Transcript 3e actielijn Focus 2006 - The Fletcher School of Law and

REDD+
Interdisciplinary &
institutional interaction perspectives
Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers
Wageningen University & Research Centre
(WUR)


Forest and Nature
Conservation Policy
Group (FNP)
Social science
perspectives on forest
and nature
conservation
International forest, nature & biodiversity
governance

Research embedded in
debates on regimes
and GEG
REDD@WUR network



Around 80 researchers part of network
Research on wide range of topics (MRV, PES,
forest management, co-benefits, governance,
policy) in almost 30 countries
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
2012 issue 6 on REDD+ with 17 review articles
REDD+: setting the scene




Reducing emissions from deforestation, forest
degradation; and the role of conservation, sustainable
management of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks in developing countries
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)
Basic idea: pay developing countries for using forests
sustainably
Placed on UNFCCC agenda in 2005
Parallel initiatives




Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the World
Bank
Forest Investment Programme (FIP) of WB
UN-REDD
Support developing countries in ‘getting ready’ for REDD+




Developing countries are developing national strategies
Pilot projects
Financing ‘readiness activities’
Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA)
REDD+ from forest policy perspective





REDD+ as the latest international attempt to address
deforestation
1992 no forest convention
Since then UNFF, CBD, UNFCCC
Lacey Act , EU FLEGT
How can REDD+ do what other international initiatives
have only partly achieved?
Two approaches to REDD+


Interdisciplinary
Institutional interaction & interaction management
Will REDD+ work?



How, where and when will REDD+ work?
Issues of scope, scale and pace
Different views on ‘work’


Prioritization different activities
Fundamental critique: Do we want REDD+ to work?
Complexity versus simplicity: How will
REDD+ work?

Two main discussions on scope


Co-benefits and safeguards
Activities to include
Biodiversity and social co-benefits


To what extent should
biodiversity and livelihoods
concerns be incorporated?
Co-benefits and
safeguards
 Part of negotiations and
other initiatives
 Scientific discussions
Scientific co-benefits debate


Ecologists focus on biodiversity co-benefits
 In beginning: REDD+ would ‘automatically’ also
conserve biodiversity
 Current consensus: biodiversity concerns need to be
incorporated into design in order to maximize
biodiversity contribution REDD+
Social scientists focus on social co-benefits
 First: worried about REDD+ worsening situation local
communities
 Now more focused on prerequisites equitable REDD+
2nd scope debate: Activities to include


RED – REDD – REDD+
Should main driver – agriculture – be
incorporated, and how?
Expanded scope makes REDD+ more
complex

Choices between assuring success and feasibility
Interdisciplinary approach to REDD+


Most research to date disciplinary
Current questions need interdisciplinary approach





How MRV can incorporate co-benefits
Strengthening technical and governance capacity of
developing countries for REDD+
Identifying environmental and social impacts
Drivers and how to address them
Support actors in dealing with inherent complexity of
REDD+
Institutional interaction & interaction
management





Embedded in regime literature
Since 1990s: regime or institutional interaction
Last decade/years: interaction management
Important authors: Oberthür, Gehring, Stokke
My contributions
 further development literature
 Apply new approaches to REDD+
1. Public-private interaction management



FCPF, UN-REDD and CCBA influenced UNFCCC by
simply starting with REDD+ activities
CCBA literally ‘set the standard’ for inclusive REDD+
UNFCCC leaves safeguards to national governments;
other (public-private) initiatives ‘demand’ safeguards
2. National level: interactions REDD+ and
FLEGT in Ghana



Shows the huge potential for synergies between
FLEGT and REDD+ in Ghana
Only few negative influences discovered, e.g.
current focus on REDD+ can take away attention
from FLEGT
Interaction management needed to realize
synergies
3. Practice-based approach




How interactions are managed in practice
FCPF, UN-REDD and FIP started out competing with
each other; partners demanded they work together
Current common ‘umbrella framework’ for step-wise
approach for REDD+ readiness
‘Meta interaction management’: Developing new
structures to address serious problems in interactions
Step-wise approach to REDD+ Readiness
REDD+ publications







Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Interdisciplinary perspectives on REDD+. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability. 2012.
Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary science to
address key challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012.
Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates
on the breadth of REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012.
Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Verkooijen P. The Practice of Interaction Management:
Enhancing Synergies among Multilateral REDD+ Institutions. In: Arts B et al. (eds).
Forest and nature governance: A practice-based approach. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012.
p. 133-49.
Ochieng RM et al. Interaction between the FLEGT-VPA and REDD+ in Ghana:
Recommendations for interaction management. Forest Policy and Economics. 2012.
Somorin OA et al. The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: Policy discourses on
adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Global Environmental Change. 2012;22(1):288-98.
Visseren-Hamakers IJ et al. Interaction Management by Partnerships: The Case of
Biodiversity and Climate Change. Global Environmental Politics. 2011. 11(4):89-107.
Thanks for your attention!
[email protected]