ESSAY 3 Revised

8/10/2019 ESSAY 3 Revised

1/5

1.Introduction

REDD+ initially started as a suggestion that reducing deforestation is acontribution that developing countries can make towards the global

eorts to mitigate climate change. Being in compliance with Article of the !ramework "onvention on "limate "hange #!"""$ and withthenew incentives gaining momentum% REDD+ strategies aim toReduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation%sustainably manage forests and moreover create carbon stocks. &heaim of this essay is to critically analyse the potential of thesestrategies in achieving environmental 'ustice at global% national andsub(national level. ) will try to analyse some of the key challengesrelated to REDD+ governance and further implications% which in turnmay result in negative outcomes in terms of e*ciency% eectivenessand euity. &he analysis will focus on the implications on the premises

and conditions for REDD+ schemes such as land tenure% propertyrights% agency and legitimacy of these policies. &he essay will showthat the implications of having a polycentric governance withoutclearly de,ned property rights and with issues in legitimacy% bringsdi*culties in implementing REDD+ schemes successfully% runs the riskof creating marginalisation% especially in local communities.

-. REDD+ governance and implications

REDD+ is a polycentric governance process with many overlappingarenas of authority and responsibility eisting for the regulation of /0/emissions caused by deforestation and forest degradation. )t isimportant to be aware that the centres and arenas of authorities ofsuch strategies eist at all scales% from local indigenous communitiesto national governments. REDD+ reuires a multiplicity of actors withdierent power who are initiated by dierent types of interests. Allthese in1uence each other and their point of view may or may notcoincide in how the respective REDD+ strategies may be implemented.# /23ER4)4/ A4D )567E5E4&)4/ RED$.

-.8 REDD+ globally

&he creation of such governance scheme came as a response of theindustrialised /lobal 4orth countries to compensate for historicalemissions and therefore pay the costs. As mentioned above the goal ofREDD+ is not only to reduce emissions% but also to create carbonstocks. &heoretically this seems an easy and legitimate task% but itsreal implementation has brought up many challenges to face


2/5

)ndustrialised countries% being historically responsible for contributingto the climate change% are thought that should fully compensate thecosts of their actions. 0owever%it is very clear that 4orthern "ountriesare not willing to commit to deep reductions with the 9: climatelegislation committing to ;< reductions and E9 to -;< by -;-;.

Additionally% the creation of a carbon market where emissions will betraded from :outh to 4ord% will not contribute to emission reductions ina global scale leaving space for the :outhern countries to claim theirhistorical ecological debt and climate change will therefore continue tothreaten our ecosystems.#7overa% -;;=$.

Another key issue in the successful implementation of REDD+strategies is legitimacy. )t concerns the way in which rules and policiesare negotiated% implemented and controlled by the actors involved.&he inclusion of all the stakeholders in the design and implementationof REDD+ strategies could be achieved by being informed of facts and

outcomes% being consulted or asked for feedback and beingempowered in decision making. 0owever% there is substantial evidenceshowing that partnerships between the 4orth and the :outh lackaccountability with an improper balance of the 4orth countries beingdominant in decision making and leaving out developing countries.#Biermann% -;;>$.

-.- REDD+ nationally

5any scholars consider REDD+ strategies to be based on the notion of6E: #6ayment for Ecosystem$ scheme which is de,ned by Engel et al.#-;;?@>>$ as a voluntary transaction where a well(de,nedenvironmental service is being boughtC by a service buyer from aservice provider if and only if the service provider secures serviceprovision #conditionality$. 5oreover% #"obrera et al% -;88$ considerREDD+ the largest 6E: eperiment which commodi,es ecosystemservices. 0owever% many authors are very critical to the top(downapproach in terms of participation and policy implementation ofREDD+ funding organisations% such as the orld Bank !orest "arbon

6artnership !acility and the 94(REDD programme. &he main reason forsuch criticism is transparency in the selection criteria of who should beentitled in trading and bene,tting the ecosystem services and thusreproduce uneual access to public goods. #FosoyG"obrera -;8;$./enerally% national governments select the most marginalisedcommunities which depend their livelihoods on forest managementbecause the poor sell cheap #5artineH(Alier% -;;-$


3/5

-.I REDD+ locally

REDD+ governance scheme involves implications of legal pluralismand when multiple legal systems work side by side% it has impacts onthe understanding of property rights. &his is because there will be

multiple systems through which one can claim these rights% makingwell(de,ned property rights and land tenure is almost impossible toachieve #5einHen( Dick and 6radhan% -;;-$.

7and tenure consists of a bundle of rights which determine who isresponsible for forest management and conservation% who is entitled tocarbon rights and therefore who will be liable for future carbon losses.!urthermore% we might consider the cases where we have unclearproperty rightsJ some people only have access% while other peoplehave the right to manage a property% and these rights might also bedependent on the legal system used. &he state might consider the

owner of the land to have full property rights% while customary lawsenable locals to pick fruit on the land or to let their cattle graHe. 4otunderstanding how the property rights work in the place a 6E: andKor aREDD+ scheme is implemented% can thus lead to additional ineualityfor the local population #Fosoy and "orbera% -;8;$. 3atn #-;;;$ alsoargues% that normally ecosystem services are not formally owned%making it very di*cult to clearly de,ne property rights. &he use of amarket based strategy% brings out the fact that the all the negativeimpacts are oset to the /lobal :outhJ with weaker negotiatingposition% no legal land tenure and poorer communities. #7overa% -;;=$.ithin these communities gender ineualities also rise out due to the

fact that women have less advantages as they are not awarded inmonetary terms and often only hold secondary property rights. #Fnoet al% -;88$.

&he creation of a market for carbon osets% raises uestion ofevaluation of ecosystem services in general. hen implementing aREDD+ scheme it is necessary to decide how much the service isworth. hen doing so monetary valuation is dominant% thus ecludingother valuation languages #Fallis et al.% -;8I$. &his is a problem whenlocal people with dierent property rights are using the ecosystem indierent ways% and so value it dierently. &his makes valuation both

di*cult and uncertain% while also hiding the social values that theecosystem service has for the local community #Fosoy and "orbera%-;8;$. 5oreover% local communities claim that imperfect informationabout carbon markets and payment methods are very unclear to theforest( dependent communities leaving them with a sense ofdisempowerment% since they are not considered active actors indecision making #:kutch et al% -;88$.


4/5

I. !inal thoughts

&his essay has omitted important considerations in the governanceaspect of REDD+ schemes. &o achieve forest conservation andenhance carbon stocks% REDD+ must take in consideration the interest

of all stakeholders.)mplications of legal pluralism and a polycentricgovernance combined with proper lack of land tenure% property rightsand legitimacy% show that there is still much work to do for REDD+program designers in order to enclose environmental goals withenvironmental 'ustice. Decision(makers need to coordinate theirchoices that will not only aect emission reductions in global level% butalso will aect to the etent of house(hold level #5ahanty% $. At theinternational levels it is important to give access and voice todeveloping countries and marginalised communities in order to providea more accurate information about REDD+ and include localknowledge of ecosystems in further policies #7yster% -;88$. !inally as

5ary ". &hompson%5analiBaruah and Eduard R. "arr say &he costs toforest(dependant people are likely to be irreversible and REDD+ willcome to represent another addition to a long history of marginaliHationof vulnerable groups% if all these challenges are not dealt withsuccessfully.


5/5

Documents

ESSAY 3 Revised