Joanes Atela|Claire H. Quinn|Peter A. Minang
Are REDD projects pro-poor in their spatial targeting? Evidence from Kenya
University of Leeds|World Agroforestry Centre|University of Leeds|World Agroforestry Centre
reducing emissions deforestation forest degradation redd globally supported cost effective programme could achieve global mitigation spur propoor socioeconomic development various actors actively lobbying disbursing redd demonstration funds premise spurring propoor carbon investments less developed areas otherwise excluded clean development mechanism practice little known whether redd projects actually propoor spatial targeting paper focuses kenya analyse distribution redd projects across quantified subnational vulnerability indices vulnerability index map kenya first developed longterm socioeconomic crop yields literacy rates poverty rates climate rainfall data drawn 47 counties kenya number types redd projects located vulnerability map correlation tests performed experts consulted clarify socioeconomic features vulnerability significantly influence spatial choices projects results show projects located lowvulnerability counties mainly developed managed international private consulting companies correlation tests revealed lowvulnerability counties hosting projects endowed humid forest resources 728 p 001 land title deeds 552 p 001 better access water 475 p 001 experts suggested conditions posit low transaction costs higher carbon revenues profitseeking project developers currently dominate redd demonstrations conversely project experiences indicate medium highvulnerability areas eg drylands mitigation potential enable projects low opportunity costs explicit livelihood impacts directing redd funds relatively vulnerable areas projects national redd policies likely enhance synergies mitigation adaptation targeted field assessment interaction projects local socioeconomic conditions formulated study