Pokorny, B., I. Scholz, and W. de Jong. 2013. REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+?

About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies. Ecology and Society 18(2): 3. SUMMARY Governmental and international organizations interventions in the Amazon Region, in their efforts to target poverty and environmental protection, have been oriented both to financing infrastructure and land uses, two competing agendas. The authors argue that, as a consequence of REDD+s dual goals it relies on the strategies and tools of previous efforts. This article explores some of those past experiences to identify possible implications and lessons learnt for REDD+ implementation activities. The authors use two perspectives: 1. cobenefits for rural dwellers generated by environmental strategies, and 2. the contribution to forest protection of policies targeting the rural poor. Findings: Poverty effects of strategies aimed at achieving environmental goals. Interventions: 1. Regulatory reforms: promotion of reduced impact logging. These reforms did not improve access to forests or financial benefits for the poor. 2. Forest concessions 1990s. Onerous process, smallholders excluded and their rights are ignored, new concessions overlap their lands or restrained in their traditional uses. Local employment opportunities not attractive. Few successful cases rely on massive support. 3. Strategic land use planning. Facilitated timber companies access to forests used by local people, but also contributed to the recognition of customary rights and land. But, traditional uses are restricted. 4. Safeguards and environmental standards: Some norms may be in conflict with local traditional practices (hunting, expansion of agricultural areas, underage children working, etc.) Poverty effects of strategies aimed at achieving environmental goals. Interventions: 1. Recognition of local rights: legal land ownership is a prerequisite for smallholders effective use of the forests. It can restrict damaging activities (mining, dam, etc). But land titling programs are slow; many still dont have their rights recognized. Some face invasions, threatened by logging, mining etc. 2. Credit programs: Can have positive environmental outcomes if invested in a more effective use of resources. Not all small holders have access (i.e indigenous peoples). Some come associated with a technology transfer package for agricultural modernization, poorly adapted to local realities. 3. Transfer payments: i.e Bolsa Familia (Brazil), FONCODES (Peru). This may allow capital accumulation and further encourage expansion of unsustainable land uses. Conclusions:Without explicit public policies aiming at securing the social and environmental sustainability of agricultural change, higher levels of economic well-being generally go along with high environmental costs. The author is skeptical as to how capable will be REDD to avoid these shortcomings. Both at the local level and at the national, REDD+ preparation is mimicking past experiences. If REDD is to be successful, policies for the Amazon need to change. Debates around REDD are raising awareness about linkages and tradeoffs between social and environmental issues. Opportunities for REDD: the dynamic in post-frontier areas characterized by the abandonment of agricultural lands and the emergence of local-embedded urban rural networks, existence of environmental capital and increasing interest of the society in alternative models of sustainable development.