No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
REDD+ finance in Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam: Stakeholder perspectives between 2009-2019
Abstract
Financing REDD+ is complex, due to the need to seek answers not only to the question of who should finance REDD+, but also who should benefit from it. This paper examines the perceptions of REDD+ stakeholders in Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam on different aspects of financing: who should finance REDD+ and who should receive REDD+ benefits for what. Our findings show these issues are political, driven by economic considerations at national level and – despite the narrative of inclusive, participatory decision making – are largely determined by governments. Lack of finance was thereby not always considered by national policy actors to be the most significant challenge during 2010–2019; rather other issues – like lack of knowledge on REDD+ by relevant actors; ineffective coordination between state agencies, the private sector and civil society; unclear tenure rights; ineffectively addressing the main deforestation drivers; low law enforcement capacity; and unclear benefit-sharing mechanisms – have also been perceived to impede REDD+ implementation and payment distributions.
... Further, the Ministry of Finance has responsibility for the overall budget and has been claiming a mandate over any form of payments related to climate change, including benefits-sharing mechanisms. It controls the Environment Fund Management Agency (BPDLH), which is responsible for the management of multi-and bi-lateral climate finance (Pham et al., 2021). Infights between the MoEF, BAPPENAS, and the Ministry of Finance on who has jurisdiction on climate change responses has been evident from the start as they compete for control over the climate change agenda. ...
... The increased interest of the Government of Indonesia in carbon finance denotes a major intention to raise international private funds to fund REDD+ activities. The national government aims to control carbon finance centrally, and in 2017 the MoEF contacted forest licence holders indicating that they could not independently engage in carbon trading activities (Pham et al. 2021). Further, the 2020 presidential decree draft states that only designated organizations (the BPDLH, the Steering Committee of Carbon Pricing, the MoEF, and connected agencies) would be authorized to engage and manage carbon markets. ...
... Further, the 2020 presidential decree draft states that only designated organizations (the BPDLH, the Steering Committee of Carbon Pricing, the MoEF, and connected agencies) would be authorized to engage and manage carbon markets. There are already organizations, including Ecosystem Restoration Concessionaires, that engage in voluntary carbon markets, and if the decree is adopted it will affect their ability to directly engage in such transactions (MMIA 2020;Pham et al. 2021). At the same time, there are also important countervailing tendencies that push for a more decentralized approach to climate policies, such as the push on the part of the GCFTF for jurisdictional approaches to be largely under the control of provincial governments. ...
The majority of the world’s largest carbon emitters are either federations or have adopted
systems of decentralised governance. The realisation of the world’s climate mitigation
objectives therefore depends in large part on whether and how governments within federal
systems can co-operate to reduce carbon emissions and catalyse the emergence of lowcarbon societies. This volume brings together leading experts to explore whether federal or
decentralised systems help or hinder efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It
reviews the opportunities and challenges federalism offers for the development and implementation of climate mitigation and adaption policies and identifies the conditions that
influence the outcomes of climate governance. Including in-depth case studies of fourteen
different jurisdictions, this is an essential resource for academics, policymakers, and
practitioners interested in climate governance and the best practices for enhancing climate
action.
... Further, the Ministry of Finance has responsibility for the overall budget and has been claiming a mandate over any form of payments related to climate change, including benefits-sharing mechanisms. It controls the Environment Fund Management Agency (BPDLH), which is responsible for the management of multi-and bi-lateral climate finance (Pham et al., 2021). Infights between the MoEF, BAPPENAS, and the Ministry of Finance on who has jurisdiction on climate change responses has been evident from the start as they compete for control over the climate change agenda. ...
... The increased interest of the Government of Indonesia in carbon finance denotes a major intention to raise international private funds to fund REDD+ activities. The national government aims to control carbon finance centrally, and in 2017 the MoEF contacted forest licence holders indicating that they could not independently engage in carbon trading activities (Pham et al. 2021). Further, the 2020 presidential decree draft states that only designated organizations (the BPDLH, the Steering Committee of Carbon Pricing, the MoEF, and connected agencies) would be authorized to engage and manage carbon markets. ...
... Further, the 2020 presidential decree draft states that only designated organizations (the BPDLH, the Steering Committee of Carbon Pricing, the MoEF, and connected agencies) would be authorized to engage and manage carbon markets. There are already organizations, including Ecosystem Restoration Concessionaires, that engage in voluntary carbon markets, and if the decree is adopted it will affect their ability to directly engage in such transactions (MMIA 2020;Pham et al. 2021). At the same time, there are also important countervailing tendencies that push for a more decentralized approach to climate policies, such as the push on the part of the GCFTF for jurisdictional approaches to be largely under the control of provincial governments. ...
The majority of the world's largest carbon emitters are either federations or have adopted systems of decentralised governance. The realisation of the world's climate mitigation objectives therefore depends in large part on whether and how governments within federal systems can cooperate to reduce carbon emissions and catalyse the emergence of low-carbon societies. This volume brings together leading experts to explore whether federal or decentralised systems help or hinder efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It reviews the opportunities and challenges federalism offers for the development and implementation of climate mitigation and adaption policies and identifies the conditions that influence the outcomes of climate governance. Including in-depth case studies of 14 different jurisdictions, this is an essential resource for academics, policymakers and practitioners interested in climate governance, and the best practices for enhancing climate action. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
... Discussions of benefit-sharing reflect increased concerns over how to access REDD+ finance, how to assess REDD+ policy performance and results, how to generate co-benefits, and how to resolve issues related to equity and safeguards [62]. Unclear benefitsharing mechanisms are perceived as one element that impedes REDD+ implementation and payment distributions [70]. ...
... One challenge related to voluntary carbon markets is that their carbon price has been low [70], which could reduce the incentives for the private sector to implement REDD+. Although further analysis is required in this respect, REDD+-related volumes have substantially increased, as has voluntary carbon markets' issuance of forestry and land use projects, which grew from approximately USD 57.2 million in 2020 to USD 107.5 million in 2021 [42]. ...
Discussion on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries began at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in 2005, and the agenda for “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+)” was introduced under the UNFCCC. The REDD+ framework was developed with the expectation that it would significantly contribute to climate change mitigation at a relatively low cost and produce benefits for both developed and developing countries. Finance is a key element of REDD+ implementation, and many financial sources, approaches, and mechanisms have supported REDD+-related activities in various developing countries. However, the comprehensive challenges and lessons learned for REDD+ finance and its governance have not been fully explored. This paper reviews the relevant literature to understand the challenges for REDD+ finance and its governance in two areas—(1) REDD+ finance aligned with the UNFCCC and (2) REDD+-related finance outside the UNFCCC—which have developed differently and have different implications. This paper first identifies the six key elements of REDD+ finance and its governance across the two fields, and then reviews the related challenges and lessons learned with respect to public and private finance. The challenges for REDD+ finance and its governance aligned with the UNFCCC include enhancing the performance of REDD+ finance using mainly public finance, such as results-based finance and the jurisdictional approach. In contrast, the challenges regarding REDD+-related finance outside the UNFCCC include enhancing the engagement of the private sector in REDD+ finance, mainly targeting the project level, and the relationship between voluntary carbon markets and other investment and finance mechanisms. This paper also identifies the common challenges across REDD+ finance and its governance in the two fields. These challenges include the need to enhance linkages between REDD+ and other objectives, such as carbon neutrality/net-zero, deforestation-free supply chains, and nature-based solutions, as well as the need to develop learning systems for REDD+ finance.
... With the increase vision of peatland restoration as a NbS (Strack et al. 2022;Tan et al. 2022), peatland restoration efforts in Indonesia have been seen as a new possibility for innovative climate finance, in large part due to its climate services (Bonn et al. 2016;Sari et al. 2021). The influence of finance within peatland restoration includes private investment in peatland restoration via restoration concessions (Buergin 2016; as well as REDD+ financing for carbon mitigation (Pham et al. 2021). In mangrove and seagrass ecosystems, the blue carbon framework offers the potential for new carbon marketing in developing the financial frameworks and mechanisms to implement blue carbon finance (Friess et al. 2022;Sidik et al. 2023), with SEA poised to be a global leader in Blue Carbon due to its high mitigation potential (Macreadie et al 2021). ...
Amphibious landscapes, wetlands such as coasts, mangroves, peatlands, and deltas, have seen a recent surge in large-scale restoration efforts. This article examines this trend in Southeast Asia, reviewing the history and contemporary dynamics of wetland restoration in the region. Drawing from literatures on the political ecology of restoration, infrastructure studies, and the financialization of nature, we understand wetland restoration as a form of repair to highlight it as a socio-political process. We conceptualize restoration as infrastructural land repair , the process of restoring dynamic ecosystems for specific anthropocentric and economic aims, mediated through an amalgam of expertise, technology, and finance. We reveal how restoration can function as a socio-ecological fix, maintaining the same political-economic systems that initially caused wetland degradation. Finally, we identify a need for three areas of scholarship to be expanded on how restoration unfolds in practice within the SEA context, which will be crucial to informing more reparative forms of restoration.
... The deforestation rates in Peru and Brazil exhibit significant disparities, contingent on the institutional frameworks in place [39]. Despite considerable initiatives by developed countries to invest in a program to combat deforestation in these regions, significant progress remains elusive [4,5,39,40]. Furthermore, there are reasonable doubts about the possibility of such progress in principle until these countries overcome the other significant macroeconomic challenges that accompany their development [41]. ...
Restoring forest resources is becoming a challenge for many countries. Although Russia has the largest forest area in the world, it suffers from high forest losses due to fires and logging. When formulating the National Development Goals in 2018, the Russian government chose forest restoration as one of the key priorities. In this article, I examine the extent to which the National ‘Ecology’ Project has been able to reverse the trend of forest loss in Russia. Calculations, statistical comparisons, and panel data econometric modeling based on information from government statistics and satellite data from the Global Forest Watch project show that the Federal ‘Forest Restoration Project’ contributed to a more than 1.5-fold increase in annual reforestation rates in the country but did little to prevent forest loss due to natural disturbances and logging. The meager budget of the national project, which amounted to less than 10% of the federal government’s annual expenditure on forestry, was mainly sufficient to renew the fleet of specialized forestry equipment. The national forest restoration program should be continued, and its objectives should be expanded and adequately funded.
... It is important, therefore, to develop at least briefly some of these distinctive rights of indigenous peoples, both procedural and substantive. [18] Indigenous peoples also hold a sui generis right to land, including their territories and natural resources (which this Article will refer to as "territorial rights"). ILO Convention No. 169 and UNDRIP establish that Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources that they have traditionally owned, occupied, or used. ...
The paper is aimed to analysed comprehensively the impacts of REDD + to the human right of indigeneous people in developing countries based on International law perspective. The impacts of climate change is not only to the environments, such as drought, flooding, and raising of the sea level, but also to the economic and social life. Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is a key component in the global strategy to mitigate climate change. However, the REDD+ program potentially causes human rights violation to the rights of indigeneous people in developing countries, if there is no respect of the rights of the indigenous people and the host state do not prepare well concerning the regulations and institutional bodies to cope up with the REDD+ implementation .The research is normative juridical research by applying historical, and conceptual, statutory and comparative approaches. The results of this research indicate that the implementation of REDD + in most developing countries still potentially cause the violation to the human right of indigeneous people , if the REDD+ is not conducted in accordance with the Paris Agreement the ILO Convention as well as UNDRIP. Hence, there are some measures that can be carried out to prevent the violation of human rights to indigeneous people in implementing the REDD Program in Developing Countries. However, it is believed that there are some challenges and opportunities concerning the implementation of REDD + in developing countries.
... Due to its importance to the readiness phase, approximately 56% of global REDD+ funding has been used to support activities related to improving forest governance (European Commission 2018). A study of three pioneering REDD+ countries by Pham et al. (2021) suggests that the key challenges to effective forest governance include 'lack of knowledge on REDD+ by relevant actors; ineffective coordination between state agencies, the private sector and civil society; unclear tenure rights; ineffectively addressing the main deforestation drivers; low law enforcement capacity; and unclear benefit-sharing mechanisms.' ...
[OPEN ACCESS] REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is a potentially powerful policy instrument for climate change, considering the continued loss of tropical forests. While emissions reductions are the primary aim, the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ recognizes the significance of non-carbon benefits to countries in the Global South. We here attempt to provide a balanced assessment of the achievements over the first decade of this policy instrument, paying special attention to whether non-carbon benefits to tropical countries are materialising. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses principles, 136 studies were identified and screened for evidence. We observe that, while forest governance structures have been strengthened, delivery of environmental and socio-economic non-carbon benefits to forest communities appears to be unsystematic, partly due to the absence of formally agreed guidance on how they could be provided. As REDD+ programmes often impinge directly on the livelihoods of local communities, non-timber forest products are sometimes promoted as alternatives to forestry commodities, even if they provide scant compensation. Except for Ghana’s cocoa program, commodity-driven value chains tend to be neglected. As more funds are expected to finance REDD+ programmes, there could be opportunities for innovation in the delivery of non-carbon benefits.
... This land tenure structure in the communities under study guides the distribution of the benefits of a REDD+ project to different land tenure categories, considering the contribution of each category to maintaining carbon stocks and reducing deforestation (Guerra & Moutinho, 2020). This aspect is pointed out as a challenge for the implementation of REDD+ projects and ends up influencing the decision on the participation of community residents, who stated that they have low participation in decision-making (Pham et al., 2021). ...
The literature on national plans to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) shows that the stakeholders present in the territory, especially the communities, are the focus of these actions. The article questions the level of community engagement in a proposed REDD+ project in the Amazon by private companies, with the aim of analyzing the socio-economic and environmental aspects of community residents. The theoretical framework integrates stakeholder theory and community participation theory to support the analysis of the level of engagement. 338 small rural producers were chosen from among the residents of 23 communities in four municipalities in the state of Pará. The sociodemographic characteristics were collected and structured in tables and graphs. The results reveal that the communities are socially disjointed, with problems defining property rights and access to government goods and services, which makes it difficult to achieve the benefits declared by the REDD+
... Researchers have also argued that the design of FPIC mechanisms should be carried out in collaboration with the communities being consulted (Pham et al., 2015). Furthermore, an "equitable share of benefits and burdens" must be guaranteed in contexts where the implementation of projects leads to the generation of value or infringes upon local lives and livelihoods (Secretariat of the CBD, 2004;Pham et al., 2021). ...
This preliminary assessment of rights-based approaches (RBAs) seeks to contribute to the ongoing discussions of RBAs for Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs). RBAs purposefully position the recognition of, respect for, and access to individual and collective rights as central to an initiative’s planning, design, implementation, process monitoring, and outcomes. In mainstream climate change, conservation, and development programs and policies, this means refocusing the relationship between “beneficiaries” and “implementers” to one of rights-holders and duty-bearers. RBAs hold growing discursive importance in relation to the rights of IPs and LCs in conservation and climate change spheres, including the agendas of international agencies. The growing interest in RBAs, and their inclusion in frameworks that will guide development, conservation, and climate projects over the next decade, is laudable. However, there are few reviews that seek to understand how RBAs emerged and how they have been conceptualized. Such analysis is a necessary basis from which to advance discussions on the impact of RBAs and provide lessons to support them. In this review, our primary interest is the conception, conceptualization, and implementation of RBAs in forest-based initiatives, but we reviewed the wider scholarly and gray literature on RBAs in development, conservation, and climate action initiatives.
... While descriptive statistics were used to categorize the stakeholders' stances on selected issues based on the Likert scale, content analysis was realized to find a detailed explanation related to the stakeholders' perception (Gebara et al., 2020, Pham et al. 2021a, 2021b. We classify stakeholder attitudes into four categories as follows: (i) unknown/no response; (ii) disagreestrongly disagree; (iii) neither agree nor disagree; (iv) agree -strongly agree. ...
Purpose: This paper aims to shed light on the private sector's perspective on REDD+ in Brazil, and how this perspective has evolved over time. Methodology/Approach: This research is part of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) on policies and political processes from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Findings: Our results indicate that national business organizations believe that REDD+ is an affordable way to mitigate climate change. However, it suggests that while this sector is seeking financial benefits from REDD+ activities, it is taking a very cautious and risk-averse approach. The private sector is not engaged and does not self-identify within the operational challenges that REDD+ policymakers are grappling with as they seek to embrace the possibilities of this mechanism. Research Limitation/Implication: To explore how these private sector actors perceive REDD+, whether such a perspective has changed from 2010 to 2019, and its implications for further REDD+ design in the national context. Originality/Value of the paper: private actors' positions on key statements about financing, benefit sharing and equity, governance, and challenges over three different time periods. A better understanding of how the private sector perceives REDD+ will contribute to national framing and more effective multi-level governance.
... The payment system of the result-based payment scheme in REDD+ initiatives remains questioned. Not only funding mechanisms but a fair benefit-sharing operation also become issues that need to be addressed [224,225]. Sufficient long-term funding is required to ensure the sustainability of climate mitigation actions [226]. Meanwhile, the carbon market as an alternative funding source has not been proven to provide accessible and sufficient funding, particularly for site-level stakeholders [227]. ...
Indonesia is the largest archipelagic country in the world, with 17,000 islands of varying sizes and elevations, from lowlands to very high mountains, stretching more than 5000 km eastward from Sabang in Aceh to Merauke in Papua. Although occupying only 1.3% of the world’s land area, Indonesia possesses the third-largest rainforest and the second-highest level of biodiversity, with very high species diversity and endemism. However, during the last two decades, Indonesia has been known as a country with a high level of deforestation, a producer of smoke from burning forests and land, and a producer of carbon emissions. The aim of this paper is to review the environmental history and the long process of Indonesian forest management towards achieving environmental sustainability and community welfare. To do this, we analyze the milestones of Indonesian forest management history, present and future challenges, and provide strategic recommendations toward a viable Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) system. Our review showed that the history of forestry management in Indonesia has evolved through a long process, especially related to contestation over the control of natural resources and supporting policies and regulations. During the process, many efforts have been applied to reduce the deforestation rate, such as a moratorium on permitting primary natural forest and peat land, land rehabilitation and soil conservation, environmental protection, and other significant regulations. Therefore, these efforts should be maintained and improved continuously in the future due to their significant positive impacts on a variety of forest areas toward the achievement of viable SFM. Finally, we conclude that the Indonesian government has struggled to formulate sustainable forest management policies that balance economic, ecological, and social needs, among others, through developing and implementing social forestry instruments, developing and implementing human resource capacity, increasing community literacy, strengthening forest governance by eliminating ambiguity and overlapping regulations, simplification of bureaucracy, revitalization of traditional wisdom, and fair law enforcement.
... The demand for carbon credit is predicted to increase in the future, reaching USD 150 billion/ year by 2050 (Wensing, 2021). However, the implementation of REDD+ is complex and requires a cost-effective and reliable method for carbon accounting (Angelsen et al., 2018;Pham et al., 2021). In Indonesia, the national strategy for REDD+ was enacted in 2012 and Environmental Fund Management Agency was formed in 2019 (Dwisatrio, 2021). ...
Climate change is one of the most critical threats to the human population and other living organisms on earth. REDD+ is developed as a mechanism to acquire a global fund for addressing climate change, deforestation, and protecting the forest ecosystem while maintaining the livelihood of local communities. As a response to the need for carbon stock measurement at the specific forest and land-use types, this research aimed to estimate above-ground carbon stock (AGC) at seven land-use types in KPHP (Forest management unit) Katingan Hulu Central Kalimantan Indonesia. This research was conducted from May to September 2019. Data collected in 91 observation plots included diameter at breast height, total height, and fresh weight of understory vegetation and litter. Using an allometric equation this research estimated above-ground carbon stock in the tree, understory vegetation, and litter. This research found that AGC varied across different land-use types: secondary peat forest 135.30 Mg C/Ha, secondary forest 212.19 Mg C/Ha, shrub 47.41 Mg C/Ha, oil palm plantation 73.76 Mg C/Ha, rubber plantation 65.56 Mg C/Ha, and forest with rattan 75.98 Mg C/Ha. We concluded that AGC in KPHP Katingan Hulu varied according to the type of land use system. Less human intervention forests such as secondary forests had higher AGC compared with highly disturbance forests such as shrubs. Finding from this research could help decision-makers to develop REDD programs to rehabilitate forests and contribute to community development.
... Indonesia also adopted a moratorium on issuing exploitation licenses, the 'One Map' policy, and stricter monitoring practices. As a result, in 2020, Indonesia was awarded its first payment by Norway and the GCF for reducing emissions in 2017 [18]. ...
The existence of forests that function as a temperature cooler and a CO2 absorber on earth is seriously threatened due to deforestation that is not decreasing in number but increasing. Many factors cause deforestation, ranging from industrial and new land clearing for plantations. Even without realizing it, massive deforestation is very influential on the global temperature increase, which threatens the safety of residents and other living things on earth. In Indonesia, there is a REDD+ policy prepared by the Ministry of the Environment, which is a step to reduce the effects of greenhouse gases due to deforestation. This study aims to analyze in depth the implementation of REDD+ policies in Indonesia and examine how these policies develop against the reality of forest conditions in Indonesia today. This research is a descriptive study using the literature study method, where data collection regarding current REDD+ and deforestation policies in Indonesia is then carried out by searching for data and information through documents, photos, pictures, written, and unwritten documents that can support writing. This study finds that the implementation of REDD+ policies has a significant impact on reducing deforestation and forest sustainability in Indonesia.
... This may be the case for the growing number of efforts for forest restoration given to the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration as well as the 'fever' for eco-business solutions promoted by powerful stakeholders such as USAID and private companies. In the 2000s, Amazonia experienced great donor-driven support for forest management, while in the 2010s, the focus was on payments for environmental services [14]. Our assessment suggests that the bioeconomy and forest restoration driven by carbon capture could become the new donor-driven conceptual solutions for the Amazon, while bottom-up civilian science initiatives were also prevalent ( Figure 2). ...
Amazonia is facing growing environmental pressures and deep social injustices that prompt questions about how sustainable development may emerge. This study sought novel sustainability initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon based on interviews conducted with diverse practitioners in 2021 using a horizon-scanning approach and snowball sampling for selecting interview-ees, who then described the initiative most familiar to them. The interviews resulted in 50 described initiatives and 101 similar initiatives that were listed but not described. The results reveal the emergence of a range of sustainability initiatives, which we classify into seven types of new seeds of change ranging from eco-business opportunities, territorial protection by grassroots movements, and novel coalitions promoting sustainability. However, most of these new seeds are still being established and have a limited or uncertain potential for replication, and most offer only incremental rather than transformative development. Therefore, although these initiatives provide weak yet real signals for alternative futures, they also suggest that much more needs to be done to support the needed transformation toward sustainable and equitable development.
... Non-carbon benefits, such as biodiversity and poverty alleviation potential, has been shown to increase the probability of being selected as a project site [36]. Conversely, non-carbon challenges, such as unclear tenure rights and low law enforcement capacity hinder REDD+ implementation [37]. ...
Hundreds of projects to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks (REDD+) are implemented globally, many by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or for-profit companies. Yet, at the global level, the Paris Agreement focuses on jurisdictional (national and subnational) REDD+. We ask: (1) How much can REDD+ projects contribute to achieving national and international climate objectives? (2) What are the issues in integrating REDD+ projects into national carbon accounting? Our snapshot of 377 REDD+ projects covering 53 million ha in 56 countries is based on data from the International Database on REDD+ Projects (ID-RECCO) supplemented with new data on projects’ accounting methods. The number of new REDD+ projects declined steadily from 45 new projects in 2011 to five in 2019. We examined 161 certified projects that started between 2007 and 2017; 96 of these could sell carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets by 2020 and spent on average 4.7 (± 2.4) years between project start and sales in voluntary carbon markets. Globally, REDD+ projects claim to reduce an average of 3.67 tCO2e/ha annually. This figure - combined with projects limited coverage - implies that projects need to be upscaled more than 40x to fulfil the potential contribution of tropical and subtropical forests towards limiting global warming to well below 2oC. Compared to the national carbon accounting methods, most projects in Colombia, Indonesia and Peru (63 of 86) use at least one different carbon accounting parameter. Carbon accounting inconsistencies across levels need to be addressed. Overall, the argument for REDD+ projects lies in the emissions reductions they can achieve, diversifying participation in REDD+ and providing non-carbon benefits to local communities, potentially leading to broader support for climate action.
In globally coordinated efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), perspectives on instrumental (goal-oriented, ecological–economic) and relational (harmony-oriented, social–ecological) values of nature vary between, but matter to both local and global actors and stakeholders. The (sub)-national motivation to engage in REDD+ programs evolved over time. We reviewed literature on the underlying values and moral roots in subnational REDD+ implementation in two Southeast Asian countries with different political histories: Vietnam and Indonesia. Vietnam tried to use the preexisting Payments for Forest Environmental Services program for REDD+, incentivizing community-based forest management. Indonesia asked all provinces to clarify emission-reduction plans in green growth strategies, before engaging with international REDD+ finance. Maintaining strong national control over forests was a key motivation for initial REDD+ adoption, but further development of the programs in both countries rebalances efficiency and fairness in instrumental and relational decision-making modes, encompassing various dimensions of morality beyond financial gains.
The majority of the world's largest carbon emitters are either federations or have adopted systems of decentralised governance. The realisation of the world's climate mitigation objectives therefore depends in large part on whether and how governments within federal systems can cooperate to reduce carbon emissions and catalyse the emergence of low-carbon societies. This volume brings together leading experts to explore whether federal or decentralised systems help or hinder efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It reviews the opportunities and challenges federalism offers for the development and implementation of climate mitigation and adaption policies and identifies the conditions that influence the outcomes of climate governance. Including in-depth case studies of 14 different jurisdictions, this is an essential resource for academics, policymakers and practitioners interested in climate governance, and the best practices for enhancing climate action. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
Mitigadaptation, tree-based synergy between the global climate change mitigation and adaptation agendas, has been slowly emerging in the 30 years of climate science–policy interaction with its various ups and downs, false starts and ever-increasing urgency of bending the climate curve. The potential contribution of agroforestry to the climate change mitigation and adaptation agenda has been slow to be recognized and effectively supported, as agroforestry existed on farm and in landscapes, but not yet in the world of policy documents, government statistics and sectoral lobby groups. The articulation of the 17 sustainable development goals that transcend sectoral claims for prioritization and call for results-oriented investment of public funds has made it easier for the adaptation and mitigation agendas to synergize. Especially where focus is on local livelihoods in green economies, creating space for a continuum approach to Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU), within which trees outside forest and agroforestry can be recognized for what they are. The chapter takes stock of such changes, as they played out in Africa and Asia, especially, by reviewing three agroforestry concepts. The third, policy-oriented, agroforestry concept (AF3) deals with the existing forestry-agriculture dichotomy and creates space for a landscape land-use continuum, with results-based management, clarifying institutional versus vegetation-based forest concepts. The second, landscape-oriented, agroforestry concept (AF2) emphasizes multifunctionality of managing land and water for the full set of SDGs and awareness of natural and man-made disasters, supporting collective action and active participation in value chains. The first, farm-oriented, agroforestry concept (AF1) has its roots in risk management through diversity and is the primary level for climate change adaptation and climate-smart solutions. The concepts jointly interact with data, feedbacks, institutions and goals as part of complex, adaptive social-ecological systems.KeywordsAgroforestry conceptsLeverage pointsMitigadaptationSustainable development goals
Implementation of a measuring, reporting, and verifying (MRV) framework is essential for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, MRV can be regarded as an important mechanism to mitigate global warming. Upland Myanmar, with an elevation of ~80–2600 m, is experiencing tropical deforestation, which is commonly explained by the expansion of shifting cultivation. The vegetation change tracker algorithm, with its high-automation and wild-adaptation
features, and the enhanced integrated forest z-score were applied in this elevation-based study of time series deforestation monitoring in upland Myanmar using data from 2003 to 2015. Four spatial patterns of deforestation, namely stripes, adjacent, filled, and staggered, were found in the research area. Moreover, our work showed that the center of elevation of deforestation was ~1000 m. Further analysis revealed that this center tended to shift to a higher elevation over time; a “golden cross”/changeover could be deciphered at ~1000 m, indicating that the scale and intensity of shifting cultivation continue to expand vertically. The results suggest the need to track the elevation-based signature of vegetation clearings to help achieve the goals of REDD+ at the regional level in tropical rainforest countries.
Deforestation and forest degradation are major contributors to climate change. The international REDD+ framework aims to mitigate climate change by rewarding developing countries for conserving and sustainably managing their forests and for enhancing forest carbon stocks. This report synthesizes the existing evidence about the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of REDD+ measures supported by the German Federal Government. Primary and secondary REDD+ documents and literature were analysed and triangulated with qualitative interviews. The synthesis study provides evidence-based insights into the results and impact of REDD+ measures that have been designed, financed, and implemented by or on behalf of German actors. It is the first inter-ministerial study by the German Institute for Development Evaluation (DEval) that encompasses measures commissioned by three different Federal Ministries. The report highlights heterogeneous results on the numerous REDD+ objectives. REDD+ leads to notable changes in partner countries and renews attention to forests, Indigenous Peoples, and rural communities. German efforts are unique and have shaped and advanced the REDD+ concept internationally. The initial expectation of reducing emissions in the forest sector has not (yet) been fulfilled, also because most countries needed considerable readiness support. The report confirms the difficulties in countering deforestation and forest degradation, and in setting effective incentives vis-à-vis the powerful drivers behind forest destruction. The report derives several implications for improving and further developing REDD+ strategies and portfolios, coordination, transparent communication, and learning by German implementing organizations and Federal Ministries.
The success of jurisdictional reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) initiatives is entirely dependent on how the REDD+ benefits are distributed among the stakeholders seeking to preserve the native vegetation and is considered one of the main challenges of REDD+. Among the existing benefit-sharing options, the adoption of the stock-and-flow approach to share REDD+ benefits has afforded fair jurisdictional systems in the states of Acre and Mato Grosso in the Brazilian Amazon. This innovative perspective is also the dividing line between inequitable and socially balanced jurisdictional REDD+ initiatives. However, these jurisdictions present challenges to fully implementing a robust benefit-sharing mechanism including the stock-and-flow approach and guaranteeing that resources will be accessible to the relevant beneficiaries. To better understand these challenges, we applied the Options Assessment Framework (OAF), a methodology proposed by the World Bank to evaluate the capacity to implement an effective benefit-sharing mechanism for REDD+, in Acre and Mato Grosso. The results indicated that these jurisdictions need to strengthen their conditions to guarantee the multi-faceted functionality of this mechanism and determine what aspects need more attention and where resources should be invested. Additionally, the results indicated that an equitable benefit-sharing mechanism is, by far, the main challenge faced by jurisdictions. Despite being a more evolved state in its REDD+ policies, Acre still needs to improve its institutional capacities, particularly in its local civil society organizations, to help communities access these benefits. The state of Mato Grosso, on the other hand, is still engaging in its REDD+ initiative and needs its institutional capacities to further mature to better organize its monitoring mechanisms and governance.
Brazil offers a complex and unique example of tropical landscapes. The country has considerably decreased deforestation since 2004, but Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is arguably under question, both as a concept and as a tool to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as deforestation levels have increased over the last five years. This article investigates how different policy actors have perceived REDD+ over time, how they have engaged in REDD+ efforts over the past decade, and how REDD+ implementation in Brazil should move forward accordingly. We analyzed qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and actors' "stances", i.e., their positions-with regards to key issues connected to REDD+ governance and its challenges-over three different time periods (Phase 1: 2010-2011, Phase 2: 2015-2016, and Phase 3: 2019), so as to identify the practical implications of these diverse interpretations. We argue that the way actors perceive REDD+ is intimately related to the way they interpret and assign meanings towards it and, in consequence, the way they coordinate REDD+-related practices and efforts. We focus on the link between perceptions and efforts so as to comprehend the relevance that different interpretations have to both the concept and implementation of REDD+ in Brazil. Our analysis concentrates on the potential to improve the coordination and integration of REDD+ implementation and diverse actors' efforts with regards to REDD+ activities. Results suggest that actors' perceptions of REDD+ generated a plurality of meanings, highlighting a range of dialectical and ontological interactions that have, in turn, resulted in multiple REDD+ interpretations. Findings highlight that different actors have the same interests when it comes to their organizational efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, suggesting that there is room for a better coordination of efforts towards this end, as well as increased collaboration.
Significance
There are efforts to integrate the reduced carbon emissions from avoided deforestation claimed by voluntary REDD+ projects into national greenhouse gas emission inventories. This requires careful consideration of whether and how much of the reduced carbon emissions can be attributed to projects. However, credible evidence on the effectiveness of such voluntary activities is limited. We adopted the quasi-experimental synthetic control method to examine the causal effects of 12 voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. We compared these ex-post estimates of impacts with the reductions in forest loss claimed by those projects based on ex-ante baselines. Results suggest that the accepted methodologies for quantifying carbon credits overstate impacts on avoided deforestation and climate change mitigation.
Local projects for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) were frequently designed as pilot actions to inform future upscaled initiatives. Drawing lessons from these project experiences may thus help improve the design of jurisdictional programs, which is the focus of REDD+ implementation in the Paris Agreement. Here we first scrutinize how REDD+ was historically conceptualized, the most prominent model being that of a multitier payments for environmental services (PES) scheme of “passing on” carbon mitigation responsibilities and credits across scales, from international buyers to forestland owners. Then we analyze two REDD+ project databases, ID-RECCO and GCS-REDD, using principal component and regression analysis. Among 226 conservation-oriented REDD+ projects, only 88 had planned conditional incentives to landowners—the key feature of PES. Intentions to apply PES rose after 2007, and correlate strongly with efforts to seek certification, including as a benefit-sharing strategy, and with carbon sales. Zooming closer into a portfolio of 23 local REDD+ projects that were actually implemented on the ground, we found project implementers reported conditional incentives as potentially being both the most promising and effective intervention. Likewise, treated households identified conditional incentives as comparatively effective in changing their land-use plans, while also providing above-average welfare returns. Still, these conditional incentives remained underutilized in implementation, with only one-third of the treatment intensity compared to non-conditional incentives. Project implementers cited insecure land tenure and uncertain REDD+ financial flows as key impediments to using conditional incentives. The original vision of a multitier PES model for REDD+ thus ran into both supply and demand side problems, jointly explaining the discrepancy between REDD+ theory and practice. Since jurisdictional approaches to REDD+ so far also receive only hesitant and slow climate financing flows, coming mostly in non-conditional form, and operate under forest-frontier governance with similar tenure restrictions, jurisdictions would seem well-advised to plan for conditional landowner incentives only in scenarios where the preconditions for PES are met. Implementers of jurisidictional approaches may also want to avoid conceptualizing their new model too narrowly and prescriptively, as was arguably the case with the conceptualization of REDD+ as a multitier PES scheme.
The recent emphasis on the role of tropical forests in facing climate change has made forest decentralization debates more relevant than ever. Discussions on multilevel governance, polycentricity, and nested approaches to governance surround the central question, ever more pertinent considering global environmental change, of who holds the mandate over forests. Different levels of government, as well as private and civil society actors (companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), indigenous peoples, and local communities), compete over the rights of ownership, administration, and management of forest landscapes—decisions with a crucial impact on land use, land use change and the future of forests. Understanding the relations among different levels of governance, and government specifically, is essential to understand how carbon forestry has engaged with decentralization and the role of subnational governments (SNGs) in developing practical land use solutions. We draw on current trends in the forestry decentralization literature to ask: (i) has carbon forestry opened new opportunities for SNGs to support the sustainable governance of forest landscapes? (ii) have meaningful powers been assigned to SNGs in support of democratic processes of decision-making over forest landscapes? and (iii) is carbon forestry influencing the relationships between levels of government in a way that challenges unequal power relations? By examining carbon forestry projects and forestry decentralization processes across five countries (Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Tanzania and Vietnam) with carbon forestry initiatives, we demonstrate how the role of SNGs is circumscribed by existing forestry decentralization trends. Decentralization initiatives in recent decades have provided SNGs with new mandates to manage forests, but new attributions do not always imply meaningful powers. The implementation of carbon forestry projects is molded by pre-existing power relations that shape the impacts of forestry decentralization on livelihoods and forest ecosystems. We find that carbon forestry, with both centralizing and decentralizing tendencies, operates within the spaces left by existing power dynamics that mold the way transfers of power are put into practice. Jurisdictional approaches will need to negotiate with this context to be able to push forward sustainable pathways.
Whilst ‘REDD’ is the acronym for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, ‘REDD+’ refers to efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, foster conservation, promote the sustainable management of forests, and enhance forest carbon stocks [...]
With the institutionalization of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+), the global REDD+ financial network has been formed to support the implementation of REDD+ in developing countries. Although the rapid expansion of the network made it decentralized, it is still a highly centralized network in terms of the distribution of financial resources, revolving around only a few major actors. While the source of financing was diversified due to an increase in influential donors, the majority of financing still came from a few constant major donors, and a few constant major developing countries received most of the financial support. Although increases in donor numbers and the amount of finance received can provide more chances to support developing countries, it may cause inefficiency due to overlaps and duplications. Also, over-centralization of financial resources can be ineffective in terms of achieving maximum greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and can broaden gaps between developing countries’ ability to cope with climate change and deforestation. Lack of coordination among donors and the differing capacity of developing countries may have caused centralization of financial resources in the global REDD+ financial network. To minimize this problem, a comprehensive monitoring system and platforms for information sharing are needed.
After several years of REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) readiness, countries are starting to move toward REDD+ implementation and accessing results-based payments (RBPs). Currently various parallel processes for accessing RBPs exist, including project and jurisdictional—approaches that often operate under a nascent national framework. This review is structured around the key considerations for countries to implement REDD+ and access RBPs. It offers a discussion focusing on three areas that are crucial for the success of REDD+: ( a) REDD+ in the context of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ( b) the role of the private sector in achieving emissions reductions, and ( c) access to RBPs for REDD+. We present some key considerations for future issues and possible successes of REDD+ implementation.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Volume 50 is November 4, 2019. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
REDD+ was designed globally as a results-based instrument to incentivize emissions reduction from deforestation and forest degradation. Over 50 countries have developed strategies for REDD+, implemented pilot activities and/or set up forest monitoring and reporting structures, safeguard systems and benefit sharing mechanisms (BSMs), offering lessons on how particular ideas guide policy design. The implementation of REDD+ at national, sub-national and local levels required payments to filter through multiple governance structures and priorities. REDD+ was variously interpreted by different actors in different contexts to create legitimacy for certain policy agendas. Using an adapted 3E (effectiveness, efficiency, equity and legitimacy) lens, we examine four common narratives underlying REDD+ BSMs: (1) that results-based payment (RBP) is an effective and transparent approach to reducing deforestation and forest degradation; (2) that emphasis on co-benefits risks diluting carbon outcomes; (3) that directing REDD+ benefits predominantly to poor smallholders, forest communities and marginalized groups helps address equity; and (4) that social equity and gender concerns can be addressed by well-designed safeguards. This paper presents a structured examination of eleven BSMs from within and beyond the forest sector and analyses the evidence to variably support and challenge these narratives and their underlying assumptions to provide lessons for REDD+ BSM design. Our findings suggest that contextualizing the design of BSMs, and a reflexive approach to examining the underlying narratives justifying particular design features, is critical for achieving effectiveness, equity and legitimacy.
Key policy insights
• A results-based payment approach does not guarantee an effective REDD+; the contexts in which results are defined and agreed, along with conditions enabling social and political acceptance, are critical.
• A flexible and reflexive approach to designing a benefit-sharing mechanism that delivers emissions reductions at the same time as co-benefits can increase perceptions of equity and participation.
• Targeting REDD+ to smallholder communities is not by default equitable, if wider rights and responsibilities are not taken into account
• Safeguards cannot protect communities or society without addressing underlying power and gendered relations.
• The narratives and their underlying generic assumptions, if not critically examined, can lead to repeated failure of REDD+ policies and practices.
Key messages • Information use throughout the REDD+ policy process is influenced by interests of powerful agents of deforestation and forest degradation. Actors have different capacities and resources to access, process and provide information, as well as to contribute to policy decisions about REDD+. • Information on direct drivers and underlying causes of tropical forest change is improving with new technologies and data sources. However, guidance and (financial) support are needed to move from technical data to actionable information, and ultimately effective REDD+ interventions. • New information technologies offer new opportunities, but also come with diverse implications and new risks. National forest monitoring systems will need to address participation, transparency, accountability and coordination to counteract the differences in the capacities, resources and powers (decision- making or political) of various stakeholders.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) in developing countries requires a National REDD+ Strategy (NRS) to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and equity. So far, only a few countries have submitted their NRS to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to progress to the implementation phase of REDD+. To compare the NRS of eight countries from Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, we used content analysis to assess whether these countries have paid attention to the REDD+ design components and adhered to the UNFCCC REDD+ rules. Our results demonstrate that all eight countries have paid considerable attention to REDD+ activities, finance, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), and safeguard systems, and most countries have not adhered to the UNFCCC REDD+ rules on scale including the definition of national and subnational forests, subnational projects to be nested into national systems, and subnational activities to be verified by experts. REDD+ countries must develop definitions for national and subnational forests to enhance forest monitoring and they must develop technical and institutional infrastructure for MRV and safeguard systems, to receive results-based payments, and for the sustainability of REDD+ projects.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) is a global initiative aimed at curbing carbon emissions from forest cover change. Indonesia, one of the most biodiverse places on the planet with the third largest extent of tropical forest, has been extensively involved in REDD+. Despite commitments from the government of Indonesia and the international community, the deforestation rate has not stabilized or decreased in the years since REDD+'s introduction in 2007. As of 2012, it was arguably the highest in the world. Although there is an extensive body of literature on REDD+, the need for grounded observations from the field could clarify existing challenges and inform future pursuits.
We present the results of a case study of three REDD+ project sites to identify important criteria at the root of success or failure: finance, community, boundary enforcement, monitoring, and outcomes of attempted carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation. Challenges identified for each criteria include a lack of sufficient funding opportunities, inability to enforce boundaries due to corruption, and lack of a solid plan for involving communities. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation results were mixed because of a lack of monitoring and problems with encroachment. We argue that changes must be made to Indonesian policy to help enable enforcement of project boundaries, monitoring technologies should be utilized, and stakeholders, particularly at the national level, need to address some of the challenges discussed to achieve effective REDD+ outcomes in the future.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) in developing countries is based on the premise that conserving tropical forests is a cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions and therefore can be fully funded by international actors with obligations or interests in reducing emissions. However, concerns have repeatedly been raised about whether stakeholders in REDD+ host countries will actually end up bearing the costs of REDD+. Most prior analyses of the costs of REDD+ have focused on the opportunity costs of foregone alternative uses of forest land. We draw on a pan-tropical study of 22 subnational REDD+ initiatives in five countries to explore patterns in implementation costs, including which types of organizations are involved and which are sharing the costs of implementing REDD+. We find that many organizations involved in the implementation of REDD+, particularly at the subnational level and in the public sector, are bearing implementation costs not covered by the budgets of the REDD+ initiatives. To sustain this level of cost-sharing, REDD+ must be designed to deliver local as well as global forest benefits.
Both proponents and opponents of using forest carbon markets to pay for Reductions in Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) have exaggerated their importance. The resources mobilized by the principal drivers of deforestation—beef, soy, palm oil, and wood products—dwarf all REDD funding, even if one only counts exports of these commodities from tropical forest countries. By far the largest part of that REDD money has come from public funding, not carbon markets, and even that has mostly been “voluntary market” funding, not offsets usable for regulatory compliance. While substantial carbon market growth is projected, the rules of most of those markets do not allow the use of REDD offset credits. It is important for those on both sides to realize that they are talking about an alternative that is very small, compared both to other kinds of REDD funding and to the scale of finance operating to drive deforestation. Far more urgent than continuing the debate about whether forest carbon markets are a solution or a threat, is the question of how to change the behavior of the industries and commodities driving deforestation so as to move them to a zero-deforestation business model.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) in tropical countries is now a critical piece of any international agreement that aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. An important issue refers to the distribution of benefits or, in other words, benefit sharing mechanisms. In this paper, I examine the degree of local participation in benefit-sharing mechanisms in the case of the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve in the State of Amazonas, Brazil, and assess how local participation – or lack of it – affects the outcomes, particularly with regard to equity. The analysis seeks to address the gap between theory and practice by considering the main concerns regarding equitable benefit sharing for REDD+, namely, the types of benefits to be distributed, eligible beneficiaries, the structure of benefits, and mechanisms for distributing them, and by identifying the possible negative and positive effects of benefit-sharing mechanisms. In doing so, my aim is to contribute to the more effective design and implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms and to expand debate on the topic. The main research question of this paper is: how important is local participation for achieving equity in benefit-sharing mechanisms for REDD+? The results of this analysis indicate that the adaptation and mitigation goals of REDD+ are more likely to be achieved if the development and implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms involve democratic and interactive processes for local participation, because such processes will lead to greater flexibility in the definition of benefits and distributional mechanisms. I draw the following conclusions: (1) the criteria for equity should be considered when benefits are defined, rather than when they are distributed and (2) given the complex and diverse relationships and issues involved in deforestation, it is important to adopt a multidimensional approach when identifying beneficiaries and benefits and designing benefit-sharing mechanisms.
If REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms (BSMs) are to be equitable, they require clear objectives with appropriate strategies or indicators. Private sector schemes related to standards, whose objective is the equitable distribution of the benefits generated through certification, tend to lack adequate rules and guidelines for operationalizing an equitable benefit-sharing process. • At the local level, support and capacity building are needed to strengthen intermediary institutions in order to improve governance and increase legitimacy when deciding how to share benefits. • Systematic measures for identifying marginalized groups and supporting their greater participation in the design, implementation and monitoring of BSMs can help to avoid perpetuating existing inequities. • A minimum price-setting mechanism established between buyers and sellers will consider the overall implementation costs of standards and help mitigate farmer risks. A thorough consideration, accounting and attribution of REDD+ costs is essential as a basis for price setting to ensure that suppliers of reduced carbon emissions are compensated for the costs they bear. • The inclusion of pre-financing enables participation of poor stakeholders in implementation activities, helps to mitigate market and other risks incurred by the participating smallholders and raises acceptance of the standards. Phased-released benefits that are maintained throughout the project lifetime strengthen conformity to conditional performance. • Equity requirements can come with higher transaction and implementation costs. A place-based policy that aims to achieve equity to adjust for changing contexts while maintaining accountability should be considered as a way of reconciling equity and efficiency. CIFOR infobriefs provide concise, accurate, peer-reviewed information on current topics in forest research
Avoiding double counting of emission reductions is a key policy concern to Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This paper systematically assesses how double counting can occur and how it could be addressed. It finds that double counting can occur not only directly, but in rather indirect ways which can be challenging to identify. Addressing double counting effectively requires international coordination in three areas: accounting of units, design of mechanisms that issue units, and consistent tracking and reporting on units. While international agreement on principles for accounting and mechanism
design is crucial to preventing double counting, the governance arrangements for implementation and international oversight could vary. The paper discusses different options and makes specific recommendations for rules to address double counting up to 2020 and in a post-2020 climate regime.
Benefit-sharing mechanisms are a central design aspect of REDD+ because they help to create the necessary incentives to reduce carbon emissions. However, if stakeholders do not perceive the benefit sharing as fair, the legitimacy of REDD+, and support for the mechanism, will be weakened. In this paper, drawing on data from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, we analyze national policy processes in 6 countries and incipient benefit-sharing arrangements in 21 REDD+ project sites. Through our analysis of current practices and debates, we identify six rationales that have been put forward to justify how benefits should be distributed and to whom. These rationales encompass a range of perspectives. Some hold that benefit sharing should be related to actual carbon emission reductions or to costs incurred in achieving the reduction of emissions; others emphasize the importance of a legal right to benefit, the need to consider aspects such as poverty reduction or the appropriateness of rewarding those with a history of protecting the forest. Each rationale has implications for the design of benefit-sharing mechanisms and the equity of their outcomes. We point out that, given the wide range of rationales and interests at play, the objectives of REDD+ and benefit sharing must be clearly established and the term “benefit” defined before effective benefit-sharing mechanisms can be designed. For stakeholders to support REDD+, the legitimacy of decision-making institutions, consideration of context, and attention to process are critical. Building legitimacy requires attention not only to fair distributional outcomes but also to consensus on relevant institutions’ authority to make decisions and to procedural equity.
This article takes stock of economic modeling tools and findings related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as other forestry activities in developing countries (REDD+), and discusses priorities for future research. The economics literature has identified opportunities for significant cost-effective climate change mitigation from both reducing deforestation and enhancing forest carbon stocks. Several studies estimate that including REDD+ could reduce the costs of achieving climate policy goals over both the near and longer terms. Studies also suggest that the near-term potential for REDD+, especially reduced deforestation, could be valuable in support of near-term emissions reduction strategies, hedging against uncertainties, and dampening future carbon market price volatility. However, the literature is evolving. Most early and many recent studies of REDD+ provide optimistic benchmark estimates, based on ideal, but unrealistic, assumptions about policies and institutions. The more recent literature, which analyzes dynamics; interactions among forestry activities, regions, and economic sectors; implementation requirements and costs; policy designs; and uncertainties suggests a more limited and nuanced mitigation role for REDD+, especially in the near future. There are also important modeling challenges. Together, these real-world complexities and modeling challenges indicate that the actual costs and net environmental benefits of potential REDD+ activities are uncertain and highly dependent on policy and implementation features. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. All rights reserved.
The aim of this working paper is to provide a
global overview and up‑to‑date profile of REDD+
benefit‑sharing mechanisms, and to analyse the
political‑economic factors influencing their design
and setting. The analysis draws primarily on a
review of existing benefit‑sharing mechanisms for
REDD+ and natural forest management, namely
fund‑based approaches, market‑based instruments,
forest concessions, access and benefit sharing, and
community forestry. We build on the results of
contextual analyses in 13 countries: Bolivia, Brazil,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Mozambique,
Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Tanzania and
Vietnam. These ‘country profiles’ were developed
between 2009 and 2012 as part of CIFOR’s Global
Comparative Study on REDD+. Not surprisingly,
the results of our analysis indicate clear challenges
in the design and implementation of benefit‑sharing
mechanisms that will secure the broad legitimacy and
acceptance of REDD+.
Mechanisms to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degra-dation (REDD) have been gaining momentum as a way to combat global warming, fund forest conservation, and deliver economic benefits to rural populations. However, the economic viability of REDD schemes will depend on the profitability of alternative land uses. Oil palm agriculture has become a major driver of tropical deforestation over the last few decades. Here, we model and compare the profitability of converting forest to oil palm versus conserving it for an REDD project. We show that converting a hectare of for-est for palm oil production will be more profitable (yielding net present val-ues of 3,835–9,630) to land owners than preserving it for carbon credits (614–994), which are currently restricted to voluntary carbon markets. Giv-ing REDD credits price parity with carbon credits traded in compliance markets would boost the profitability of avoided deforestation (up to $6,605). Unless post-2012 global climate policies legitimize the trading of carbon credits from avoided deforestation, REDD will not be able to compete with oil palm agricul-ture or other similarly profitable human activities as an economically attractive land-use option, in which case REDD will not be able to fulfill its primary func-tion of avoiding deforestation.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) is an important component of the Paris Agreement. Inclusive decision making is essential to ensure REDD outcomes, but there is limited anecdotal and empirical evidence demonstrating that stakeholder participation in REDD+ decision making has improved over time. This paper presents an analysis of the Vietnamese government’s claim that stakeholder participation in REDD+ had been improved over the course of 2011–2019, specifically focusing on various actors’ perceptions of their level of interest, engagement and influence in REDD+ policy events. Findings show that the country’s legal framework on REDD+ demonstrated Vietnam’s political commitment to improve inclusive decision making, and initial effort was made to provide political space for actors to engage in REDD+ decision making. However, momentum has been lost over time. This suggests that understanding the political context, addressing underlying power dynamics in the existing government regime, building up coalitions for change among political elites and civil society, and fostering sustainable political will and commitment are all essential to ensuring inclusive REDD+ decision making in Vietnam.
Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), was adopted in Indonesia with an ambitious vision to promote a new mode of governance for Indonesia's forest, replacing a mode of ‘projectification’. Projectification, as described by Li (2016), is understood as a process through which plans for systematic long-term change collapse into incremental, simplified technical solutions. These proposals often fail to address complex socio-economic problems and political-economic contexts, allowing large-scale deforestation drivers to persist.
We analyze whether Indonesia is on track toward transformational change or is conversely locked into projectification. We construct our analysis using results from a long-term study comprising surveys in 2012, 2015, and 2019 analyzing the evolving role of REDD+ in Indonesian forest governance. Combining qualitative and quantitative analysis, we examine changes in (i) discursive practices and policy beliefs; (ii) institutions and power relations; and (iii) informal networking relationships.
Our findings show that despite high hopes and some promising developments, REDD+ has not yet fully succeeded in creating transformational change. Ideas of REDD+ remain focused on efficiency and technical aspects of implementation and do not question business as usual and the current political economic conditions favoring deforestation. The changing structure of the REDD+ policy network and exchanges between actors and groups over time suggest government actors and large funding organizations are becoming increasingly dominant, potentially indicating a return to established patterns of project-based governance.
Since 1975, Viet Nam has gradually decentralized more fiscal responsibilities to local authorities. This study has two objectives: (i) to take stock of the current institutional framework for intergovernmental fiscal relations in Viet Nam, and (ii) to empirically assess the debt sustainability of local governments in Viet Nam. The empirical analysis uses two estimation methods: (i) fully modified ordinary least squares (OLS) to estimate the long-term correlations between co-integration equations, including vectors of co-integration variables, and stochastic regressor innovations; and (ii) fiscal reaction equations at the provincial level, based upon the Bohn (2008) model. The empirical results suggest that deficit levels are generally sustainable at the local level.
This article analyses the current institutional architecture of international finance for REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) and aims at a better understanding of the complementary or contradictory nature of existing funding mechanisms. Through the integration of REDD+ into the Paris Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the scene is set for countries to use this political legitimacy and momentum to further REDD+ implementation. How REDD+ is and will be financed is still a defining question for its successful implementation. This study shows that the heterogeneity of international financial support for REDD+ is an illustrative case for the phenomenon of institutional fragmentation. It explores to what extent the current setting of REDD+ finance can be seen as a rational response to earlier governance challenges, and whether a setting of co-governing institutions may evolve towards a functional differentiation of governance tasks. By discussing the specific case of REDD+ finance in Indonesia, the possible feedback effects of institutional fragmentation at the national level are also considered. The study finds that a strengthened coordination of the existing financing efforts is decisive for making the most of the strong commitment to REDD+ reflected in the Paris Agreement. By including the perspective of functional differentiation, the article zooms in on the practical effects and opportunities of institutional fragmentation, thereby advancing current reasoning on this aspect of global environmental governance.
Policy relevance
Finance has been an issue for the success of REDD+ since its inception and is a recurrent theme in international negotiations. Funding sources, access modalities and disbursement remain points of contestation between recipient and donor countries and financial arrangements are often perceived as inadequate. By delineating extant types of REDD+ finance and access modalities, as well as discussing the practical implications of institutional fragmentation, this study is relevant for both practitioners as well as scholars interested in REDD+ finance.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) has emerged as a promising climate change mitigation mechanism in developing countries. This article examines the national political context in 13 REDD+ countries in order to identify the enabling conditions for achieving progress with the implementation of countries’ REDD+ policies and measures. The analysis builds on a qualitative comparative analysis of various countries’ progress with REDD+ conducted in 12 REDD+ countries in 2012, which highlighted the importance of factors such as already initiated policy change, and the presence of coalitions calling for broader policy change. A follow-up survey in 2014 was considered timely because the REDD+ policy arena, at the international and country levels, is highly dynamic and undergoes constant evolution, which affects progress with REDD+ policy-making and implementation. Furthermore, we will now examine whether the ‘promise’ of performance-based funds has played a role in enabling the establishment of REDD+. The results show a set of enabling conditions and characteristics of the policy process under which REDD+ policies can be established. The study finds that the existence of broader policy change, and availability of performance-based funding in combination with strong national ownership of the REDD+ policy process, may help guide other countries seeking to formulate REDD+ policies that are likely to deliver efficient, effective and equitable outcomes.
Policy relevance
Tropical forest countries struggle with the design and implementation of coherent policies and measures to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Evidence on which factors and configurations are crucial to make progress towards these challenging policy objectives will be helpful for decision makers and practitioners at all levels involved in REDD+. Key findings highlight the importance of already initiated policy change, and the availability of performance-based funding in combination with strong national ownership of the REDD+ process. These findings provide guidance to REDD+ countries as to which enabling conditions need to be strengthened to facilitate effective, efficient and equitable REDD+ policy formulation and implementation.
There is growing recognition of the need to understand public attitudes to energy sources, such as shale gas, and to feed these into decision-making. This study represents the first detailed UK experimental survey of public perceptions of shale gas fracking, including analysis of the effects of different messages and the relative influence of different audience, message and contextual factors on support and risk perceptions in respect of shale gas fracking. Using an online survey (N = 1457) of the UK public, we find considerable ambivalence about shale gas, but also greater awareness of potential risks than benefits. Prior knowledge is associated with more favourable attitudes, although demographics, political affiliation and environmental values are strongest influences on perceptions. When provided with environmental or economic information about shale gas, participants became more positive - irrespective of their prior values or whether information is framed in terms of losses or gains. As expected, prior attitudes predict how information is received, with more attitude change amongst the most ambivalent respondents. We conclude that additional information about shale gas is more likely to be effective changing attitudes if focussed on this 'undecided' group. Studies of this type are important for policy makers and industry alike.
REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the enhancement of carbon stocks) emerges as promising incentive mechanism for tropical forest protection. While REDD+ is expected to yield poverty reduction and biodiversity co-benefits, its mechanism design options pose several risks to socio-economic compatibility and environmental integrity.We conduct a REDD+ expert survey to rate the perceived importance and likelihood of these risks to national REDD+ implementation. The dependency of the risk perception on stakeholder characteristics is analyzed using seemingly unrelated regression analysis and ANOVA. Additionally, the survey investigates the perceived effectiveness of different policy options to minimize these risks.The majority of stakeholders viewed governance challenges as the largest risks to REDD+ implementation and preferred mandatory incentive and regulatory policy measures to mitigate them. Understanding these stakeholder perceptions will not only help improving national REDD+ implementation, but also provide insights for the international policy process.
The Dutch government wants to expand Mainport Rotterdam, one of the largest ports in the world, by land reclamation in the North Sea. This may affect the Wadden Sea, a unique wetlands area protected by the European Bird and Habitat Directives. To assess the impact of the port extension on the Wadden Sea, an Appropriate Assessment procedure was carried out. We investigated how stakeholders' perceptions were dealt with and how knowledge was used in this decision-making process. Our findings form an argument for practitioners in marine and coastal management to choose a process-oriented approach to deal with complex issues.
Mapping financial flows for REDD+ and land use in Brazil: National and subnational analysis for the period
- A C Bastida
- M C Cenamo
- G Silva-Cháves
Bastida A.C., Cenamo M.C., Silva-Cháves G. 2017. Mapping financial flows for REDD+
and land use in Brazil: National and subnational analysis for the period 2009 through
2016. Accessed 1 June 2021. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/
2017/09/doc_5621.pdf.
Strengthening Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for REDD+. International Institute for Sustainable Development
- F Bernard
- P A Minang
Bernard F, Minang P.A., 2011. Strengthening Measurement, Reporting and Verification
(MRV) for REDD+. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Accessed 1
June 2021. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_strengthening_
mrv_kenya.pdf.
Orang-orang di jantung bisnis restorasi hutan
- Antaranews
- Com
Antaranews.com. 2019. Orang-orang di jantung bisnis restorasi hutan. Accessed 24 May
2021. https://www.antaranews.com/berita/1169863/orang-orang-di-jantungbisnis-restorasi-hutan.
Financing REDD+: a transaction among equals, or an uneven playing field?
- Atmadja
Defining the legal elements of benefit sharing in the context of REDD+
- Chapman