Abstract
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) in tropical countries is now a critical piece of any international agreement that aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. An important issue refers to the distribution of benefits or, in other words, benefit sharing mechanisms. In this paper, I examine the degree of local participation in benefit-sharing mechanisms in the case of the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve in the State of Amazonas, Brazil, and assess how local participation – or lack of it – affects the outcomes, particularly with regard to equity. The analysis seeks to address the gap between theory and practice by considering the main concerns regarding equitable benefit sharing for REDD+, namely, the types of benefits to be distributed, eligible beneficiaries, the structure of benefits, and mechanisms for distributing them, and by identifying the possible negative and positive effects of benefit-sharing mechanisms. In doing so, my aim is to contribute to the more effective design and implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms and to expand debate on the topic. The main research question of this paper is: how important is local participation for achieving equity in benefit-sharing mechanisms for REDD+? The results of this analysis indicate that the adaptation and mitigation goals of REDD+ are more likely to be achieved if the development and implementation of benefit-sharing mechanisms involve democratic and interactive processes for local participation, because such processes will lead to greater flexibility in the definition of benefits and distributional mechanisms. I draw the following conclusions: (1) the criteria for equity should be considered when benefits are defined, rather than when they are distributed and (2) given the complex and diverse relationships and issues involved in deforestation, it is important to adopt a multidimensional approach when identifying beneficiaries and benefits and designing benefit-sharing mechanisms.
Highlights
During the past five years, REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation1) has emerged as a promising instrument for mitigating climate change by compensating tropical countries for preserving their standing forests.2 REDD+ is perceived as an efficient way to mitigate climate change (Southgate 1952; Brown et al 1996; Schneider 1998; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007; Stern 2007; Eliasch 2008) and as a strategic option for fostering adaptation activities (‘co-benefits’) in developing countries (Dutschke and Wolf 2007)
The findings indicate that the design of national policies and measures should include flexible approaches for benefit-sharing mechanisms, which can be adapted to the needs of forest managers and to the area in which the REDD+ scheme is to be developed
In studying the Juma project, this paper aimed to assess the extent of local participation in the sharing of REDD+ benefits in the project and the implications for equity parameters
Summary
During the past five years, REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation1) has emerged as a promising instrument for mitigating climate change by compensating tropical countries for preserving their standing forests. REDD+ is perceived as an efficient way to mitigate climate change (Southgate 1952; Brown et al 1996; Schneider 1998; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007; Stern 2007; Eliasch 2008) and as a strategic option for fostering adaptation activities (‘co-benefits’) in developing countries (Dutschke and Wolf 2007). The introduction of benefits from REDD+ will influence the cultural and economic values that local forest managers attach to forests, and will encourage them either to continue their current behaviour or to change it – for better or for worse. Given that such behaviour occurs at the local level, the equitable and efficient distribution of benefits at that level will be essential for the success of REDD+. It is argued that local participation must play a key role in the development and design of benefit-sharing mechanisms (Griffiths 2008; Peskett et al 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
