Image Database Export Citations


Who Should Benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Realities

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Luttrell, Cecilia
dc.contributor.author Loft, Lasse
dc.contributor.author Gebara, Maria Fernanda
dc.contributor.author Kweka, Demetrius
dc.contributor.author Brockhaus, Maria
dc.contributor.author Angelsen, Arild
dc.contributor.author Sunderlin, William D.
dc.date.accessioned 2014-01-23T20:52:50Z
dc.date.available 2014-01-23T20:52:50Z
dc.date.issued 2013 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10535/9212
dc.description.abstract "Benefit-sharing mechanisms are a central design aspect of REDD+ because they help to create the necessary incentives to reduce carbon emissions. However, if stakeholders do not perceive the benefit sharing as fair, the legitimacy of REDD+, and support for the mechanism, will be weakened. In this paper, drawing on data from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+, we analyze national policy processes in 6 countries and incipient benefit-sharing arrangements in 21 REDD+ project sites. Through our analysis of current practices and debates, we identify six rationales that have been put forward to justify how benefits should be distributed and to whom. These rationales encompass a range of perspectives. Some hold that benefit sharing should be related to actual carbon emission reductions or to costs incurred in achieving the reduction of emissions; others emphasize the importance of a legal right to benefit, the need to consider aspects such as poverty reduction or the appropriateness of rewarding those with a history of protecting the forest. Each rationale has implications for the design of benefit-sharing mechanisms and the equity of their outcomes. We point out that, given the wide range of rationales and interests at play, the objectives of REDD+ and benefit sharing must be clearly established and the term 'benefit' defined before effective benefit-sharing mechanisms can be designed. For stakeholders to support REDD+, the legitimacy of decision-making institutions, consideration of context, and attention to process are critical. Building legitimacy requires attention not only to fair distributional outcomes but also to consensus on relevant institutions’ authority to make decisions and to procedural equity." en_US
dc.language English en_US
dc.subject equity en_US
dc.subject REDD en_US
dc.subject cost en_US
dc.title Who Should Benefit from REDD+? Rationales and Realities en_US
dc.type Journal Article en_US
dc.type.published published en_US
dc.type.methodology Case Study en_US
dc.subject.sector Forestry en_US
dc.identifier.citationjournal Ecology and Society en_US
dc.identifier.citationvolume 18 en_US
dc.identifier.citationnumber 4 en_US
dc.identifier.citationmonth December en_US

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
ES-2013-5834.pdf 344.9Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following document type(s)

Show simple item record