000			02150nab a22003617a 4500
001			G96524
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20171220113546.0
008			121211b |||p||p||||||| |z||| |
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.031
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041	0		_aEn
100	1		_aPhelps, J.P.
245	0	0	_aWin-win REDD+approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs
260			_c2012
500			_aPeer-review: Yes - Open Access: Yes|http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=0006-3207
520			_aRecent practise has revealed that conservation interventions that seek to achieve multiple benefits generally face significant, if under-recognized trade-offs. REDD+ policies present prospective win?win solutions for climate change mitigation, rural development and biodiversity conservation. Notably, protecting, enhancing and restoring forests for their carbon sequestration services has the potential to additionally promote the conservation of imperiled tropical biodiversity. However, it has become increasingly apparent that efforts to design a REDD+ mechanism that optimizes emissions reductions and associated co-benefits face significant environmental and economic trade-offs. We provide a framework for conceptualizing the major related policy options, presenting the associated trade-offs as a continuum and as functions of two key factors: (1) geographic targeting, and (2) the selection of specific forest management activities. Our analysis highlights the challenges of assessing trade-offs using existing data and valuation schemes, and the difficulty of paying for and legislating biodiversity co-benefits and safeguards within a future REDD+ mechanism.
546			_aEnglish
591			_aElsevier
593			_aCarelia Juarez
595			_aRPC
650	1	0	_aCarbon _92601
650	1	0	_aEmissions
650	1	0	_aForest
650	1	0	_aLeakage
650	1	0	_aPolicy
650	1	0	_aREDD
650	1	0	_aSafeguard
700	1		_aFriess, D.A., _ecoaut.
700	1		_aWebb, E.L., _ecoaut.
773	0		_tBiological Conservation _gv. 154, p. 53-60
942			_cJA
999			_c29125 _d29125