Can REDD+ contribute to ecological functions,ecosystem services and livelihoods beyond carbon?
COP24 Side Event“Implementing REDD‐plus with ecological approaches”
13 December 2018

Christopher Martius, Bruno Locatelli, Amy Duchelle, Anne Larson

Thinking beyond carbon
Carbon is one of many ecosystem services of forests and trees
Edible wild products
Cultivated foodNon edible products
Genetic resources

Provisioning
services

Soil fertility enhancement
Microclimatic regulation
Flood reduction
Groundwater recharge
Water purification

Regulation
services

Culturalservices

Water erosion control
Wind erosion control
Pest regulation
Pollination
Rainfall recycling

Recreation

Coastal protection

Scenic beauty

Landslide protection

Inspiration

Global climate regulation(carbon)

Emblematic species
Spiritual and religious values

Evidence of synergies IBiodiversity increases biomass but the inverse is not necessarily true
Monospecific fast‐growth forest
plantations for carbon or bioenergy
can have detrimental impacts onwater or biodiversity

The US National Science Foundation’s Cedar Creek Long-Term EcologicalResearch (NSF LTER) site in Minnesota. Researchers investigate the long-termbiomass responses to increasing or reducing the diversity of plant species. Aftermany years the plants in the most diverse plots of prairie and forest produced thehighest amounts of biomass.

http://www.bitsofscience.org/forest‐biodiversity‐biomass‐5834/
Locatelli et al. 2015. Tropical reforestation and climatechange: beyond carbon. Restoration Ecology 23

Evidence of synergies II: Costa Rica
Conserving carbon is good for other ecosystem services
except the provisioning ones (food, wood)
Multiple objectives may change spatialconservation priorities

Biodiversity

WaterCarbon

ScenicbeautyLocatelli et al 2014 Synergies and tradeoffs between ecosystem services in Costa
Rica. Environmental Conservation 41

Probability of
being in a
hotspot of…

A policy on carbon would not target
the same forests as a policy on carbon
and water
REDD+ does not automatically maximize
bundled co‐benefits for biodiversity andlocal ecosystem services

In a
In a
hotspot of
hotspot
biodiversity… of carbon…
Biodiversity
CarbonWater
Scenic beauty

More coherent climate policies needed
Non‐carbon ecosystem services are important for adaptation: the opportunityof doing adaptation and mitigation together ‐ or the risk of mitigation actionthat impedes adaptation!

Regulating services
Regional climate
regulation

Water and microclimate
regulation in cities
Soil conservation, micro
climate in agriculture
Diversified
products forcommunities

Ecosystem services for

Coast protection fromwaves and storms

Adaptation

Water regulation during
droughts or storms

Climate change strategies

Provisioning
services

Ecosystem
services for

Ecosystems

Mitigation

Regulating service(carbon)Risks when not doing it:•

Adverse affects:•••••

mitigation can increase local
vulnerability
adaptation can increase global
emissionsNot being adaptive canjeopardize mitigation!

Missed opportunities
Policy incoherence

Locatelli et al 2015 Integrating climate change
mitigation and adaptation in agriculture andforestry. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate
Change 6
Image source:
https://cleantechnica.com/files/2017/10/TomToles-thermometer.jpg

Facilitate

integrated
approaches• Bring adaptation and mitigation
together• In international negotiations andagreements•   in national policies• landscape management contributes to both• need to consider multiple scales:• At which ecosystem services are delivered• At which we must conceive adaptation…
(watershed? city? agricultural landscape?)• … and mitigation (forest? globe?)

Understanding climate change policy networks
What actors can play a brokerage role between adaptation andmitigation and between scales?

Di Gregorio et al. 2018. Multi‐level Governance and Power in Climate
Change Policy Networks. Global Environmental Change

The challenge of coordination…when power is at play…

Larson et al. 2018. Transforming REDD+ Book

Impact assessment: Review of REDD+ literature
Many case studies; little focus on forest outcomescarbonsystematic review

non-carbon
randomized control trialparticipation

case-control study: pre-matchedcontrols
case-control study: some confounders
consideredcase-control study: no confounders
consideredcase report02468# studies
Duchelle et al. 2018. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

1012141618

Forest conservation impact of policies & programs
small effects so far

Börner et al. 2016. PLOS ONE

Forest & land use outcomes
The few evaluations of local REDD+ initiatives on forest &land use outcomes show moderately encouraging results

Simonet et al. 2018. Transforming REDD+ Book

Social & other environmental outcomes• Well-being effects small, with mixed sign,
but more likely to be positive when
incentive components included• Land tenure highlighted as persistentchallenge• Studies on biodiversity and adaptation
outcomes scarce

Duchelle et al. 2018, Sunderlin et al. 2018. Transforming REDD+ Book

Summary: what should different
stakeholders do
Knowledge dimension
Recognize trade‐offs

Policy dimension

Often, local understanding
is required

Facilitate integrated
approaches
Planning dimension
More integrated landscapeapproaches andjoint mitgation & adaptationplanning

All: more, and more rigorous, impact
assessment

Recognize power plays
and games
True participation indecision making

With support from the CGIAR Fund Donors:
http://on.cgiar.org/CGIARFundDonors