Exploring Socioeconomic Impacts of REDD-plus Pilot Program to Rural Livelihoods: Comparative Study of Yedashae and Oaktwin Townships in Bago Region of Myanmar

Exploring Socioeconomic Impacts of REDD-plus Pilot Program to Rural Livelihoods: Comparative Study of Yedashae and Oaktwin Townships in Bago Region of Myanmar

Author(s)

Yali Wen, Kay Zin Than, Zaw Zaw

Download Full PDF DOI: 10.18483/ijSci.966 Downloads: 334 Views: 717 Pages: 28-41

Volume 5 - March 2016 (03)

Abstract

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD-plus) was evolved to provide incentives for the enhancement of carbon stock through conservation of forests. There are concerns about the potential impacts of REDD-plus on local livelihoods. This article accesses the socioeconomic impacts of two townships within the REDD-plus pilot project through using households’ data from control and intervention villages. It found that REDD-plus pilot program had no significant impact on livelihood resources but relatively contributed to some extent for the development of physical capitals, particularly in terms of community awareness raising in intervention villages. The study revealed that 63% of households in intervention villages were pursuing “Forests and Daily Labor” Livelihood Strategy (LS) in which 54% of households were using “Human and NTFPs” capitals. Meanwhile, in control villages, 27% of households were following “Forest and Wage Labor” Livelihood strategies (LS) in which 31% of households were depending on forest resources. Most of the households in intervention villages depend on the non-timber forest resources (NTFPs) for their livelihoods and they do not have enough income for their welfare. For control villages, households were pursuing daily labor for their livelihood and they also had to depend on forest resources for their subsistence and commercial purposes. This study also found that the sole dependency of forest resources for livelihood could not create standalone livelihood strategy in the area of high poverty and forest dependency rate. This study recommends Community Forestry (CF) as a policy framework which should be used for the integration of REDD-plus activities to the community livelihood development. Moreover, this study encourages inter-sectoral dialogue for the cooperation among agencies, line-departments to ensure REDD-plus implementation benefits to local communities’ livelihood resources.

Keywords

REDD-plus, Socioeconomic Impacts, Livelihood Strategies, Livelihood Resources, Pilot Program, Myanmar

References

  1. Anna C. and Smita N., 2011, Climate Change Policy Brief: REDD-plus Finance Delivery: Lessons from Early Experiences.
  2. Arezoo S. et al., 2012, Poverty, Sustainability and Household Livelihood Strategies in Zagros, Iran.
  3. Calderon A., 2005, Livelihood impact assessment: Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project, Bolivia, November. Annex 6 of project design document.
  4. Cecilia L., Lasse L., Maria F. G., Demetrius K., Maria B., Arild A. and William D. S, 2012, Who should benefit from REDD+?: Rationales and Realities.
  5. Chambers, R. and Conway G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st Century. IDS Discussion Paper No.296. Sussex, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
  6. De-Janvy, A. and Sadoulet, E., 2001, Income Strategies among rural households in Mexico: The role of off-farm activities.
  7. Esteve C., Katrina B. and Neil W. A, 2007, The Equity and Legitimacy of Markets for Ecosystem Services.
  8. Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2010, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, Cancun.
  9. Groom, B., Grosjean, P., Kontoleon, A., Swanson, T. and Zhang, S., 2010. Relaxing constraints with compensation: a win-win policy for environment and poverty in China? Oxford Econ. Pap. 62, 132–156.
  10. Groom. B. and Palmer. C., 2012, REDD+ and Rural Livelihood: REDD+ and Conservation.
  11. Hedge, R., 2010. Payments for Ecosystem Services and farm household behavior: the case of carbon in Mozambique’s agroforests.
  12. Integrated household living condition assessment project technical unit of Myanmar (IHLCA), 2011. Integrated household living conditions survey in Myanmar: Poverty profile, Yangon (Myanmar): United Nation Development Programme.
  13. Jindal, R., 2010. Livelihood impacts of payments for forestry carbon services: Field evidence from Mozambique.
  14. Joe F. H., Marko S., Christian M. R. and Jeannette A. M., 2011, An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research.
  15. Karen B., 1999, Implementing a Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for Policy-Directed Research: Reflection from practice in Mali’, IDS Working Paper 90.
  16. Kathleen L. and Lydia P.O., 2010, Institutions and policies to protect rural livelihoods in REDD regimes.
  17. Khaine et al., 2014. Assessment of the environmental awareness of local people living in and around forests in Myanmar: A case study in Yedashae and Pauk-kaung townships.
  18. Leo P., and Kimberly T., 2012, Putting REDD+ safeguards and safeguard information systems into practice, UN-REDD PolicyBrief Issue #03 10.1007/s10531-014-0821-4.
  19. Margaret S., Cecilia S., Alejandro V., and Jose´ C. F., 2013, Rights to carbon and payments for services rendered under REDD+: Options for the case of Mexico, Global Environmental Change 23 (2013) 813–825.
  20. Maung.T. M. and Yamamoto. M., 2008, Exploring the socioeconomic situation of plantation villagers: A case study in Myanmar Bago Yoma.
  21. Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry, 2014. Forestry in Myanmar: Forest Department.
  22. Pamela J., Maria B., Amy E. D., Maria F.G., Kathleen L., Ida A. P. R. and William D. S., Multi-Level policy dialogues, processes, and actions: Challenges and opportunities for National REDD+ safeguards Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV), Forests 2014, 5, 2136-2162; doi:10.3390/f5092136: ISSN 1999-4907.
  23. Pascale C. M., Romain P. and Jean-Louis C., 2008, A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: Compensated Successful Efforts for “avoided deforestation” (REDD).
  24. Scoones. I., 1998, ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis’ IDS Working Paper 72.
  25. Susan C., Pamela J., Kathleen L. and Erin S., 2011, Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+.
  26. Tacconi et al., 2012, The livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: The Australian National University.
  27. William D. S., Anne M. L., Amy E. D., Ida A.P. R., Thu B. H., Abdon A. and Therese D., 2013, How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam World Development Vol. 55, pp. 37–52, 2014.

Cite this Article:

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Issue October 2018

Volume 7, October 2018


Table of Contents


Order Print Copy

World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:


Submit your Paper


bypass shell