IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v75y2017icp58-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed

Author

Listed:
  • Skutsch, Margaret
  • Balderas Torres, Arturo
  • Carrillo Fuentes, Juan Carlos

Abstract

There have been many calls for ‘pro-poor’ distribution of REDD+ benefits. Although international payments will be granted to participating countries strictly based on their carbon performance, this will not necessarily be the case for benefit-sharing at local levels. In this paper we analyse the technical and legal constraints to the development of ‘pro-poor’ benefit distribution systems, using the prototype scheme of Mexico as an example. There are two distinct types of carbon impacts in REDD+: avoided/reduced emissions and carbon sequestration/removals. From a legal perspective it is possible to link the ownership of carbon stocks and enhancements in forests to the legal owners of trees and land, thus enabling them to participate in carbon markets to trade carbon credits for sequestration/removals. However, we argue that it is not possible to create exclusive property rights over avoided/reduced emissions since they are counterfactual; they have no legal existence; moreover deforestation is illegal in Mexico without a land use change permit, and to pay for not deforesting would be tantamount to paying people not to commit a crime. In order to share the financial benefits derived from avoided/reduced emissions, the principle of fair compensation to those producing environmental benefits can however be used. The funds resulting from avoided/reduced emissions, assessed at national level, will be used by the government for investments at the local level in activities which directly or indirectly lead to more sustainable territorial development within communities, via up-front payments for efforts rather than ex-post rewards for carbon results. Although results-based benefit distribution systems in REDD+ can be defended on grounds of environmental effectiveness and cost-efficiency, they have a much higher probability of systematically excluding vulnerable groups, in comparison with effort-based strategies. Mexico's effort-based approach to the finance of initial REDD+ activities has the potential in principle to be a pro-poor instrument, but up to now, specific interventions to target vulnerable groups have not been implemented, nor have adequate guidelines been developed to promote an inclusive local distribution of benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Skutsch, Margaret & Balderas Torres, Arturo & Carrillo Fuentes, Juan Carlos, 2017. "Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 58-66.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:75:y:2017:i:c:p:58-66
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116301484
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.014?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leventon, Julia & Kalaba, Felix K. & Dyer, Jen C. & Stringer, Lindsay C. & Dougill, Andrew J., 2014. "Delivering community benefits through REDD+: Lessons from Joint Forest Management in Zambia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 10-17.
    2. Mbatu, Richard S., 2015. "Domestic and international forest regime nexus in Cameroon: An assessment of the effectiveness of REDD+ policy design strategy in the context of the climate change regime," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 46-56.
    3. Anis Dani & Ade Freeman & Vinod Thomas, 2011. "Evaluative Directions for the World Bank Group's Safeguards and Sustainability Policies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2339, December.
    4. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    5. Torres, Arturo Balderas & Marchant, Rob & Lovett, Jon C. & Smart, James C.R. & Tipper, Richard, 2010. "Analysis of the carbon sequestration costs of afforestation and reforestation agroforestry practices and the use of cost curves to evaluate their potential for implementation of climate change mitigat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 469-477, January.
    6. Newton, Peter & Schaap, Brian & Fournier, Michelle & Cornwall, Meghan & Rosenbach, Derrick W. & DeBoer, Joel & Whittemore, Jessica & Stock, Ryan & Yoders, Mark & Brodnig, Gernot & Agrawal, Arun, 2015. "Community forest management and REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 27-37.
    7. Myers Madeira, Erin, 2009. "REDD in Design: Assessment of Planned First-Generation Activities in Indonesia," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-49, Resources for the Future.
    8. Atela, Joanes O. & Quinn, Claire H. & Minang, Peter A. & Duguma, Lalisa A. & Houdet, Joël A., 2016. "Implementing REDD+ at the national level: Stakeholder engagement and policy coherences between REDD+ rules and Kenya's sectoral policies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 37-46.
    9. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    10. PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012. "Assessing Options for Effective Mechanisms to Share Benefits : Insights for REDD+ Initiatives," World Bank Publications - Reports 12620, The World Bank Group.
    11. Fischer, Richard & Hargita, Yvonne & Günter, Sven, 2016. "Insights from the ground level? A content analysis review of multi-national REDD+ studies since 2010," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 47-58.
    12. Klaus Deininger & Clarissa Augustinus & Stig Enemark & Paul Munro-Faure, 2010. "Innovations in Land Rights Recognition, Administration, and Governance," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2519, December.
    13. Mohammed, Essam, 2011. "Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?," MPRA Paper 43648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter & Boezeman, Daan, 2015. "The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-45.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jung, Suhyun & Hajjar, Reem, 2023. "The livelihood impacts of transnational aid for climate change mitigation: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    2. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    3. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Jurjonas, Matthew & Merino Pérez, Leticia & Robson, James & Tadeo Noble, Alfredo Esteban, 2023. "Intergenerational perceptions of the collective action challenges facing Mexican community forests," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Figueroa, Daniela & Galeana-Pizaña, J. Mauricio & Núñez, Juan Manuel & Anzaldo Gómez, Carlos & Hernández-Castro, J. Roberto & Sánchez-Ramírez, María del Mar & Garduño, Andrea, 2021. "Assessing drivers and deterrents of deforestation in Mexico through a public policy tool. The adequacy of the index of economic pressure for deforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Skutsch, Margaret & Paneque-Gálvez, Jaime & Ghilardi, Adrian & Balderas Torres, Arturo & Morfin-Rios, Jorge & Michel-Fuentes, Jose Maria & Carrillo, Oswaldo & Ross, David, 2017. "Adapting REDD+ policy to sink conditions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 160-166.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Weatherley-Singh, Janice & Gupta, Aarti, 2017. "An ecological landscape approach to REDD+ in Madagascar: Promise and limitations?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 1-9.
    3. Manda, Simon & Mukanda, Nyambe, 2023. "Can REDD+ projects deliver livelihood benefits in private tenure arrangements? Experiences from rural Zambia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Sunderasan Srinivasan, 2015. "Economic valuation and option-based payments for ecosystem services," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 1055-1077, October.
    5. Piffer Salles, Guilherme & Paiva Salinas, Delhi Teresa & Paulino, Sônia Regina, 2017. "How Funding Source Influences the Form of REDD+ Initiatives: The Case of Market Versus Public Funds in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 91-101.
    6. Pandit, Ram, 2018. "REDD+ adoption and factors affecting respondents' knowledge of REDD+ goal: Evidence from household survey of forest users from REDD+ piloting sites in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 107-115.
    7. P. Gallo & E. Albrecht, 2019. "Brazil and the Paris Agreement: REDD+ as an instrument of Brazil’s Nationally Determined Contribution compliance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 123-144, February.
    8. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    9. 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.
    10. Guillaume Lestrelin & Jean-Christophe Castella & Qiaohong Li & Thoumthone Vongvisouk & Nguyen Dinh Tien & Ole Mertz, 2019. "A Nested Land Uses–Landscapes–Livelihoods Approach to Assess the Real Costs of Land-Use Transitions: Insights from Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    12. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    13. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    14. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    15. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    16. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    17. Ralph E. Townsend, 2010. "Transactions costs as an obstacle to fisheries self-governance in New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(3), pages 301-320, July.
    18. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    19. Karsten Neuhoff, 2002. "Optimal congestion treatment for bilateral electricity trading," Working Papers EP05, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    20. Maximiliano Marzetti & Rok Spruk, 2023. "Long-Term Economic Effects of Populist Legal Reforms: Evidence from Argentina," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 65(1), pages 60-95, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:forpol:v:75:y:2017:i:c:p:58-66. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.