Since its introduction as a global mechanism to fight climate change through forest conservation, the REDD+ scheme has sparked debate—not just about its effectiveness in reducing emissions, but also about its potential impacts on local communities where it is implemented.
To address such concerns, the Cancun Agreements at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) established safeguards that require REDD+ projects to contribute to forest conservation while enhancing social and environmental co-benefits for forest-dwelling populations. But defining, measuring and assessing these co-benefits in complex landscapes like the Amazon remains a challenge.
Improving the effectiveness of these safeguards means first understanding how local communities perceive benefits, taking into account their view of well-being. Because these perceptions vary widely by territory, REDD+ approaches must be tailored to local realities.
To explore this, a recent study by researchers working under the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ examined perceived impacts of two REDD+ projects in Peru’s Amazonian regions of Madre de Dios and Ucayali. In this interview with Forests News, lead co-author Ana Cubas-Báez shares insights from the study’s methods and findings.
Q: How was the data collection process designed to capture the notion of well-being from the communities’ perspective?
For me, working with this data reaffirmed that well-being is a diverse and context-dependent concept.
A: This study was part of my master’s research at North Carolina State University, where I had the opportunity to work with Dr. Erin Sills. The data came from the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF)’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, which aims to generate robust evidence and practical tools for more effective, equitable REDD+ initiatives implementation.
As part of this study, several countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa that were implementing REDD+ initiatives—including Peru—were selected. In each country, researchers identified both areas where REDD+ was being implemented and comparable sites without REDD+ interventions, to assess the initiatives’ impacts. Data collection involved three types of surveys: focus group discussions with community leaders (mostly men), focus group discussions with women and individual household surveys. These surveys were conducted in three research phases: prior to the implementation of REDD+ and in two follow-up phases in 2014 and 2018.
This research design made it possible to capture local well-being priorities from different perspectives at each site—REDD+ vs. non-REDD+—and to compare them across varied territorial contexts: rural mestizo communities of Brazil nut harvesters in Madre de Dios and the Indigenous Shipibo-Conibo and Kakataibo communities in Ucayali. This approach was key to revealing how the distinct histories, cultures and experiences of each region shape understanding of well-being. For me, working with this data reaffirmed that well-being is a diverse and context-dependent concept.
Q: What dimensions or aspects were most valued by communities when defining well-being?
A: One of the study’s main findings was that well-being is a multidimensional concept and how it is understood varies depending on the territory and local experience. Through the focus group interviews—with both community leaders and with women—we identified a broad range of dimensions that communities associate with well-being. These ranged from access to basic services to more intangible aspects like personal development and community ties.
Even with these differences, there was one consistent priority across both sites—Madre de Dios and Ucayali: access to education and quality health services stood out as essential elements of local well-being.
Q: How did well-being priorities differ across territorial contexts?
A: Despite the shared emphasis on education and health, we observed territorial differences in priorities.
In Madre de Dios, where rural mestizo Brazil nut harvester communities participated, people associated well-being with better access to markets, the opportunity to start a business, improving housing conditions and having means of transportation. In contrast, in Ucayali, where Indigenous communities participated, priorities were more focused on meeting basic needs such as food, safe and clean water, employment and technical assistance for production.
It’s also important to mention that the significant differences we observed were not between men and women, but rather between the two regions. This highlights the need to tailor REDD+ and similar initiatives to the specific realities of each territory, rather than assuming a single vision of well-being or applying a one-size-fits-all strategy.
Q: Suggestion: How did REDD+ participation affect local perceptions of well-being?
A: In Madre de Dios, we found positive effects in certain dimensions of well-being, for example, an increase in the number of families owning homes outside the community. However, we also observed a significant negative effect on subjective well-being: many families in REDD+ communities felt that their overall well-being had declined over time.
This negative perception could be related to frustration over unmet expectations, such as delayed payments from carbon credit sales or the absence of promised infrastructure projects, as well as potential communication issues and a lack of transparency in how the projects were implemented (when the surveys were conducted).
In Ucayali, on the other hand, there were no negative effects on people’s perceptions of well-being. This may be due to the REDD+ project there having been able to sell carbon credits more quickly and reinvest the earnings into visible community initiatives—like nurseries, agroforestry plantations and training workshops in forest monitoring and sustainable production.
In summary, the impact of REDD+ on well-being was not uniform —it depended on factors such as how expectations were managed, the level of transparency in management, and how the benefits were distributed within each community.
Q: What lessons does this study offer on how to evaluate the impacts of REDD+?
A: One of the key lessons is that local well-being is a multidimensional and heterogeneous concept, with interpretations that vary according to sociocultural context. While we analyzed indicators built from priorities expressed by communities in both sites, the results showed significant differences.
This reaffirms that well-being is a contextual concept and that any assessment of impact must consider not only standardized indicators but also the perceptions, expectations and priorities of the people directly involved. In fact, the most notable differences we found in our study were between regions, reinforcing the need to adapt REDD+ initiatives to the sociocultural realities of each territory.
We also concluded that meaningful community participation, transparent communication and fair distribution of benefits are essential for the success of these projects. It is not enough for REDD+ to function from a technical or financial standpoint—if communities do not perceive real improvements in their well-being, or feel that promises were not kept, the impact can even be negative.
For me, this study reaffirmed a fundamental truth: no technical indicator can replace the voice of those who live the day-to-day reality of these territories. If we want REDD+ and other climate initiatives to be sustainable, fair and truly effective, they must be built from the ground up—with communities, not just for them.
The lessons learned are key to improving REDD+ and designing and implementing structures that are truly efficient, equitable, and sustainable.
This work was conducted as part of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ of the Center for International Forestry Research (www.cifor.org/gcs). The financial partners supporting this research include the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA), with financial support from the donors of the CGIAR Fund.
We want you to share Forests News content, which is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This means you are free to redistribute our material for non-commercial purposes. All we ask is that you give Forests News appropriate credit and link to the original Forests News content, indicate if changes were made, and distribute your contributions under the same Creative Commons license. You must notify Forests News if you repost, reprint or reuse our materials by contacting forestsnews@cifor-icraf.org.
