4.3 Article

Risks to REDD plus : potential pitfalls for policy design and implementation

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Volume 44, Issue 1, Pages 44-55

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0376892916000412

Keywords

REDD; governance; benefit sharing; carbon rights; risks; multilevel governance; policy implementation; climate change

Funding

  1. European Commission [DCIENV/2011/269520]
  2. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)
  3. Australian Agency for International Development
  4. UK Government of the Department for International Development (UKAID)
  5. CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA)
  6. CGIAR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

International negotiations for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were finally concluded in 2015. However, due to the complex design and implementation processes of REDD+ policies and measures, including benefit sharing at national and subnational levels, several challenges exist for sustainably reducing emissions while simultaneously managing the provision of social and environmental side-objectives. We review the realities of REDD+ implementation in 13 REDD+ candidate countries and the risks related to REDD+ policies and benefit sharing based upon a synthesis of the findings presented in 'country profiles' that were developed between 2009 and 2013 as part of the Center for International Forestry Research's (CIFOR) Global Comparative Study on REDD+. We find that REDD+ policies in all countries studied are at high risk of ineffectiveness, inequity and inefficiency. By classifying these risks and understanding not only their impacts on different stakeholder groups, but also the consequences for achieving specific objectives, countries can identify solutions in order to address these shortcomings in their implementation of REDD+.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available