Did you ever wonder whether forest conservation interventions are actually effective?

How much do we know about that?

The GCF Independent Evaluation Unit was wondering the same, and since the GCF is funding lots of activities around the world that aim to support forest conservation in developing countries, AAE got contracted to develop an Evidence Gap Map (EGM) on forest conservation. 

‍

What does this show? 

• An EGM indicates how much evidence is out there on the effectiveness of forest conservation interventions, distinguishing between different types of interventions (e.g. protected areas, PES schemes, land tenure, etc.) and different outcomes of interventions (e.g. forest cover, biodiversity, livelihoods, etc.)
• An EGM indicates where we lack evidence, e.g. about adaptation outcomes of forest conservation interventions. 

‍

What more can be done with it? 

• Where sufficient evidence exists, it may be possible to undertake a meta-analysis. This allows a quantitative analysis of the degree of effectiveness of certain forest conservation interventions with regards to the outcomes looked into. 

In other cases, where quantitative data does not allow undertaking a meta-analysis, it is more adequate to do a systematic review. This allows an in-depth qualitative analysis of the effectiveness of the forest conservation interventions and their drivers. 

In the case of the EGM for forest conservation, a meta-analysis on certain aspects with sufficient evidence and a systematic review were conducted. 

‍Governments need credible evidence to justify conservation policies and allocate resources effectively. Decision-makers require data to assess whether interventions like protected areas, payments for ecosystem services, or reforestation programs deliver tangible environmental and socio-economic benefits so that public funds and international aid are directed toward interventions that provide the best return on investment. The EGM on forest conservation and accompanying systematic review and meta-analysis can support such decision-making processes.

To access all publications accompanying the EGM, please see here. To directly access the online version of the EGM, please follow this link.
Should you be interested in previous EGMs AAE has produced, please see here and here.

‍

Team: Nathalie Doswald, Monika Bertzky, Sasha Murat, Mariana Bonfils, Francisca Piperno, Fernanda de Leon, Martin Prowse