No abstract

No abstract

In 2007, REDD+ emerged as the leading option for early climate change mitigation. In 2010, after the failure of negotiations at the Copenhagen COP, observers cited REDD+ projects and other subnational initiatives as examples of the polycentric governance (based on multiple independent actors operating at multiple levels) necessary to move climate change mitigation forward in the absence of a binding international agreement. This paper examines the ways subnational initiatives can and cannot play this role, based on the experiences and opinions of 23 REDD+ proponent organizations in six countries. These proponents have tested various approaches to climate change mitigation, demonstrating the value of a polycentric approach for promoting innovation and learning. However, from our sample, six initiatives have closed, four no longer label themselves as REDD+, only four are selling carbon credits, and less than half view conditional incentives (initially the core innovation of REDD+) as their most important intervention. While polycentric governance in REDD+ has benefits, it will not enable implementation of REDD+ as originally conceived unless accompanied by a binding international agreement.En 2007, la REDD+ est apparue comme la solution prépondérante en matière d'atténuation précoce du changement climatique. En 2010, après l'échec des négociations à la COP de Copenhague, les observateurs ont mis en avant les projets et les autres initiatives infranationales de REDD+ en tant qu'exemples de la gouvernance polycentrique (reposant sur plusieurs acteurs indépendants intervenant à des niveaux différents) nécessaire pour faire avancer l'atténuation du changement climatique en l'absence d'accord international contraignant. Le présent article examine les cas dans lesquels les initiatives infranationales peuvent effectivement jouer ce rôle et ceux dans lesquels elles ne le peuvent pas, à partir de l'analyse d'expériences et d'opinions collectées auprès de 23 organisations promotrices d'initiatives REDD+ dans six pays. L'étude des diverses approches de l'atténuation du changement climatique testées par ces promoteurs de la REDD+ met en évidence l'intérêt d'une approche polycentrique de la promotion de l'innovation et de l'apprentissage. Cependant, parmi les initiatives de l'échantillon étudié, six n'existent plus, quatre ne se considèrent plus comme relevant du mécanisme REDD+, quatre seulement commercialisent des crédits carbone, et moins de la moitié considèrent les incitations conditionnelles (l'innovation centrale de la REDD+ au départ) comme leur intervention la plus importante. Si la gouvernance polycentrique de la REDD+ comporte des avantages, elle ne permettra pas de mettre en oeuvre le mécanisme comme il avait été conçu à l'origine si elle n'est pas accompagnée d'un accord international contraignant.

Abstract:In addition to being a global strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from tropical deforestation, Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) intends to protect and improve the well-being and income of local stakeholders. The intention is to provide livelihood support in exchange for local stakeholder involvement in protecting forests. Eleven years after the launch of REDD+ at COP 11 in Montreal, the degree of success in meeting well-being and income goals is examined in six countries (Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, Vietnam) at 22 initiatives, 149 villages, and approximately 4000 households through a counter-factual approach. Half the villages and households are inside and half are outside the sphere of REDD+. Measurements are made at two points in time (2010-2012, and 2013-2014). This paper focuses on measurement of the subjective perception of local stakeholders. The study finds that REDD+ has not contributed significantly to perceived well-being and income sufficiency, in spite of the fact that most households have not only engaged with REDD+ interventions, but view them favorably. REDD+'s limited achievement to date is due to unavailability of funding, among other obstacles. Recommendations are made for enhanced attention to well-being and income sufficiency in the event that REDD+ eventually takes off.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) in developing countries is based on the premise that conserving tropical forests is a cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions and therefore can be fully funded by international actors with obligations or interests in reducing emissions. However, concerns have repeatedly been raised about whether stakeholders in REDD+ host countries will actually end up bearing the costs of REDD+. Most prior analyses of the costs of REDD+ have focused on the opportunity costs of foregone alternative uses of forest land. We draw on a pan-tropical study of 22 subnational REDD+ initiatives in five countries to explore patterns in implementation costs, including which types of organizations are involved and which are sharing the costs of implementing REDD+. We find that many organizations involved in the implementation of REDD+, particularly at the subnational level and in the public sector, are bearing implementation costs not covered by the budgets of the REDD+ initiatives. To sustain this level of cost-sharing, REDD+ must be designed to deliver local as well as global forest benefits.

Global Comparative Study on REDD+ii

No abstract

No abstract