IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i8p10250-10263d53477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

REDD+ and Institutions

Author

Listed:
  • Jakub Kronenberg

    (Department of International Economics, University of Lodz, P.O.W. 3/5, Lodz 90-255, Poland
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Ewa Orligóra-Sankowska

    (Department of Theory and Analyses of Economic Systems, University of Lodz, Rewolucji 1905 r. 41, Lodz 90-214, Poland
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Piotr Czembrowski

    (Department of International Economics, University of Lodz, P.O.W. 3/5, Lodz 90-255, Poland)

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between payments made under the REDD+ umbrella (Reducing Emissions from Forest Degradation and Deforestation plus conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks) and the quality of institutions in countries that are expected to receive these payments. Using scatter plots and simple correlation analysis, we can see that countries receiving the most significant REDD+ payments (at least in relative terms) have the poorest quality of institutions. Although the REDD+ concept has evolved significantly since a similar analysis was carried out by Ebeling and Yasué in 2008, the institutional problems have remained equally important. This is also in line with the recently formulated “ecosystem service curse” and “REDD paradox” hypotheses, whereby payments for ecosystem services (including those offered within REDD+) might lead to socio-economic problems in recipient countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakub Kronenberg & Ewa Orligóra-Sankowska & Piotr Czembrowski, 2015. "REDD+ and Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:8:p:10250-10263:d:53477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/8/10250/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/8/10250/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ragnar Torvik, 2009. "Why do some resource-abundant countries succeed while others do not?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 25(2), pages 241-256, Summer.
    2. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    3. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    4. Karsenty, Alain & Ongolo, Symphorien, 2012. "Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 38-45.
    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. Hongpeng Guo & Zhihao Lv & Junyi Hua & Hongxu Yuan & Qingyu Yu, 2021. "Design of Combined Auction Model for Emission Rights of International Forestry Carbon Sequestration and Other Pollutants Based on SMRA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.

    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. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    2. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    3. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    4. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    5. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    6. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.
    7. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    8. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    9. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    10. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    11. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    12. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    13. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Wittman, Hannah & Chan, Kai M.A., 2020. "A payment by any other name: Is Costa Rica’s PES a payment for services or a support for stewards?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    14. Rodríguez-Robayo, Karla Juliana & à vila-Foucat, V. Sophie & Maldonado, Jorge H., 2016. "Indigenous communities’ perception regarding payments for environmental services programme in Oaxaca Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 163-171.
    15. Singh, Neera M., 2015. "Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: Sharing the burden and joy of environmental care," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 53-61.
    16. Sheng, Jichuan & Hong, Qiu & Han, Xiao, 2019. "Neoliberal conservation in REDD+: The roles of market power and incentive designs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    17. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    18. Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2017. "How We Come to Value Nature? - A Pragmatist Perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 12-20.
    19. Farrell, Katharine N., 2014. "Intellectual mercantilism and franchise equity: A critical study of the ecological political economy of international payments for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 137-146.
    20. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:8:p:10250-10263:d:53477. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.