Payments for Environmental Services, Forest Conservation and Climate Change
Show Less

Payments for Environmental Services, Forest Conservation and Climate Change

Livelihoods in the REDD?

Edited by Luca Tacconi, Sango Mahanty and Helen Suich

This resourceful book draws on several case studies to derive implications for the design of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes that are very relevant to current climate change negotiations and the implementation of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) schemes at the national level. With its focus on livelihoods, the book also provides important lessons that are relevant to the design of PES schemes focusing on environmental services other than carbon conservation.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 8: Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Forest Carbon Services: Field Evidence from Mozambique

Rohit Jindal


Rohit Jindal INTRODUCTION This study reviews the livelihood impacts of the Nhambita Community Carbon Project located in Sofala Province, Mozambique. The project pays local smallholders for taking up carbon sequestration activities on their farms and for conserving miombo woodlands in the area. It follows the concept of payments for environmental services (PES), whereby land stewards receive payments for securing valuable environmental services through their conservation activities (Wunder 2005). PES literature often highlights a potential compatibility between environmental conservation and poverty reduction, especially when poor households are contracted to receive payments in return for their conservation efforts (Pagiola et al. 2005). Such benefits are particularly significant for Mozambique, which is one of the poorest countries in the world. In 2006, its gross domestic product was only US$7.6 billion, with over 74 per cent of the population living on less than US$2 per day (World Bank 2008). Reducing this widespread poverty by investing in economic development has been a key challenge for the national government (Heltberg et al. 2003). Agriculture and forestry are two key sectors that need investment, as they employ more than 80 per cent of the country’s work force and provide livelihoods for a vast majority of the rural poor (FAO 2003). Forest-based carbon mitigation projects such as the Nhambita project can potentially achieve these twin objectives – they can bring investment for improved forestry and land-use practices, as well as increase rural incomes through the provision of direct payments to local farmers (Jindal et al. 2008). However,...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.