4.3 Article

Costs of delivery approaches for providing livelihood projects to local communities as part of REDD plus programmes: An analysis from Madagascar

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Volume 45, Issue 4, Pages 324-332

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0376892917000571

Keywords

benefit sharing; community costs; livelihood projects; project costs; REDD; social safeguards; transaction costs

Funding

  1. P4GES project, 'Can Paying for Global Ecosystem Services Reduce Poverty' [NE-K010220-1, NE-K010115-1]
  2. Ecosystem Services and Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme of the United Kingdom
  3. Department for International Development (DFID)
  4. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  5. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  6. NERC [NE/K010220/1, NE/K010115/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Providing benefits to local people from forest conservation programmes is an important issue for policy makers. Livelihood projects are a common way to provide benefits, but there is little information about their costs. We analysed 463 livelihood projects in the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) pilot project in Madagascar to understand how different approaches to delivering livelihood projects affect costs. We compared costs across four approaches: conservation agreements, small grants, direct implementation and application of social safeguards. The approach impacted overall costs and the proportion of funds reaching communities. Projects implemented as safeguards were most expensive and had the lowest proportion of expenditures reaching the community. Projects provided as part of conservation agreements directed the highest proportion of expenditures to communities. Our results highlight that how livelihood projects are delivered has implications for project costs and community benefits and should be an important consideration in the design and implementation of REDD+ and forest conservation policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available