REDD+ initiatives for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services: harmonizing sets of standards for national application

In the context of growing concerns about environmental aspects of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (acronym REDD+), we conducted a comparative analysis of three sets of globally-applicable standards and one instrument of REDD+ initiatives for safeg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of forest research 2014-10, Vol.19 (5), p.427-436
Main Authors: Ehara, Makoto, Hyakumura, Kimihiko, Yokota, Yasuhiro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biodiversity
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Carbon
climate
Climate change
Comparative analysis
Deforestation
Design standards
Developing countries
Ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Emission standards
Emissions
Emissions control
Environmental aspects
Forest degradation
Forestry
Forestry Management
Forests
Greenhouse gases
Land degradation
LDCs
Life Sciences
monitoring
Original Article
Plant Ecology
Plant Sciences
REDD
Safeguard standards
SESA
Studies
Tree Biology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the context of growing concerns about environmental aspects of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (acronym REDD+), we conducted a comparative analysis of three sets of globally-applicable standards and one instrument of REDD+ initiatives for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services: (1) social and environmental principles and criteria, (2) REDD+ social and environmental standards, (3) climate, community, and biodiversity project design standards, and (4) strategic environmental and social assessment. We found that their projected proximal outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystem service treatments, and approaches to achieve them, are not uniform (e.g., differences in spatial coverage for expecting positive impacts, prioritized REDD+ activities, and expected level of rigor in biodiversity and ecosystem service monitoring). We also found that all four include identification of the priority areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services, plus monitoring and mitigation of the negative impacts of REDD+ activities. These all require substantial time and resources to fully address what the three standards and the instrument actually stipulate. We thus propose options for harmonizing their use to facilitate scaling-up of efforts to strengthen safeguards, from the project level to the national level, while respecting individual national contexts and taking advantage of each standard’s characteristics.
ISSN:1341-6979
1610-7403
DOI:10.1007/s10310-013-0429-7