Phase 2 of the United Nations’ REDD+ climate change mitigation initiative is underway in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Meanwhile, activities are being implemented to assess the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. REDD+ projects need to include a social dimension; thus, the aim of this research was to understand how land-use relationships vary across communities in an area where a REDD+ project is planned. Specifically, we aimed to identify the primary income-generating activities, the variation in access to land, the potential for the development of community projects, and the implementation of alternative income-generating activities. In the summer of 2013, we assessed a REDD+ pilot project in and around the Luki Biosphere Reserve, Bas-Congo Province. We used participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods in four communities located both inside and outside the reserve. We found that current subsistence income activities led to the destruction of forest habitat due to population pressure and a lack of alternative income-generating activities. Customary land tenures overlay statutory rights, which can often mean that community rights are threatened. To achieve their targets, REDD+ projects should consider the actual land-use patterns of local communities in order to generate sustainable income from the land. 1. Introduction Deforestation and forest degradation, which occur mainly in low-income tropical countries, account for an estimated 12 to 17 percent of annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) [1]. To address this issue, the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decided that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) would be the mitigation strategy to slow down land use change, with a focus on conserving and enhancing carbon stocks through sustainable forest management. Until now, approximately fifty high carbon value countries have been supported by the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) or by the United Nations Collaborative Programme on REDD+ (UN-REDD) in their REDD+ implementation. However, most of the countries targeted by REDD+ initiatives are considered to be fragile states [2], which refers to countries that have “weak capacity to carry out basic governance functions, and lack the ability to develop mutually constructive relations with society” [3]. Although the literature assigns the success of REDD+ projects to good governance, regular updating of policy tools, and adoption of
References
[1]
G. R. Van Der Werf, D. C. Morton, R. S. Defries et al., “CO2 emissions from forest loss,” Nature Geoscience, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 737–738, 2009.
[2]
A. Karsenty and S. Ongolo, “Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 18, pp. 38–45, 2012.
[3]
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Fragile States 2013: Resource flows and trends in a shifting world,” 2012.
[4]
D. Pettenella and L. Brotto, “Governance features for successful REDD+ projects organization,” Forest Policy and Economics, vol. 18, pp. 46–52, 2012.
[5]
O. Springate-Baginski and E. Wollenberg, REDD, Forest Governance and Rural Livelihoods: The Emerging Agenda, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 2010.
[6]
A. Awono, O. A. Somorin, R. Eba'a Atyi, and P. Levang, “Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: insights from Southern Cameroon,” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 35, pp. 76–86, 2014.
[7]
A. Agrawal, A. Chhatre, and R. Hardin, “Changing governance of the world's forests,” Science, vol. 320, no. 5882, pp. 1460–1462, 2008.
[8]
N. Stern, Key elements of a Global deal on Climate Change, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK, 2008.
[9]
A. Angelsen and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, “What are the key design issues for REDD and the criteria for assessing options?” in Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications, A. Angelsen, Ed., pp. 11–21, 2008.
[10]
A. Aquino and B. Guay, “Implementing REDD + in the Democratic Republic of Congo: an analysis of the emerging national REDD + governance structure,” Forest Policy and Economics, 2013.
[11]
T. K. Rudel, L. Schneider, and M. Uriarte, “Forest transitions: an introduction,” Land Use Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 95–97, 2010.
[12]
E. B. Barbier, J. C. Burgess, and A. Grainger, “The forest transition: towards a more comprehensive theoretical framework,” Land Use Policy, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 98–107, 2010.
[13]
B. Blom, T. Sunderland, and D. Murdiyarso, “Getting REDD to work locally: lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects,” Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 164–172, 2010.
[14]
Observatoire des forêts d’Afrique centrale (OFAC), “états des Forêts 2010: Les forêts du Bassin du Congo,” 2010.
[15]
“Ministère de l’Environnement, Conservation de la Nature et Tourisme RDC (MECNT),” Synthèse des études sur les causes de la déforestation et de la dégradation des forêts en République Démocratique du Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2012.
[16]
E. A. Ellis and L. Porter-Bolland, “Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas? A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 256, no. 11, pp. 1971–1983, 2008.
[17]
E. Estrada, E. Trines, and I. Emmer, Comparative Study on REDD+: Recommandations for Action, vol. 78, Sylvestrum, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 2012.
[18]
A. Lubini, La Réserve de biosphère de Luki, MAB, DECNT, Kinshasa, Congo, 1984.
[19]
Z. Mogba and M. Freudenberger, “Migration humaine dans les zones protégées d’Afrique centrale: Le cas de la Réserve special Dzanga -Sangha,” Yale F&ES Bulletin, vol. 102, pp. 113–139, 1998.
[20]
Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), Projet pilote REDD intégré autour de la Réserve de biosphère de Luki dans la forêt du Mayombe, BAD, 2010.
[21]
M. Nyange, Participation des communautés locales et gestion durable des forêts: Cas de la Réserve de biosphere de Luki en République Démocratique du Congo [Ph.D. thesis], Laval University and Kinshasa University, 2014.
[22]
FAO, Guide d’application niveau terrain: programme d’analyse socioéconomique selon le genre, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2002.
[23]
R. Chambers, “Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): challenges, potentials and paradigm,” World Development, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 1437–1454, 1994.
[24]
A. ？zerdem and R. Bowd, Participatory Research Methodologies: Development and Post-Disaster Conflict Reconstruction, Ashgate Publishing, 2010.
[25]
K. Krippendorff, “Content analysis,” in International Encyclopedia of Communications, E. Barnouw, G. Gerbner, W. Schramm, T. L. Worth and, and L. Gross, Eds., pp. 403–407, The Annenberg School of Communications, University of Pennsylvania, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
[26]
D. Khasa, La Bo？te à Images: Les Changements Climatiques en Afrique Centrale, Université Laval, Québec, Canada, 2002.
[27]
W. D. Sunderlin, B. Belcher, L. Santoso et al., “Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview,” World Development, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1383–1402, 2005.
[28]
A. Albrecht and S. T. Kandji, “Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 99, no. 1-3, pp. 15–27, 2003.
[29]
REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards, “and Environmental Standards,” Version 2, 27, http://www.redd-standards.org/.
[30]
V. M. Viana, A. R. Aquino, T. M. Pinto et al., REDD+ and Community Forestry: Lessons Learned from an Exchange of Brazilian experiences with Africa, The World Bank and Amazonas Sustainable Foundation, 2012.
[31]
E. J. Z. Robinson, H. J. Albers, C. Meshack, and R. B. Lokina, “Implementing REDD through community-based forest management: lessons from Tanzania,” Natural Resources Forum, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 141–152, 2013.
[32]
H. Purnomo, G. S. Arum, R. Achdiawanm, and R. H. Irawati, “Rights and wellbeing: an analytical approach to global case comparison of community forestry,” Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 35–48, 2012.
[33]
L. Porter-Bolland, E. A. Ellis, M. R. Guariguata, I. Ruiz-Mallén, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, and V. Reyes-García, “Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics,” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 268, pp. 6–17, 2012.
[34]
E. A. Coleman and F. D. Fleischman, “Comparing forest decentralization and local institutional change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda,” World Development, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 836–849, 2012.
