IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v118y2020ics1389934120301726.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Private sector participation and incentive coordination of actors in REDD+

Author

Listed:
  • Sheng, Jichuan

Abstract

How do different contractual arrangements affect the behavior of private investors in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+)? How to attract private investors to participate in REDD+? The complex entanglement between REDD+ and private investors has received relatively little attention in existing studies. To respond to this gap, this paper examines the dynamic effects of benefit-sharing, cost-sharing, and incentive-coordination contracts on actors' behavior during the project period by using a theoretical framework based on differential games. It argues that incentive-coordination contracts in REDD+ are a fair and effective mechanism, as they can not only motivate actors to reduce emissions, but also ensure the equality of all actors' decision-making status. The market-oriented incentive structure constructed by incentive-coordination contracts helps to overcome the shortcomings of the current REDD+ contracts that rely on command-and-control instruments, and helps to improve the total profits of REDD+ projects. While questions remain about how to integrate incentive-coordination mechanisms into REDD+, incentive-coordination contracts can improve private investors' understanding of the value and risks of REDD+ projects by negotiating the optimal benefit-distribution rate. Incentive-coordination contracts are, therefore, a viable solution to attract private sector participation in REDD+.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheng, Jichuan, 2020. "Private sector participation and incentive coordination of actors in REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934120301726
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934120301726
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102262?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. Tilahun, Mesfin & Damnyag, Lawrence & Anglaaere, Luke C.N., 2016. "The Ankasa Forest Conservation Area of Ghana: Ecosystem service values and on-site REDD+ opportunity cost," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 168-176.
    2. Ollivier, Hélène, 2012. "Growth, deforestation and the efficiency of the REDD mechanism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 312-327.
    3. Ickowitz, Amy & Sills, Erin & de Sassi, Claudio, 2017. "Estimating Smallholder Opportunity Costs of REDD+: A Pantropical Analysis from Households to Carbon and Back," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 15-26.
    4. Richard G. Newell & William A. Pizer & Daniel Raimi, 2014. "Carbon Markets: Past, Present, and Future," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 191-215, October.
    5. Onno Kuik, 2014. "REDD+ and international leakage via food and timber markets: a CGE analysis," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 641-655, August.
    6. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.
    7. Tabeau, Andrzej & van Meijl, Hans & Overmars, Koen P. & Stehfest, Elke, 2017. "REDD policy impacts on the agri-food sector and food security," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 73-87.
    8. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    9. Ehara, Makoto & Samejima, Hiromitsu & Yamanoshita, Makino & Asada, Yoko & Shogaki, Yutaro & Yano, Masato & Hyakumura, Kimihiko, 2019. "REDD+ engagement types preferred by Japanese private firms: The challenges and opportunities in relation to private sector participation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Arild Angelsen, 2017. "REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of Norway," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 237-264, May.
    11. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter, 2019. "Can REDD+ still become a market? Ruptured dependencies and market logics for emission reductions in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 121-129.
    12. 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).
    13. Cecilia Luttrell & Erin Sills & Riza Aryani & Andini Desita Ekaputri & Maria Febe Evinke, 2018. "Beyond opportunity costs: who bears the implementation costs of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 291-310, February.
    14. Fershtman, Chaim & Kamien, Morton I, 1987. "Dynamic Duopolistic Competition with Sticky Prices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(5), pages 1151-1164, September.
    15. Neudert, Regina & Olschofsky, Konstantin & Kübler, Daniel & Prill, Laura & Köhl, Michael & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Opportunity costs of conserving a dry tropical forest under REDD+: The case of the spiny dry forest in southwestern Madagascar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 102-114.
    16. Andrew McGregor & Edward Challies & Peter Howson & Rini Astuti & Rowan Dixon & Bethany Haalboom & Michael Gavin & Luca Tacconi & Suraya Afiff, 2015. "Beyond Carbon, More Than Forest? REDD+ Governmentality in Indonesia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 138-155, January.
    17. Dockner,Engelbert J. & Jorgensen,Steffen & Long,Ngo Van & Sorger,Gerhard, 2000. "Differential Games in Economics and Management Science," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521637329.
    18. Andrés-Domenech, Pablo & Martín-Herrán, Guiomar & Zaccour, Georges, 2015. "Cooperation for sustainable forest management: An empirical differential game approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 118-128.
    19. Esther Turnhout & Aarti Gupta & Janice Weatherley‐Singh & Marjanneke J. Vijge & Jessica de Koning & Ingrid J. Visseren‐Hamakers & Martin Herold & Markus Lederer, 2017. "Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), January.
    20. Tim Laing & Luca Taschini & Charles Palmer & Johanna Wehkamp & Sabine Fuss & Wolf Heinrich Reuter, 2015. "Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits," GRI Working Papers 193, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    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. 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).

    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. 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).
    2. West, Thales A.P. & Grogan, Kelly A. & Swisher, Marilyn E. & Caviglia-Harris, Jill L. & Sills, Erin O. & Roberts, Dar A. & Harris, Daniel & Putz, Francis E., 2018. "Impacts of REDD+ payments on a coupled human-natural system in Amazonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 68-76.
    3. Yang, Hongqiang & Li, Xi, 2018. "Potential variation in opportunity cost estimates for REDD+ and its causes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 138-146.
    4. Nathalie Meißner & Etti Winter, 2019. "Design principles for protected area certificates: a case study on strategic investor groups," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 303-329, February.
    5. 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.
    6. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter, 2019. "Can REDD+ still become a market? Ruptured dependencies and market logics for emission reductions in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 121-129.
    7. Masahiko Hattori & Yasuhito Tanaka, 2019. "General analysis of dynamic oligopoly with sticky price," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(4), pages 2990-2998.
    8. Caputo, Michael R. & Ling, Chen, 2013. "The intrinsic comparative dynamics of locally differentiable feedback Nash equilibria of autonomous and exponentially discounted infinite horizon differential games," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1982-1994.
    9. Tomas Gabriel Bas & Jacques Gagnon & Philippe Gagnon & Angela Contreras, 2022. "Analysis of Agro Alternatives to Boost Cameroon’s Socio-Environmental Resilience, Sustainable Development, and Conservation of Native Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-28, July.
    10. Kenji Fujiwara, 2009. "Gains from Trade in a Differential Game Model of Asymmetric Oligopoly," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(5), pages 1066-1073, November.
    11. Kogan, Konstantin & El Ouardighi, Fouad & Herbon, Avi, 2017. "Production with learning and forgetting in a competitive environment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 52-62.
    12. Mathew P. Abraham & Ankur A. Kulkarni, 2018. "An Approach Based on Generalized Nash Games and Shared Constraints for Discrete Time Dynamic Games," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 641-670, December.
    13. Montoya-Zumaeta, Javier G. & Wunder, Sven & Tacconi, Luca, 2021. "Incentive-based conservation in Peru: Assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Lu, Fuxiao & Tang, Wansheng & Liu, Guowei & Zhang, Jianxiong, 2019. "Cooperative advertising: A way escaping from the prisoner’s dilemma in a supply chain with sticky price," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 87-106.
    15. C. Ling & M. R. Caputo, 2011. "A Qualitative Characterization of Symmetric Open-Loop Nash Equilibria in Discounted Infinite Horizon Differential Games," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 151-174, April.
    16. Luca Grilli & Michele Bisceglia, 2020. "A dynamic private property resource game with asymmetric firms," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(1), pages 109-127, June.
    17. Luca Lambertini, 2016. "Managerial Delegation in a Dynamic Renewable Resource Oligopoly," Dynamic Modeling and Econometrics in Economics and Finance, in: Herbert Dawid & Karl F. Doerner & Gustav Feichtinger & Peter M. Kort & Andrea Seidl (ed.), Dynamic Perspectives on Managerial Decision Making, pages 93-107, Springer.
    18. Katarzyna Kańska & Agnieszka Wiszniewska-Matyszkiel, 2022. "Dynamic Stackelberg duopoly with sticky prices and a myopic follower," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 4221-4252, September.
    19. L. Lambertini, 2010. "Oligopoly with Hyperbolic Demand: A Differential Game Approach," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 108-119, April.
    20. Köhl, Michael & Neupane, Prem Raj & Mundhenk, Philip, 2020. "REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – A cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).

    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:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934120301726. 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.