Analysis Assessing sustainable forest management under REDD +: A community-based labour perspective Patrick Bottazzi a, d, ⁎, Andrea Cattaneo b , David Crespo Rocha c , Stephan Rist a a Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, Bern 3012, Switzerland b Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy c Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, La Pradera E7-174 y Av. Diego de Almagro-PBX, Quito, Ecuador d Institute of Geography and Sustainability, University of Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland abstract article info Article history: Received 18 January 2013 Received in revised form 25 April 2013 Accepted 7 May 2013 Available online xxxx Keywords: REDD + Deforestation Sustainable forest management Amazon Labour input Bolivia Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus (REDD+) encourages economic support for reducing deforestation and conserving or increasing existing forest carbon stocks. The way in which incentives are structured affects trade-offs between local livelihoods, carbon emission reduction, and the cost-effectiveness of a REDD + programme. Looking at first-hand empirical data from 208 farming households in the Bolivian Amazon from a household economy perspective, our study explores two policy options: 1) compensated reduction of emissions from old-growth forest clearing for agriculture, and 2) direct payments for labour input into sustain- able forest management combined with a commitment not to clear old-growth forest. Our results indicate that direct payments for sustainable forest management – an approach that focuses on valuing farmers' labour input – can be more cost-effective than compensated reduction and in some cases is the most appropriate choice for achieving improved household incomes, permanence of changes, avoidance of leakages, and community-based institutional enforcement for sustainable forest management. © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction A decision taken by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Copenhagen Conference of Parties in 2009 highlights “the importance of reducing emissions from defores- tation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustain- able management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries” (Decision 4/CP.15). By taking this decision concerning the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+) mechanism, the UNFCCC intended to make available economic support not only for reducing deforestation rates, but also for conserving or increasing existing forest carbon stocks using sustainable forest management (UNFCCC, 2010). At the same time, the convention also recognized “the need for full and ef- fective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in, and the potential contribution of their knowledge to, monitoring and reporting of activities” (Decision 4/CP.15). These decisions are particularly important with a view to supporting multifunctional community- or family-based forest management in situations where individuals are highly dependent on forest for their livelihoods (Sunderlin et al., 2008). Focusing on sustainable forest management means going beyond mere compensation for emission reductions and also thinking about economic activities with co-benefits that can viably link conservation strategies with local livelihoods. However, linking REDD + schemes to sustainable forest manage- ment poses methodological challenges associated to baseline definition, implementation, and monitoring, especially regarding counterfactual scenarios for establishing socio-economic impacts (Caplow et al., 2011). In this regard, Skutsch et al. (2011) suggest considering at least the following two types of REDD + design: 1) payments to compensate the management of carbon outputs, that is, fixed pay- ments to a forest managing unit based on the amount of carbon fixed compared to a baseline value and on an assessment of opportu- nity costs; 2) payments to compensate the management of inputs, such as agreeing to meet certain specific norms of sustainable forest management. In the first type of REDD + design – output-based compensated reduction – compensation payments are based on verified reductions of carbon emissions (Bellassen and Gitz, 2008; Börner et al., 2010; Milne and Adams, 2012; Sandker et al., 2010). Payments generally com- pensate at least the opportunity costs of not converting forest into other, more profitable land use categories (e.g. agriculture, pasture, perennial crops). Forest users are expected to respect the emission re- duction agreement; compliance has to be monitored and assessed on a regular basis (Skutsch et al., 2011). Compensated reduction models Ecological Economics 93 (2013) 94–103 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Hallerstrasse 10, 3012 Bern, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 31 631 88 22, +41 22 731 81 88; fax: +41 31 631 85 44. E-mail addresses: patrick.bottazzi@cde.unibe.ch (P. Bottazzi), andrea.cattaneo@fao.org (A. Cattaneo), dcrespoforestal@gmail.com (D.C. Rocha), stephan.rist@cde.unibe.ch (S. Rist).URL: http://www.cde.unibe.ch (P. Bottazzi). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.05.003 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon