Slicing the REDD+ pie: Controversies around the distribution of benefits

CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources

Volumn 8, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Skutsch, Margaret ^a  

^a INSTITUTO DE MATEMÁTICAS   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Carbon ownership; Carbon rights; Cost efficiency; Distributive justice; Effectiveness; Equity; Land tenure; Procedural justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878266312     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17498848     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20138020     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Seymour F. REDD Reckoning: a review of research on a rapidly moving target. CAB Reviews 2012;7:1-13.
2. Parker C. The Little REDD+ Book: An Updated Guide to Governmental and Non-Governmental Proposals for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford; 2009.
3. Agrawal A, Nepstad D, Chatre A. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2011;36:373-96.
4. Angelsen A (editor). Realising REDD+; National Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2009.
5. Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin W, Verschot L (editors). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2012.
6. de Gryze S, Durschinger L. An Integrated REDD+ Offset Program (IREDD) for Nesting Projects Under Jurisdicional Accounting. Terra Global Capital, San Francisco; 2010.
7. Pedroni L, Dutschke M, Streck C, Estrada M. Porrua Creating incentives for avoiding further deforestation; the nested approach. Climate Policy 2009;9(2):207-20.
8. Hoang MH, Do TH, Pham MT, van Noordwijk M, Minang P. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2011.
9. Skutsch M, Balderas Torres A. Expanding MRV for assessment of policy effectiveness and benefit sharing. In: Capacity Development in National Forest Monitoring: Experiences and Progress for REDD. GOFC-GOLD/CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2012, forthcoming.
10. Karsenty A, Vogel A, Castel F. 'Carbon rights', REDD+ and payments for environmental services. Environmental Science and Policy 2012.
11. Balderas Torres A, Skutsch M. Splitting the difference: a proposal for benefit sharing in reducing emissions from deforestation and fores degradation (REDD+). Forests 2012;3(1):137-54.
12. van Noordwijk M, Pumono H, Peskett L, Setiono B. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Indonesia: options and challenges for fair and efficient payment distribution mechanisms. Working paper 81, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Bogor, Indonesia; 2008, p. 29.
13. Peskett L. Benefit Sharing in REDD+: Exploring the Implications for Poor and Vulnerable People. REDD-net/World Bank 2011;1-40.
14. Peskett L, Brodnig G. Carbon Rights in REDD+: Exploring the Implications for Poor and Vulnerable People. World Bank/REDD-net 2011;1-34.
15. Suzuki R. Carbon rights and REDD. REDD-Net Bulletin 3; 2011. Available from: URL: http://www.redd.net.org.
16. Lawlor K, Huberman D. Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and human rights. In: Campese J, Sunderland T, Greiber T, Oviedo G, editors. Rights Based Approaches: Exploring Issues and Opportunities for Conservation. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2009.
17. Cotula L, Mayers J. Tenure in Redd - Start Point of Afterthought? Natural Resource, Issue 15, International Institute for Environment and Development, London; 2009.
18. Corbera E, Estrada M, May P, Navarro G, Pacheco P. Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: insights from México, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests 2011;2:301-42.
19. Barr CM, Sayer JA. The political economy of reforestation and forest restoration in Asia-Pacific: critical issues for REDD+. Biological Conservation 2012;154:9-19.
20. Tienhaara K. The potential perils of forest carbon contracts for developing countries: cases from Africa. Journal of Peasant Studies 2012;39:551-72.
21. Peskett L, Vickers B, Graham K. Understanding equity and its implications on the REDD+ debate. Environmental Science and Policy 2012 (submitted).
22. Cattaneo A, Lubowski R, Busch J, Creed A, Strassburg B, Boltz F, et al. On international equity in reducing emissions from deforestation. Environmental Science and Policy 2010;13:742-53.
23. Mollicone D, Achard F, Federici S, Eva HD, Grassi G, Belward A, et al. An incentive mechanism for reducing emissions from conversion of intact and non-intact forests. Climate Change 2007;83(4):1473-80.
24. Santilli M, Moutinho S, Schwartzman S, Nepstad D, Curran NC. Tropical deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol. An editorial essay. Climate Change 2005;71:267-76. (Pubitemid 41298111)
25. Börner J, Wunder S, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Tito M, Rereira L, Nascimento N. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 2010;69:1272-82.
26. Mwayafu D, Kimbowa R, Graham K. A toolkit to assess proposed benefit sharing and revenue distribution schemes of community REDD+ projects. Available from: URL: http://www.redd-net.org
27. van Noordwijk M, Suyanto S, Velarde H, Purnomo DT, Hoang MH. Stakeholder perspectives on a 'fair and efficient' benefit distribution along the C-REDD value chain. Project Report. World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, Indonesia; 2011.
28. WangGi J, JaeSoo B. Evaluating socio-economic equity of REDD+ in a rights-based approach: rapid equity appraisal matrix. Environmental Science and Policy 2012;22:1-12.
29. TFCG (Tanzania Forest Conservation Group). Options for REDD in Tanzania: Key Design Issues for the National REDD Strategy. TFWG Information Brief 2010;2:1-7.
30. Alix-Garcia J, de Janvry A, Sadoulet E. Payments for Environmental Services: To Whom, for What, and How Much? University of California, Berkeley; 2004.
31. Kaimowitz D. The prospect for reduced emissions from deforestation in MesoAmerica. International Forestry Review 2008;10:485-95.
32. Porras I (editor). Fair and Green? Social Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services in Costa Rica. International Institute for Environment and Development, London; 2010.
33. Gregersen H, El Lakany H, Karsenty A, White A. Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+? Rights and realities of paying for REDD+. 2010. Available from: URL: http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/ index.php?pubid=1555
34. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 2007;21(1):48-58.
35. Bond L, Grieg-Gran M, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Hazelwood P, Wunder S, Angelsen A. Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: a review and lessons for REDD. Natural Resource Issues 16, International Institute for Environment and Development, London; 2009.
36. Newton P, Nichols ES, Endo W, Peres CA. Consequences of actor level livelihood heterogeneity for additionality in a tropical forest payment for environmental services programme with an undifferentiated reward structure. Global Environmental Change 2011;22:127-36.
37. Luttrell C, Loft L, Gebara MF, Kweka D. Who should benefit and why: discourses on REDD+ benefit sharing. Chapter 8 In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin W, Verschot L, editors. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2012.
38. Costenbader J. REDD+ benefit sharing: a comparative assessment of three National Policy Approaches. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - UN REDD 2011;1-58.
39. Marino E, Ribot J. Special Issue Introduction: adding insult to injury: climate change and the inequities of climate intervention. Global Environmental Change 2012;22:323-8.
40. Sikor T, Stahl J, Enters T, Ribot, J, Singh S, Sunderlin W, et al. REDD-Plus, forest people's rights and nested climate governance. Global Environmental Change 2010;20:423-5.
41. Filer C, Wood M. The creation and dissolution of private property in forest carbon: a case study from Papua New Guinea. Human Ecology 2012;40:665-7.
42. Felicani-Robles F. Forest carbon tenure in Asia-Pacific: a comparative analysis of legal trends to define carbon rights in Asia-Pacific. FAO Legal Papers Online 2012;4-9.
43. Streck C. Rights and REDD+: legal and regulatory considerations. Chapter 12 In: Angelsen A, editor. Realising REDD+; National Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia; 2009.
44. Costenbader J. Legal Frameworks for REDD: Design and Implementation at The National Level. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland; 2009.
45. Skutsch M, Simon C, Velazquez A, Fernandez JC. Rights to carbon and payments for service rendered under REDD+; options for the case of Mexico. Global Environmental Change 2013 (submitted).
46. Simoes CG, Lavinia P, Msuda M. Compensations for avoided deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: implications for direct payments. Journal of Sustainable Development 2011;4(1):119-29.
47. Okereke C, Dooley K. Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: towards a post-Kyoto agreement. Global Environmental Change 2010;20:82-95.
48. van Noordwijk M, Leimona M. Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: payments, compensation, or co-investment? Ecology and Society 2010;15:4.
49. Larson A, Corbera E, Cronkleton P, van Dam C, Bray D, Estrada M, et al. Rights to forests and carbon under REDD+ initiatives in Latin America. Center for International Forestry Research Info Brief 2010;33:1-8.
50. Bolin A, Tassa DT. Exploring climate justice for forest communities engaging in REDD+: experiences from Tanzania. Forum for Development Studies 2012;39:5-29.
51. Basnet R. Carbon ownership in community managed forests. Journal of Forests and Livelihoods 2009;8(1):77-83.
52. Crippa LA, Gordon G. International Law Principles for REDD+: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Legal Obligations of REDD+ Actors. Indian Law Resource Center 2012; p. 1-28.
53. UN-REDD programme. UN-REDD Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) are open for public review; 2011. Available from: URL:http://unredd. wordpress.com/2011/12/05/un-redd-guidelines-on-free-prior-and-informed- consentfpic-are-open-for-public-review/
54. Center for People and Forests/RECOFTC. Free, prior and informed consent in REDD. 2011. Available from: URL: http://www.recoftc.org/site/resources/FPIC- in-REDD-/
55. Knox A, Caron C, Miner J, Goldstin A, Pearson M. Land tenure and payment for environmental services. challenges and opportunities for REDD+. Land Tenure Journal 2011;2:17-55.
56. Dressler W, McDermott M, Smith W, Pulhin J. REDD policy impacts on indigenous property rights regimes on Palawan Island: the Philippines. Human Ecology 2012;40:679-91.
57. Milne S. Grounding forest carbon property relations and avoided deforestation in Cambodia. Human Ecology 2012;40:693-706.
58. Plumb S, Nelson EA, Kim YS. Challenges of opportunity cost analysis in planning REDD+; a Honduran case study of social and cultural values associated with indigenous forest uses. Forests 2012;3(2):244-64.
59. Karsenty A, Assembé S. Land tenure and implementation of REDD+in Central Africa. Land Tenure Journal 2011;2:105-29.
60. Mahanty S, Milne S, Dressler W, Filer C. The social life of forest carbon: property and politics in the production of a new commodity. Human Ecology 2012;40:661-4.
61. Meridian Institute. Modalities for REDD+ Reference Levels: Technical and Procedural Issues. Meridian Institute, Washington, DC; 2011, prepared for Government of Norway.
62. Kishwan J. Compensated conservation: salvaging forest conservation for India - potential approaches for mitigating climate change. Available from: URL: http://www.icfre.org/file/bcc/web/national%20Workshop/presentations/TS4-1- Kishwan.pdf
63. TNC (The Nature Conservancy). Establishing efficient, equitable and environmentally sound reference emissions levels for REDD+; a stock-flow approach. N.d.
64. WHRC (Woods Hole Research Center). Stock Flow with targets: a mechanism for distribution of incentive payments to reduce emissions from deforestation. 2009. Available from: URL: http://www.whrc.org/policy/pdf/cop15/stockflow-with- targets-cop/pdf
65. Strassburg B, Turner K, Fisher K, Schaeffer R, Lovett A. Reducing emissions from deforestation; the 'combined incentives' mechanism and empirical simulations. Global Environmental Change 2009;19:265-78.
66. Ashton R, Basri C, Boer R, Cosier P, de Fries R, El Ashry M, et al. How to include terrestrial carbon in developing nations in the overall climate change solution. The Terrestrial Carbon Group; 2008.
67. Landis F, Bernauer T. Transfer payments in global climate policy. Nature Climate Change 2012;2:628-33.
68. Morel AC, Morel BF. How could carbon credits for reducing deforestation compete with returns from palm oil: a proposal for a more flexible REDD valuation tool. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2012;31:11-28.
69. FAO. The world's forests. Chapter 2 in The Challenge of Sustainable Forest Management: What Future for the World's Forests. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome; 1993.
70. Skutsch M, McCall MK, Lovett JC. Carbon emissions; dry forests may be easier to manage. Correspondence. Nature 2009;462:567.
71. Mertz O, Mïller D, Sikor T, Hett C, Heinimann A, Castella JC, et al. The forgotten D: challenges of addressing forest degradation in complex mosaic landscapes under REDD+. Geografisk Tidsskrift 2012;112(1):63-76.
72. Herold M, Román-Cuesta RM, Mollicone D, Hirata Y, Van Laake P, Asner GP, et al. Options for monitoring and estimating historical carbon emissions from forest degradation in the context of REDD+. Carbon Balance and Management 2011; p. 7.
73. Asare R (editor). Implications of the Legal and Polivy Framework for Tree and Forest Carbon in Ghana: REDD Opportunities Scoping Exercise. Forest Trends, Washington; 2010.
74. Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Sitoe A, Salomao A. How is REDD+ Unfolding in Southern Africa's dry forests? A Snapshot from Mozambique. Center for International Forestry Research 2011;37:8.
75. Cortez R, Saines R, Griscom B, Martin M, Deo D, Fishbein G, et al. A nested approach to REDD+; structuring effective and transparent incentive mechanisms for REDD+ implementation at multiple scales. Nature Conservancy and Baker McKenzie. 2010; p. 46.
76. Mustalahti I, Bolin A, Boyd E, Paavola J. Can REDD+ Reconcile local priorities and needs with global mitigation benefits? lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania. Ecology and Society 2012;17:1-16.
77. Peskett L, Schreckenberg K, Brown J. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD+ from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environmental Science and Policy 2010;14:216-29.
78. Milne S, Adams B. Market masquerades: uncovering the politics of community-level payments for environmental services in Cambodia. Development and Change 2012;43(1):133-58.
79. UNFCCC/SBSTA Decision 12/CP.17. Guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected and modalities relating to forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels as referred to in decision 1/CP.16. Durban, 2011.
80. Moss N, Nussbaum R, Muchemi J, Halverson E. A review of three REDD+ safeguard initiatives. UN-REDD programme and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank 2011.
81. Community Forestry REDD+ Project Nepal. Operational Guidelines of Forest Carbon Trust Fund 2011.
82. Kimbowa R, Mwayafu D, Njaidi R. Benefit sharing to make REE+ work for communities in Tanzania: the Community Carbon Enterprise model. REDD-Net.2011. Available from: URL: http://www.redd.net.org
83. Stern N. The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury, London; 2006.
84. Ekins P, Kesicki F, Smith AZP. Marginal Abatement Cost Curves: A Call for Caution. A report from the UCL Energy Institute to Greenpeace, London, UK; 2011.