IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v63y2016icp44-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentivizing REDD+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Dunlop, Tessa
  • Corbera, Esteve

Abstract

Benefit distribution plays a central role in incentivizing action in REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation and forest enhancement). Conceived as a global performance-based incentive mechanism to reduce land-use emissions in developing countries, REDD+ involves changes in resource governance by many actors at multiple scales, in order to minimize the climate impact of land-use activities or to maximize their contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A key governance issue for developing countries is how to incentivize action among stakeholders and the way countries design their benefit-sharing mechanisms (BSMs) is therefore seen as a critical factor in determining the success of REDD+ in the long term. This comprehensive research investigates up-to-date national level REDD+ planning documents to provide new evidence on how countries are planning to implement BSMs, including an analysis of common governance themes and where gaps exist. Our unique comparative study based on five country cases reveals that there is a lack of comprehensive participatory, transparent and accountable processes among country strategies and in particular, shortcomings in preparation for local and subnational governance, financial disbursement and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, countries are making slow progress on land tenure and carbon rights reform. In fact, such ambiguous legislation on carbon benefits, coupled with weak institutional capacity and ineffective dispute-resolution mechanisms, may make it difficult for REDD+ stakeholders to participate fully in initiatives and receive a fair distribution of benefits. This research indicates that REDD+ actors including donors and national governments will need to further rethink strategies and policy frameworks to improve their BSMs and to guarantee effective, equitable and efficient REDD+ outcomes in the long term.

Suggested Citation

  • Dunlop, Tessa & Corbera, Esteve, 2016. "Incentivizing REDD+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 44-54.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:63:y:2016:i:c:p:44-54
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116301022
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.018?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. Andrey Krasovskii & Nikolay Khabarov & Ruben Lubowski & Michael Obersteiner, 2019. "Flexible Options for Greenhouse Gas-Emitting Energy Producer," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Satyal, Poshendra & Corbera, Esteve & Dawson, Neil & Dhungana, Hari & Maskey, Gyanu, 2020. "Justice-related impacts and social differentiation dynamics in Nepal's REDD+ projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Myers, Rodd & Fisher, Micah & Monterroso, Iliana & Liswanti, Nining & Maryudi, Ahmad & Larson, Anne M. & Mwangi, Esther & Herawati, Tuti, 2022. "Coordinating forest tenure reform: Objectives, resources and relations in Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, and Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Magambo, Isaiah & Dikgang, Johane & Gelo, Dambala & Tregenna, Fiona, 2021. "Environmental and Technical Efficiency in Large Gold Mines in Developing Countries," MPRA Paper 108068, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Gueiros, Carolina & Jodoin, Sébastien & McDermott, Constance L, 2023. "Jurisdictional approaches to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Brazil: Why do states adopt jurisdictional policies?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    7. Yvonne Hargita & Lukas Giessen & Sven Günter, 2020. "Similarities and Differences between International REDD+ and Transnational Deforestation-Free Supply Chain Initiatives—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, January.
    8. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Sills, Erin & Pfaff, Alexander & Andrade, Luiza & Kirkpatrick, Justin & Dickson, Rebecca, 2020. "Investing in local capacity to respond to a federal environmental mandate: Forest & economic impacts of the Green Municipality Program in the Brazilian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    10. Jichuan Sheng, 2017. "Effect of Uncertainties in Estimated Carbon Reduction from Deforestation and Forest Degradation on Required Incentive Payments in Developing Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-14, September.
    11. Sheng, Jichuan & Tang, Weizong & Zhu, Bangzhu, 2019. "Incentivizing REDD+: The role of cost-sharing mechanisms in encouraging stakeholders to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Kylie Clay & Lauren Cooper, 2022. "Safeguarding against Harm in a Climate-Smart Forest Economy: Definitions, Challenges, and Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-13, April.

    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:63:y:2016:i:c:p:44-54. 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.