Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries

• Published in: Global environmental change 2016-07, Vol.39, p.57-68
• Main Authors: Vijge, Marjanneke J., Brockhaus, Maria, Di Gregorio, Monica, Muharrom, Efrian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accounting; Arenas; Cameroon; Carbon; Centralization; Co-benefits; Communities; Comparative analysis; Comparative discourse analysis; Environmental monitoring; Environmental policy; Finance; Indonesia; Market-based approach; Monitoring; MRV; Nepal; Papua New Guinea; Peru; Policies; REDD; Tanzania; Vietnam
• ISSN: 0959-3780; 1872-9495
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.002

•We analyze how REDD+ is framed at the national level in 7 countries.•Almost all countries frame co-benefits as important, yet few plan to monitor them.•Most countries (eventually) plan a national approach to REDD+ accounting.•Hence, carbonization and centralization of forest governance are likely to occur.•REDD+ financing receives very little attention, in contrast to community monitoring. This article analyzes how and with what possible consequences REDD+ is framed in the national policy arena in Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Tanzania, and Vietnam. It analyzes the most prominent views and storylines around key REDD+ design features among policy actors and in policy documents. We focus on storylines related to four questions, namely: (1) What should REDD+ achieve: carbon or also non-carbon objectives? (2) Who should monitor REDD+ outcomes: only technical experts or also local communities? (3) At what level should REDD+ be governed: at national or sub-national level? and (4) How should REDD+ be financed: through market- or fund-based sources? The vast majority of policy actors and policy documents frame REDD+ as a mechanism that should also realize non-carbon benefits, yet non-carbon monitoring receives very little attention. In all but one country, policy documents contain plans to involve local communities in the design and/or execution of measuring, reporting and verifying REDD+ outcomes. With regard to the level at which REDD+ should be governed, while most policy documents contain elements of a nested approach to accounting, almost all countries envision a long-term transition to national accounting and benefit distribution. We found strikingly little discussion among policy actors and in policy documents of how to finance REDD+ and acquire results-based payments. In the conclusion we reflect on possible consequences of the prominence of REDD+ storylines in the seven countries, and argue that carbonization and centralization of forest governance are possible outcomes given the limited attention to non-carbon monitoring and the envisioned centralized approaches to REDD+.