Forum


Does REDD+ have a chance? Implications from Pemba, Tanzania


J EFFREY B. ANDREWS,TIM CAR O ,S AI D JUMA ALI,AMY C. COL LI NS BIDAWA B AK ARI HAMADI,HAS SA N S ELLIEMAN KHAMIS,ABDI MZEE ASSAA S HARIF NGWAL I and MONIQUE BORGE RH OFF MULDER


Abstract Conservation scientists continue to debate the strengths and weaknesses of REDD+ as an instrument to slow greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world. We propose that general positions on this debate are less helpful than drawing lessons from specific investigations into the features of individual projects that make them successful or not. Here, focusing on a site-specific REDD+ intervention in Pemba, Zanzibar (Tanzania), we examine the circumstances under which REDD+ has a chance of success, teasing out specific features of both REDD+ inter- ventions and the socio-economic and institutional contexts that render REDD+ a potentially valuable complement to community forestry. Additionally, we highlight some unanti- cipated positive outcomes associated with the design features of REDD+ projects. Our broader goal is to move away from ideologically-driven debate to empirically-based identification of general conditions where REDD+ could work, and to pro- vide policy recommendations.


Keywords Carbon payments, community forestry, Pemba, REDD+, Tanzania, Zanzibar


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001376


Introduction JEFFREY B. ANDREWS ( BORGERHOFF MULDER* (Corresponding author,


orcid.org/0000-0003-1130-0423) and MONIQUE orcid.org/0000-0003-1117-


5984) Department of Human Behavior, Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig 04103, Germany E-mail mborgerhoffmulder@ucdavis.edu


TIM CARO ( orcid.org/0000-0001-6804-8519) and AMY COLLINS Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, USA


SAID JUMA ALI,ABDI MZEE and ASSAA SHARIF NGWALI Department of Forests & Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Wete, Pemba, Zanzibar, Tanzania


BIDAWA BAKARI HAMADI and HASSAN SELLIEMAN KHAMIS Jumuiya ya Uhifadhi wa Misitu ya Jamii Zanzibar, Wete, Pemba, Zanzibar, Tanzania *Also at: Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, USA


Received 7 May 2019. Revision requested 4 October 2019. Accepted 8 November 2019. First published online 21 April 2020.


role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) was adopted by the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2007 as a strategy to slow forest loss and as a mecha- nism for sustainable development. Since then REDD+ has become the largest anti-deforestation initiative in history (Angelsen, 2017), drawing on a complex set of multilateral, bilateral, private, corporate, foundation and domestic in- vestment sources (Environmental Defence Fund, 2018). More than 50 countries have initiated REDD+ programmes, and there are now .350 projects across the tropics (Duchelle et al., 2018). Most, however, have no access to the anticipated performance-based finance from voluntary carbon markets (as defined by Seymour & Busch, 2016,see also Simonet et al., 2014;Sunderlin et al., 2015; Angelsen, 2016), but rely in- stead on results-based multilateral or bilateral aid (Duchelle et al., 2018). Prompted in part by this uneven process in estab- lishing successful REDD+ programmes, a divisive literature has emerged. Some see REDD+ as simultaneously positive for carbon, biodiversity and poverty alleviation (e.g. Angelsen, 2008), citing proven results (Jayachandran et al., 2017)and its potential to garner public and private finance (e.g. Seymour& Busch, 2016). Others are concerned with the dangers to local community well-being inherent in commodification and monopolization of natural resources (Phelps et al., 2010; Sandbrook et al., 2010), particularly in contexts with poor gov- ernance structures where vulnerable populations are at risk of displacement by multinational corporate interests (for an ex- ample, seeMcDermott, 2017). Forthisreasonmost nowagree that monitoring of non-carbon outcomes (co-benefits such as livelihoods, tenure security, equitable benefit sharing and bio- diversity; Hinsley et al., 2015)is critical. Much of this debate stems from viewing REDD+ as a monolithic, singular entity. In reality, programmes represent a wide variety of institutional forms, some of which function better than others, and vary with respect to their fit to the institutional and socio-economic context. Systematic com- parisons of REDD+’s empirical successes and failures are thwarted by the highly diverse nature and structure of


R


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 725–731 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001376


EDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries, and the


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164