IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v45y2014icp24-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Safeguards and Dangerguards: A Framework for Unpacking the Black Box of Safeguards for REDD+

Author

Listed:
  • Arhin, Albert Abraham

Abstract

The idea and practice of safeguards – usually expressed as sets of environmental and social principles – have become integral components of the ongoing global policy efforts aimed at mitigating climate change through the mechanism of Reducing Emissions on Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). Donors, civil societies, business organisations and other different bodies are investing resources on initiatives aimed to propagate different guidelines and principles expected to be adopted, supported and promoted by national governments as safeguards. Yet, there is little research critically examining the different ideas, objectives and understandings embedded in the term and their implications for the purpose for which safeguards are designed for. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the discourse on safeguards by presenting REDD+ Safeguard Spectrum, a framework which can be used to unpack the many faces of REDD+ safeguards to guide their application and operationalization at national and local levels. Focusing largely on the social goals espoused under REDD+, the paper characterises social safeguards of REDD+ into four categories—preventive, mitigative promotive and transformative.

Suggested Citation

  • Arhin, Albert Abraham, 2014. "Safeguards and Dangerguards: A Framework for Unpacking the Black Box of Safeguards for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 24-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:45:y:2014:i:c:p:24-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114000719
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.003?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. Iversen, Vegard & Chhetry, Birka & Francis, Paul & Gurung, Madhu & Kafle, Ghanendra & Pain, Adam & Seeley, Janet, 2006. "High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: Evidence from forest user groups in Nepal's Terai," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 93-107, June.
    2. Ros-Tonen, Mirjam A.F. & Insaidoo, Thomas F.G. & Acheampong, Emmanuel, 2013. "Promising start, bleak outlook: The role of Ghana's modified taungya system as a social safeguard in timber legality processes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 57-67.
    3. Charles Blessings Laurence Jumbe & Arild Angelsen, 2006. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidence from Malawi’s Forest Co-Management Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(4), pages 562-581.
    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. 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.
    2. Vijge, Marjanneke J., 2015. "Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-47.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Neil M. Dawson & Michael Mason & Janet A. Fisher & David Mujasi Mwayafu & Hari Dhungana & Heike Schroeder & Mark Zeitoun, 2018. "Norm Entrepreneurs Sidestep REDD+ in Pursuit of Just and Sustainable Forest Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Torpey-Saboe, Nichole & Andersson, Krister & Mwangi, Esther & Persha, Lauren & Salk, Carl & Wright, Glenn, 2015. "Benefit Sharing Among Local Resource Users: The Role of Property Rights," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 408-418.
    7. Joanes Odiwuor Atela & Claire Hellen Quinn & Albert A. Arhin & Lalisa Duguma & Kennedy Liti Mbeva, 2017. "Exploring the agency of Africa in climate change negotiations: the case of REDD+," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 463-482, August.
    8. Astrid Carrapatoso & Angela Geck, 2018. "Multiple Wins, Multiple Organizations—How to Manage Institutional Interaction in Financing Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    9. 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).
    10. McCall, Michael K., 2016. "Beyond “Landscape” in REDD+: The Imperative for “Territory”," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 58-72.
    11. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.

    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. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch & Edwin Muchapondwah, 2013. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidences from Quantile Treatment Effect Evaluation of Joint Forest Management," Working Papers 201388, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    2. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Bulte, Erwin, 2021. "Internal versus top-down monitoring in community resource management: Experimental evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 111-131.
    3. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    4. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    5. Sánchez-Braza, Antonio & Pablo-Romero, María del P., 2014. "Evaluation of property tax bonus to promote solar thermal systems in Andalusia (Spain)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 832-843.
    6. Grillos, Tara & Bottazzi, Patrick & Crespo, David & Asquith, Nigel & Jones, Julia P.G., 2019. "In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Meilby, Henrik & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Byg, Anja & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rayamajhi, Santosh, 2014. "Are Forest Incomes Sustainable? Firewood and Timber Extraction and Productivity in Community Managed Forests in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 113-124.
    8. Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Ali, Akhter & Behera, Bhagirath, 2015. "Household participation and effects of community forest management on income and poverty levels: Empirical evidence from Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 20-29.
    9. Keijiro Otsuka & Frank Place, 2013. "Evolutionary Changes in Land Tenure and Agricultural Intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa," GRIPS Discussion Papers 13-22, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    10. Kumeh, Eric Mensah & Kyereh, Boateng & Birkenberg, Athena & Birner, Regina, 2021. "Customary power, farmer strategies and the dynamics of access to protected forestlands for farming: Implications for Ghana's forest bioeconomy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    11. Lund, Jens Friis & Baral, Keshab & Bhandari, Nirmala Singh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Treue, Thorsten, 2014. "Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 119-125.
    12. Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt & Treue, Thorsten, 2012. "Hunting for the Benefits of Joint Forest Management in the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot: Effects on Bushmeat Hunters and Wildlife in the Udzungwa Mountains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1224-1239.
    13. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Welfare and forest cover impacts of incentive based conservation: Evidence from Kenyan community forest associations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    14. Keijiro Otsuka & Ridish Pokharel, 2014. "In search of appropriate institutions for forest management," GRIPS Discussion Papers 13-25, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    15. Hegde, Ravi & Bull, Gary Q., 2011. "Performance of an agro-forestry based Payments-for-Environmental-Services project in Mozambique: A household level analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 122-130.
    16. Johnson Gaither, Cassandra & Yembilah, Rita & Samar, Sparkler Brefo, 2019. "Tree registration to counter elite capture of forestry benefits in Ghana’s Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 340-349.
    17. Gelo, Dambala & Koch, Steven F., 2014. "The Impact of Common Property Right Forestry: Evidence from Ethiopian Villages," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 395-406.
    18. Ojha, Hemant & Persha, Lauren & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2009. "Community forestry in Nepal: a policy innovation for local livelihoods," IFPRI discussion papers 913, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. Kolstad, Ivar & Søreide, Tina, 2009. "Corruption in natural resource management: Implications for policy makers," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 214-226, December.
    20. 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).

    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:45:y:2014:i:c:p:24-31. 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.