IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v61y2016icp42-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Institutional effectiveness of REDD+ MRV: Countries progress in implementing technical guidelines and good governance requirements

Author

Listed:
  • Ochieng, R.M.
  • Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.
  • Arts, B.
  • Brockhaus, M.
  • Herold, M.

Abstract

The UNFCCC requires REDD+ countries wishing to receive results-based payments to measure, report and verify (MRV) REDD+ impacts; and outlines technical guidelines and good governance requirements for MRV. This article examines institutional effectiveness of REDD+ MRV by assessing countries’ progress in implementing these technical guidelines and good governance requirements, from three dimensions. Ownership of technical methods examines whether countries own technical methods for forest area and area change measuring, and for estimating forest carbon stocks; and whether national MRV systems cover all forests, land uses and carbon pools. Administrative capacity examines development of administrative competence to implement MRV. Good governance examines whether countries espouses norms of good governance in their MRV systems. We apply these dimensions to assess and compare progress in 13 REDD+ countries, based on a review of national and international documents. Findings show that REDD+ countries have high to very high ownership of technical methods. However, majority ranks only low to moderate on administrative capacity and good governance. This means that although countries have started developing technical methods for MRV, they are yet to develop the competence necessary to administer MRV and to inculcate good governance in MRV. The article explain the scores and suggest ways of improving implementation of REDD+ MRV.

Suggested Citation

  • Ochieng, R.M. & Visseren-Hamakers, I.J. & Arts, B. & Brockhaus, M. & Herold, M., 2016. "Institutional effectiveness of REDD+ MRV: Countries progress in implementing technical guidelines and good governance requirements," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 42-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:42-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300788
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wurtzebach, Zachary & Casse, Thorkil & Meilby, Henrik & Nielsen, Martin R. & Milhøj, Anders, 2019. "REDD+ policy design and policy learning: The emergence of an integrated landscape approach in Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 129-139.
    2. Jewel Andoh & Yohan Lee, 2018. "National REDD+ Strategy for Climate Change Mitigation: A Review and Comparison of Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Lopes, Catarina & Leite, Ana & Vasconcelos, Maria José, 2019. "Open-access cloud resources contribute to mainstream REDD+: The case of Mozambique," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 48-60.
    4. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Kayira, Jean & Tegegne, Yitagesu Tekle & Gruber, James S., 2020. "A comparative analysis of the institutional capacity of FLEGT VPA in Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Liberia, and the Republic of the Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    6. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.
    7. World Bank, 2017. "The Potential Role of Enhanced Bond Structures in Forest Climate Finance," World Bank Publications - Reports 28586, The World Bank Group.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:42-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.