4.3 Article

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

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
卷 45, 期 4, 页码 324-332

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0376892917000571

关键词

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

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据