Explore the vast range of titles available.

Benefit-sharing mechanisms are a central design aspect of REDD+ because they help to create the necessary incentives to reduce carbon emissions. However, if stakeholders do not perceive the benefit sharing as fair, the legitimacy of REDD+, and support for the mechanism, will be weakened. In this paper, drawing on data from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, we analyze national policy processes in 6 countries and incipient benefit-sharing arrangements in 21 REDD+ project sites. Through our analysis of current practices and debates, we identify six rationales that have been put forward to justify how benefits should be distributed and to whom. These rationales encompass a range of perspectives. Some hold that benefit sharing should be related to actual carbon emission reductions or to costs incurred in achieving the reduction of emissions; others emphasize the importance of a legal right to benefit, the need to consider aspects such as poverty reduction or the appropriateness of rewarding those with a history of protecting the forest. Each rationale has implications for the design of benefit-sharing mechanisms and the equity of their outcomes. We point out that, given the wide range of rationales and interests at play, the objectives of REDD+ and benefit sharing must be clearly established and the term “benefit” defined before effective benefit-sharing mechanisms can be designed. For stakeholders to support REDD+, the legitimacy of decision-making institutions, consideration of context, and attention to process are critical. Building legitimacy requires attention not only to fair distributional outcomes but also to consensus on relevant institutions’ authority to make decisions and to procedural equity.

Gaëtan BAILLY, Les usages traditionnels de l’eau à l’épreuve du droit de l’environnement, sous la direction de Philippe Billet, Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3, 2018, 633 pages. Julien DELLAUX, Le mécanisme visant la conservation des forêts tropicales de la convention-cadre sur les changements climatiques (REDD ) : illustration de l’adaptativité du droit international, sous la direction de Sandrine Maljean-Dubois et Marcelo D. Varella, Université Aix-Marseille et Centre universitaire de Brasilia (UniCEUB, 2017), 726 pages. Thomas LECLERC, Les mesures correctives des émissions aériennes de gaz à effet de serre. Contribution à l’étude des interactions entre les ordres juridiques en droit international public, en cotutelle, sous la direction de Loïc Grard (université de Bordeaux) et de Pablo Mendes de Leon (université de Leiden aux Pays-Bas), 2017, 601 pages.

Halting forest loss and achieving sustainable development in an equitable manner require state, non-state actors, and entire societies in the Global North and South to tackle deeply established patterns of inequality and power relations embedded in forest frontiers. Forest and climate governance in the Global South can provide an avenue for the transformational change needed—yet, does it? We analyse the politics and power in four cases of mitigation, adaptation, and development arenas. We use a political economy lens to explore the transformations taking place when climate policy meets specific forest frontiers in the Global South, where international, national and local institutions, interests, ideas, and information are at play. We argue that lasting and equitable outcomes will require a strong discursive shift within dominant institutions and among policy actors to redress policies that place responsibilities and burdens on local people in the Global South, while benefits from deforestation and maladaptation are taken elsewhere. What is missing is a shared transformational objective and priority to keep forests standing among all those involved from afar in the major forest frontiers in the tropics.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) has gained international attention over the past decade, as manifested in both United Nations policy discussions and hundreds of voluntary projects launched to earn carbon-offset credits. There are ongoing discussions about whether and how projects should be integrated into national climate change mitigation efforts under the Paris Agreement. One consideration is whether these projects have generated additional impacts over and above national policies and other measures. To help inform these discussions, we compare the crediting baselines established ex-ante by voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon to counterfactuals constructed ex-post based on the quasi-experimental synthetic control method. We find that the crediting baselines assume consistently higher deforestation than counterfactual forest loss in synthetic control sites. This gap is partially due to decreased deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon during the early implementation phase of the REDD+ projects considered here. This suggests that forest carbon finance must strike a balance between controlling conservation investment risk and ensuring the environmental integrity of carbon emission offsets. Relatedly, our results point to the need to better align project- and national-level carbon accounting.

The implementation of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) projects has become a key Nature Based Solutions strategy to protect at-risk forests using the sale of verified emission reductions (carbon credits) as financing, generated by reducing forest loss against counterfactual baseline scenarios. Controversy over the reasonableness of such baseline scenarios has thrown this nascent market mechanism into disarray. While new technical approaches to baseline-setting that promise wider market acceptance are set to roll out in the coming years, existing projects are becoming unviable, as carbon credit buyers reduce investment due to lost confidence in the integrity of emissions reduction claims. Transparent, reproducible methods to assess existing REDD+ project baselines are needed in order to provide a clearer picture of the real impact of projects, and provide an objective basis on which investment decisions can be made today. Here we introduce such a method. In contrast to existing studies which utilize only one method to create a single ‘control,’ we integrate actual forest loss rates from a variety of control sites to establish a ‘zone of reasonable accuracy (or ZORA)’. Application of our method in Cambodia, using two geospatial datasets (one global and one locally calibrated), shows that all three project baselines fall within or below ZORA. This approach is fully reproducible, and provides a transparent way for analysts to assess REDD+ baselines during this critical time when investment in forest protection must increase dramatically and without delay.

Topographic variables such as slope and elevation partially explain spatial variations in aboveground biomass (AGB) within landscapes. Human activities that impact vegetation, such as cattle grazing and shifting cultivation, often follow topographic features and also play a key role in determining AGB patterns, although these effects may be moderated by accessibility. In this study, we evaluated the potential to predict AGB in a rural landscape, using a set of topographical variables in combination with indicators of accessibility. We modeled linear and non‐linear relationships between AGB, topographic variables within the territorial boundaries of six rural communities, and distance to roads. Linear models showed that elevation, slope, topographic wetness index, and tangential curvature could explain up to 21% of AGB. Non‐linear models found threshold values for the relationship between AGB and diffuse insolation, topographic position index at 19 × 19 pixels scale and differentiated between groups of communities, improving AGB predictions to 33%. We also found a continuous and positive effect on AGB with increased distance from roads, but also a piecewise relationship that improves the understanding of intensity of human activities. These findings could enable AGB baselines to be constructed at landscape level using freely available data from topographic maps. Such baselines may be of use in national programs under the international policy Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation.

Hundreds of projects to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks (REDD+) are implemented globally, many by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or for-profit companies. Yet, at the global level, the Paris Agreement focuses on jurisdictional (national and subnational) REDD+. We ask: (1) How much can REDD+ projects contribute to achieving national and international climate objectives? (2) What are the issues in integrating REDD+ projects into national carbon accounting? Our snapshot of 377 REDD+ projects covering 53 million ha in 56 countries is based on data from the International Database on REDD+ Projects (ID-RECCO) supplemented with new data on projects’ accounting methods. The number of new REDD+ projects declined steadily from 45 new projects in 2011 to five in 2019. We examined 161 certified projects that started between 2007 and 2017; 96 of these could sell carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets by 2020 and spent on average 4.7 (± 2.4) years between project start and sales in voluntary carbon markets. Globally, REDD+ projects claim to reduce an average of 3.67 tCO2e/ha annually. This figure - combined with projects limited coverage - implies that projects need to be upscaled more than 40x to fulfil the potential contribution of tropical and subtropical forests towards limiting global warming to well below 2oC. Compared to the national carbon accounting methods, most projects in Colombia, Indonesia and Peru (63 of 86) use at least one different carbon accounting parameter. Carbon accounting inconsistencies across levels need to be addressed. Overall, the argument for REDD+ projects lies in the emissions reductions they can achieve, diversifying participation in REDD+ and providing non-carbon benefits to local communities, potentially leading to broader support for climate action.

The scope of the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) mechanism has broadened REDD+ to accommodate different country interests such as natural forests, protected areas, as well as forests under community-based management. In Tanzania the REDD+ mechanism is still under development and pilot projects are at an early stage. In this paper, we seek to understand how local priorities and needs could be met in REDD+ implementation and how these expectations match with global mitigation benefits. We examine the local priorities and needs in the use of land and forest resources in the Angai Villages Land Forest Reserve (AVLFR) in the Liwale District of Lindi Region in Tanzania. Primary data was collected in two villages, Mihumo and Lilombe, using semistructured key informant interviews and participatory rural appraisal methods. In addition, the key informant interviews were conducted with other village, district, and national level actors, as well as international donors. Findings show that in the two communities REDD+ is seen as something new and is generating new expectations among communities. However, the Angai villagers highlight three key priorities that have yet to be integrated into the design of REDD+: water scarcity, rural development, and food security. At the local level improved forest governance and sustainable management of forest resources have been identified as one way to achieve livelihood diversification. Although the national goals of REDD+ include poverty reduction, these goals are not necessarily conducive to the goals of these communities. There exist both structural and cultural limits to the ability of the Angai villages to implement these goals and to improve forestry governance. Given the vulnerability to current and future climate variability and change it will be important to consider how the AVLFR will be managed and for whose benefit?

The expansion of cocoa farms is a major driver of deforestation and emissions in Ghana’s high forest zone. The Ghana Cocoa Forest Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Program (REDD+) was launched as the world’s first commodity-based initiative to address emissions from deforestation caused by cocoa production and generate non-carbon benefits. Hotspot Intervention Areas were established to implement the Ghana Cocoa REDD+ program. This study combines Q-methodology with focus group discussions and interviews to assess stakeholder perceptions in the Juabuso-Bia cocoa landscape regarding the capacity of the Hotspot Intervention Area to facilitate the generation of governance and economic non-carbon benefits to sustain emission reductions. We found that introducing the Hotspot Intervention Area has re-centralized landscape governance, which, coupled with weak collaboration among stakeholders, has led to poor generation of non-carbon benefits. Furthermore, efforts to include women in the leadership structure of the Hotspot Intervention Area can be described as tokenism, and little has been done to improve land and tree tenure for vulnerable groups. This, combined with the low adoption of climate-smart cocoa practices, is likely to negatively affect the generation of economic non-carbon benefits. To overcome these challenges, we recommend reforming the Hotspot Intervention Area, bolstering community-level sensitization, improving access to decision-making spaces that will enhance the participation of women and minority groups in landscape governance, and improving farmers’ tenure security through a registration scheme for land and trees. These recommendations can ensure the efficient generation of non-carbon benefits, which are key to the success of REDD+.

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.