a difference , 2013, Journal of paediatrics and child health.

[28]  F. Nelson,et al.  Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible , 2012 .

[29]  B. Cashore,et al.  Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. , 2012 .

[30]  J. Bae,et al.  Evaluating socio-economic equity of REDD+ in a rights-based approach: rapid equity appraisal matrix , 2012 .

[31]  G. Daily,et al.  Securing natural capital and expanding equity to rescale civilization , 2012, Nature.

[32]  Susan Caplow,et al.  Feedbacks between Conservation and Social‐Ecological Systems , 2012, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[33]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  H. Schroeder,et al.  Governing and implementing REDD , 2011 .

[35]  L. Olander,et al.  Institutions and Policies to Protect Rural Livelihoods in REDD Regimes , 2010, Global Environmental Politics.

[36]  U. Pascual,et al.  Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach , 2010 .

[37]  C. Orme,et al.  Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems , 2010 .

[38]  H. Possingham,et al.  Harnessing Carbon Payments to Protect Biodiversity , 2009, Science.

[39]  E. Ostrom.  A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[40]  Michael Obersteiner,et al.  Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Prioritizing global conservation efforts , 2006, Nature.

[42]  B. Turner.  The International Lessons , 1892, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[43]  Lianbiao Cui,et al.  Exploring the Schemes for Green Climate Fund Financing: International Lessons , 2018 .

[44]  Ingrid J. Visseren-Hamakers,et al.  Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice , 2017 .

[45]  Joeri Rogelj,et al.  Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals , 2017 .

[46]  F. Sinclair,et al.  Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices , 2016 .

[47]  J. Bishop,et al.  The financial costs of REDD: evidence from Brazil and Indonesia. , 2009 .

[48]  Eberhard Jochem,et al.  The Conceptual Approach , 2009 .

[49]  D. Huberman,et al.  Making REDD work for the poor : a poverty environment partnership (PEP) policy brief , 2008 .

[50]  S. Solomon.  The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .