DHAKA: Remote communities are not receiving the compensation they are entitled to from schemes designed to conserve tropical forests, a study suggests.

People who depend on being able to harvest forest resources should receive payment under the schemes.

But researchers say there is a ‘reality gap’ between safeguards designed to help affected communities and who actually receives the compensation.

The findings have been published online in Global Environment Change.

‘About 11% of global emissions come from deforestation and degradation of tropical forests so the idea is that if you can slow this down then that can offset emissions and that is good for climate mitigation,’ explained Julia Jones from Bangor University, Wales.

Over the past decade, schemes called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (Redd/Redd+) have been developed as part of the global effort to mitigate climate change.

These mechanisms are designed to improve forest management and reduce the net emission of greenhouse gases in tropical forest and sub-tropical forest nations.

‘It finally got approval (at the UN climate summit) in Paris in December that Redd+ will go ahead as a global climate mitigation mechanism,’ Professor Jones told BBC News.

‘What that means in reality is more protected areas and more funding. This sounds brilliant, after all it is a win-win situation and what is there not to like about it?’

However, it has been widely acknowledged that such schemes - if not implemented properly - can have a significant negative impact on people’s livelihoods, such as indigenous communities, and exacerbate poverty.

‘This has been taken on board by, for example, the World Bank,’ observed Professor Jones.

‘They have made commitments that anything they fund (and) people are displaced as a result, they must be compensated for it.’

‘These commitments are also encapsulated in other doctrines, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.’

BDST: 1301 HRS, JAN 27, 2016
RR/