4.7 Article

Framing national REDD plus benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.002

Keywords

REDD; Comparative discourse analysis; Co-benefits; Market-based approach; MRV; Centralization

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation
  2. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
  3. Australian Agency for International Development
  4. UK Department for International Development
  5. European Commission
  6. Wageningen School of Social Sciences
  7. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/K006576/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. ESRC [ES/K006576/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article analyzes how and with what possible consequences REDD+ is framed in the national policy arena in Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Tanzania, and Vietnam. It analyzes the most prominent views and storylines around key REDD+ design features among policy actors and in policy documents. We focus on storylines related to four questions, namely: (1) What should REDD+ achieve: carbon or also non-carbon objectives? (2) Who should monitor REDD+ outcomes: only technical experts or also local communities? (3) At what level should REDD+ be governed: at national or sub national level? and (4) How should REDD+ be financed: through market- or fund-based sources? The vast majority of policy actors and policy documents frame REDD+ as a mechanism that should also realize non-carbon benefits, yet non-carbon monitoring receives very little attention. In all but one country, policy documents contain plans to involve local communities in the design and/or execution of measuring, reporting and verifying REDD+ outcomes. With regard to the level at which REDD+ should be governed, while most policy documents contain elements of a nested approach to accounting, almost all countries envision a long-term transition to national accounting and benefit distribution. We found strikingly little discussion among policy actors and in policy documents of how to finance REDD+ and acquire results-based payments. In the conclusion we reflect on possible consequences of the prominence of REDD+ storylines in the seven countries, and argue that carbonization and centralization of forest governance are possible outcomes given the limited attention to non-carbon monitoring and the envisioned centralized approaches to REDD+. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available