Filling the research gaps #TimeForNature

Agriculture and forestry are a major source of environmental pollution, contributing 20-24 per cent of all greenhouse emissions. International efforts such as The United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) have recognized the critical importance of reducing greenhouse emissions from deforestation and degradation for climate mitigation. Several international efforts advocate the need for land sector management and the importance of economic tools around preserving or restoring ecosystems services. Government in  many countries have actively promoted community-based forest initiatives and incentivizing as a way to merge natural resource conservation with human development.

Decentralized deforestation strategies

Proponents of decentralized forest management programs suggest that such programs can contribute to both environmental and poverty reduction outcomes.

A Campbell systematic review on the effects of decentralized forest management (DFM)   that included research programs in Bolivia, India, Kenya, and Nepal on forest cover change showed little effect of DFM to reduce deforestation rate. It also highlighted that limited research has been conducted on the poverty reduction benefits of such programs, and no studies were identified that have jointly evaluated both conservation and poverty outcomes.

Incentivizing for climate mitigation

Another popular approach to mitigate climate change in low-and-middle-income countries is Payment for Environmental Services (PES) that provides economic incentives to reduce the negative environmental impacts of land use.

Mapping of existing literature by a Campbell Evidence and Gap Map shows that incentive provision through direct payments to farmers for planting and caring for trees on their farms and the receipt of premiums for particular agricultural commodities has been found to be most studied interventions.

However, findings from a Campbell systematic review on incentive for climate mitigation shows that schemes such as PES, have only a very small effect to reduced deforestation, improved forest cover and increased household income. These are hence found to be cost-ineffective and cannot be generalized to low-and-middle-income settings.

What can be done? #TimeforNature

In response to the paucity of evidence, there is an urgent and paramount need to build an evidence ecosystem around environment through:

• National and global cooperation and partnerships on research
• Acknowledging current state of research and identifying gaps in evidence
• Transitioning from underinvestment in research to strategic creation of evidence pool
• Understanding what works
• Reading and investing in systematic reviews! They provide reliable, comprehensive and rigorous summary of existing evidence that can be used to inform policies
• Evidence matters! Use evidence for better policy, programs and practice

.There is much to learn from systematic reviews, which provide the most reliable guide to policy. Devote research funds and research time to studies which can help build the body of evidence in low-and-middle-income countries.

Write to us to know more and to get in touch: [email protected]