Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and decentralized forest management

International Forestry Review

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 427-438

  Irawan, S ^a   Tacconi, L ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Decentralization; Fiscal instruments; Forest management; Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD); Subnational level

Indexed keywords

DECENTRALIZATION; DEFORESTATION; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY POLICY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 77951009829     PISSN: 14655489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1505/ifor.11.4.427     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. AFRICA RESEARCH BULLETIN. 2008. Democratic of Congo: decentralisation law. Africa Research Bulletin: Political, Social and Cultural Series 45 (1): 17381C-17382A.
2. AGRAWAL, A., CHHATRE, A. and HARDIN, R. 2008. Changing governance of the world's forests. Science 320:1460-1462. (Pubitemid 351929395)
3. ANDERSSON, K.P., GIBSON, C.C. and LEOUCQ, F. 2004. The politics of decentralized natural resources governance. Political Science & Politics 37: 421-426.
4. ANGELSEN, A. 2008. REDD models and baselines. International Forestry Review 10 (3): 465-475.
5. BAHL, R. 1999. Implementation rules for fiscal decentralization. International Studies Program Working Paper 99-101 Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. Atlanta.
6. BIRD, R.M. 1999. Transfer and incentives in intergovernmental fiscal relations. The World Bank. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/128836/ Bird%201999%20transfer.PDF
7. BIRD, R.M. 2001. Intergovernmental fiscal relations in Latin America: policy design and policy outcomes. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington D.C. http:// www.iadb.org/sds/doc/Intergovernmentaltotal.pdf
8. BIRD, N. 2005. Considerations for choosing an emission target for compensated reductions. in MOUTINHO, P. and SCHWARTZMAN, S. (eds.) Tropical deforestation and climate change. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia, Washington DC.
9. BOUCHER, D. 2008. Out of the woods: a realistic role for tropical forests in curbing global warming. Union Concerned Scientists, Cambridge.
10. BRÄUTIGAM, D. 2002. Building Leviathan: revenue, state capacity and governance. IDS Bulletin 33 (3): 10-20. (Pubitemid 34794213)
11. CHEEMA, G.S. and RONDINELLI, D.A. 1983. Decentralization and development policy implementation in developing countries. Sage. Beverly Hills.
12. DALLE, S.P., DE BLOIS, S., CABALLERO, J. and JOHNS, T. 2006. Integrating analyses of local landuse regulations, cultural perceptions and land-use/land cover data for assessing the success of community-based conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 370-383. (Pubitemid 43151202)
13. DAVOODI, H. and ZOU, H. 1998. Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A cross-country study. Journal of Urban Economics 43: 244-257. (Pubitemid 128344973)
14. DE MELLO, L.R. 2000. Fiscal decentralization and intergovernmental fiscal relations: a cross-country analysis. World Development 28 (2): 365-380. (Pubitemid 30144728)
15. FAO (FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS). 2006. Global forest resource assessment 2005: progress toward sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry Paper 147. Rome.
16. FOLLESDAL, A. 1998. Survey Article: Subsidiarity. Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (2): 190-218. (Pubitemid 128405534)
17. JOHNS, T., MERRY, F., STICKLER, C., NEPSTAD, D., LAPORTE, D. and GOETZ, D. 2008. A three-fund approach to incorporating government, public and private forest stewards into a REDD funding mechanism. International Forestry Review 10 (3): 458-464.
18. KÖLLNER, T., SCHELSKE, O. and SEIDL, I. 2002. Integrating biodiversity into intergovernmental fiscal transfer based on cantonal benchmarking: a Swiss case study. Basic and Applied Ecology 3: 381-391. (Pubitemid 35235551)
19. KUMAR, S. and MANAGI, S. 2009. Compensation for environmental services and intergovernmental fiscal transfer: the case of India. Ecological Economics 68: 3052-3059.
20. LARSON, A.M. 2003. Decentralization and forest management in Latin America: towards a working model. Public Administration and Development 23: 211-226.
21. LAMBIN, E.F., TURNER, B.L., GEIST, H.J., AGBOLA, S.B., ANGELSEN, A., BRUCE, J.W., COOMES, O., DIRZO, R., FISCHER, G., FOLKE, C., GEORGE, P.S., HOMEWOOD, K., IMBERNON, J., LEEMANS, R., LI, X., MORAN, E.F., MORTIMORE, M., RAMAKRISHNAN, P.S., RICHARDS, M.B., SKÅNES, H., STEFFEN, W.L., STONE, G.D., SVEDIN, U., VELDKAMP, T.A., VOGEL, C. and XU, J. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11: 261-269. (Pubitemid 34001974)
22. MASCIA, M.B., BROSIUS, J.P., DOBSON, T.A., FORBES, B.C., HOROWITZ, L., MCKEAN, M.A. and TURNER, N.J. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 17: 649-650. (Pubitemid 36695819)
23. MATLAND, A and RICHARD, E. 1995. Synthesizing the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 5 (2): 145-174.
24. MAY, P.H., VEIGA NETO, F., DENARDIN, V. and LOUREIRO, W. 2002. Using fiscal instruments to encourage conservation: municipal responses to the 'ecological' value-added tax in Parana and Minas Gerais, Brazil. In PAGIOLA, S. BISHOP, J. LANDELL-MILLS, N. (Eds.) Selling forest environmental services: marketbased mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London, pp. 173-199.
25. MERIDIAN INSTITUTE. 2009. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD): an options assessment report. Meridian Institute. Norway.
26. MOLLICONE, D., ACHARD, F., FEDERIC, S., EVA, H., GRASSI, G., BELWARD, A., RAES, F., SEUFERT, G., STIBIG, H.J., MATTEUCCI, G. and SCHULZE, E.D. 2007. An incentive mechanism for reducing emissions from conversion of intact and non-intact forests. Climatic Change 83 (4): 477-493. (Pubitemid 47030195)
27. MYERS, E.C. 2007. Policies to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in tropical forests: an examination of the issues facing the incorporation of REDD into market-based climate policies. Resource for Future Discussion Paper 07-50. Washington D.C.
28. OATES, W.E. 1972. Fiscal federalism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York.
29. OATES, W.E. 1991. Studies in fiscal federalism. Elgar Pub. England.
30. OYONO, P.R., RIBOT, J.C., ASSEMBE, S. and LOGO, P.B. 2007. Improving decentralized forest management in Cameroon: options and opportunities from ten years of experience. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
31. Bogor, Indonesia. PARKER, C., MITCHELL, A., TRIVEDI, M. and MARDAS N. 2008. The little REDD book: a guide to governmental and non-governmental proposals to reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. Global Canopy Programme. Oxford.
32. PORRÙRA, M.E., CORBERA, E. and BROWN, K. 2007. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions. Working Paper 115, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK.
33. RIBOT, J.C. 2003. Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development 23 (1): 53-65.
34. RIBOT, J.C., AGRAWAL, A. and LARSON, A.M. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Development 34 (11): 1864-1886. (Pubitemid 44524728)
35. RING, I. 2008a. Biodiversity governance: adjusting local costs and global benefits. In SIKOR, T (ed.) Public and private in natural resource governance: a false dichotomy? Earthscan. London.
36. RING, I. 2008b. Compensating municipalities for protection areas: fiscal transfer for biodiversity conservation in Saxony, Germany. GAiA 17: 143-151.
37. RING, I. 2008c. Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: the case of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy 25: 485-497.
38. ROS-TONEN, M.A.F., VAN ANDEL, T., MORSELLO, C., OTSUKI, K., ROSENDO, S. and SCHOLZ, I. 2008. Forest-related partnerships in Brazilian Amazonia: There is more to sustainable forest management than reduced impact logging. Forest Ecology and Management, 256: 1482-1497.
39. SASU, P. 2005. Decentralization of federal forestry systems in Ghana. In: PIERCE COLFER, C.J. CAPISTRANO, D. (eds.) The politics of decentralization: forests, power and people. EarthScan. London.
40. SANTILLI, M., MOUTINHO, P., SCHWARTZMAN, S., NEPSTAD, D., CURRAN, L. and NOBRE, C. 2005. Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol: an editorial essay. Climate Change 71: 267-276. (Pubitemid 36234392)
41. SCHLAMADINGER, B., CICCARESE, L., DUTSCHKE, M., FEARNSIDE, P.M., BROWN, S. and MUDIYARSO, D. 2005. Should we include avoidance of deforestation in the international response to climate change? In: MOUTINHO and P. SCHWARTZMAN, S. (eds.) Tropical deforestation and climate change. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia. Washington DC.
42. TACCONI, L. 2007. Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: theory and narrative. Global Environmental Change 17 (3-4): 338-348. (Pubitemid 47393622)
43. TANG, Z. and BRODY, S.D. 2009. Linking planning theories with factors influencing local environmentalplan quality. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36: 522-537.
44. THE WORLD BANK. 1997. World Development Report 1997: the state in a changing world. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
45. TIEBOUT, C.M. 1956. A pure theory of local expenditure. The Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416-424.
46. UNFCCC. 2007. Report on the second workshop on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries. SBSTA. FCCC/SBSTA/2007/3: 18.
47. UNFCCC. 2009a. Copenhagen Accord. Draft Decision CP15. FCCC/CP/2009/L.7.
48. UNFCCC. 2009b. Revised negotiating text, ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention, sixth session held in Bonn from 1 to 12 June 2009. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1.