Abstract

REDD+ is an important development in environmental and social justice policy instruments. However, its success depends on a network of complex contingencies, and the achievement of difficult governance transformations in countries that are under severe economic pressure. It ought be obvious that there are significant risks associated with this endeavour, but overt risk management, using standard approaches, is not evident. This paper highlights some of the many risks that the governance of REDD+ (in common with most environmental policy innovations) needs to pay attention to in order to avoid policy failure. There are eight distinct elements that have to work for the REDD+ program to achieve its public policy goals, and each of these carries its own risk. These are: securitisation of carbon sequestration; protection for complex non-carbon values, ensuring the integrity of the supply of credit; multi-level administration and aggregation of tradeable carbon interests; managing the social and economic imbalance of interests; deploying new methods for measurement and securitisation of interests; ensuring a platform of rules, administrative and enforcement systems, teams and intelligence networks; and achieving price and ‘brand’ competitiveness in a crowded carbon offsets marketplace. Although the issues listed in this paper are not comprehensive, they highlight major concerns and support the argument that a comprehensive and systematic approach to policy risk is likely to add value to the REDD+ implementation. The paper suggests that good management practice would separate risk management from policy or instrument development, and embed this aspect of good governance with a sufficient level of authority to ensure that the negative potentials are managed with a degree of vigour consistent with the importance of the issues.

Highlights

  • Much has been written about the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, plus the role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enahancement of Forest Carbon Stocks (REDD+)

  • The literature rarely responds to the questions: ‘Is REDD+ a good thing, or a bad thing?’ In part this reflects the ‘capital versus labour’ dimensions of the political contests that dominated the start of the 20th Century, but in the greater part it reflects that the outcomes of REDD+ are dependent upon an array of often very complex contingencies

  • It is clear that the failure to establish infrastructures and capacities will prejudice achievement of the REDD+ objectives

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Much has been written about the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, plus the role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enahancement of Forest Carbon Stocks (REDD+). Effective implementation of REDD+ requires significant investment in science and technical infrastructures (such as measurement and verification techniques and technologies), legal and institutional reforms, new financial instruments and transacting mechanisms, and the development of the capacities required to make this innovation work. It is clear that the failure to establish infrastructures and capacities will prejudice achievement of the REDD+ objectives. Implementing REDD+ is intrinsically a multi-layered institutional and behavioural change program that is moving at a feverish pace. Major adjustments are required that span the roles of industry and finance

International Journal of Rural Law and Policy
Pragmatics and instruments
Intrinsic risks of monetisation
Complexity and transaction costs
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call