Redd In Dryland Forests

Experiences from incentive-based forest management are examined for their effects on the livelihoods of local communities. In the second section, country case studies provide a snapshot of REDD developments to date and identify design features for REDD that would support benefits for forest communities.

Constructive critique. This book provides a critical, evidence-based analysis of REDD+ implementation so far, without losing sight of the urgent need to reduce forest-based emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change. REDD+ as envisioned

As new mechanisms for "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation" (REDD) are being negotiated in international climate change talks, resource tenure must be given greater attention. Tenure over land and trees--the systems of rights, rules, institutions and processes regulating their access and use--will affect the extent to which REDD and related strategies will benefit, or marginalise, forest communities. This report aims to promote debate on the issue. Drawing on experience from seven rainforest countries (Brazil, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guyana, Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea), the report develops a typology of tenure regimes across countries, explores tenure issues in each country, and identifies key challenges to be addressed if REDD is to have equitable and sustainable impact.

This CIFOR Occasional Paper presents research results on challenges experienced by proponents in their efforts to establish REDD+ subnational initiatives in Brazil, Peru, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. On the basis of in-depth interviews with 23 organizations collaborating in CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, it was found that the biggest challenges are tenure and the (currently) disadvantageous economics of REDD+. The study observes several patterns connected with these challenges. Performance-based conditional incentives are judged important but are not as central as once envisioned. Although most organizations are forging ahead with REDD+ in spite of the difficulties, some are drifting away from the label “REDD+.” Most of the organizations rely heavily on “integrated conservation and development” as a mode of operation, which enables them to move forward in anticipation of more favorable conditions for REDD+, but raises questions about whether REDD+ will fulfill its promise as an innovative and more effective form of conservation. The study proposes some options for overcoming the main challenges, and observes that there are some grounds for hope that REDD+ can eventually turn the corner and fulfill its potential for greatly reducing deforestation and forest-based carbon emissions.

The issue of REDD+ benefit sharing has captured the attention of policymakers and local communities because the success of REDD+ will depend greatly on the design and implementation of its benefit?sharing mechanism. Despite a large body of literature on potential benefit?sharing mechanisms for REDD+, the field has lacked global comparative analyses of national REDD+ policies and of the political?economic influences that can either enable or impede the mechanisms. Similarly, relatively few studies have investigated the political?economic principles underlying existing benefit?sharing policies and approaches. This working paper builds on a study of REDD+ policies in 13 countries to provide a global overview and up?to?date profile of benefit?sharing mechanisms for REDD+ and of the political?economic factors affecting their design and setting. Five types of benefit?sharing models relevant to REDD+ and natural resource management are used to create an organising framework for identifying what does and does not work and to examine the structure of rights under REDD+. The authors also consider the mechanisms in light of five prominent discourses on the question of who should benefit from REDD+ and, by viewing REDD+ through a 3E (effectiveness, efficiency, equity) lens, map out some of the associated risks for REDD+ outcomes. Existing benefit?sharing models and REDD+ projects have generated initial lessons for building REDD+ benefit?sharing mechanisms. However, the relevant policies in the 13 countries studied could lead to carbon ineffectiveness, cost inefficiency and inequity because of weak linkages to performance or results, unclear tenure and carbon rights, under?representation of certain actors, technical and financial issues related to the scope and scale of REDD+, potential elite capture and the possible negative side effects of the decentralisation of authority. Furthermore, the enabling factors for achieving 3E benefit?sharing mechanisms are largely absent from the study countries. Whether REDD+ can catalyse the necessary changes will depend in part on how the costs and benefits of REDD+ are shared, and whether the benefits are sufficient to affect a shift in entrenched behaviour and policies at all levels of government. The successful design and implementation of benefit?sharing mechanisms – and hence the legitimacy and acceptance of REDD+ – depend on having clear objectives, procedural equity and an inclusive process and on engaging in a rigorous analysis of the options for benefit sharing and their potential effects on beneficiaries and climate mitigation efforts.