What is the right scale for REDD?: The implications of national, subnational and nested approaches

Abstract

Three proposals on the geographical level or scale of REDD accounting and incentive mechanisms are under discussion: direct support to projects (subnational levels), direct support to countries (national level), or a hybrid (‘nested’) approach combining the two. A subnational or project approach allows for early involvement and wide participation and is attractive to private investors. However, it may su er from leakage (increased emissions outside project boundaries) and cannot address the broader forces driving deforestation and forest degradation. A national approach allows pursuit of a broad set of policies, addresses domestic leakage and creates country ownership. In the short to medium term, however, a national approach will be feasible for only a few countries, as it does not work well in situations susceptible to governance failures; it may also be less likely to mobilise private investment or local government involvement. A nested approach is the most exible mechanism. It allows countries to start REDD e orts through subnational activities and gradually move to a national approach, or for the coexistence of the two approaches in a system where REDD credits are generated by projects and governments, thus maximising the potential of both approaches. However, the nested approach presents the challenge of harmonisation between the two levels. What is the right scale for REDD? The implications of national, subnational and nested approaches