CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR-ICRAF produce cada año más de 750 publicaciones sobre agroforestería, bosques y cambio climático, restauración de paisajes, derechos, políticas forestales y mucho más, y en varios idiomas. .

CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

REDD+ as Result-based Aid: General Lessons and Bilateral Agreements of Norway

Exportar la cita

The initiative known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) officially became part of the international climate agenda in 2007. At that time, REDD+ was an idea regarding payment to countries (and possibly also projects) for reducing emission from forests, with funding primarily from carbon markets. The initiative has since become multi-objective in nature; the policy focus has changed from a payments for environmental services (PES) approach to broader policies, and international funding primarily originates from development aid budgets. This "aidification" of REDD+ has made the program similar to previous efforts using conditional or results-based aid (RBA). However, the experience of RBA in other sectors has scarcely been addressed in the REDD+ debate. The alleged advantages of RBA are poorly backed by empirical research. This paper reviews the primary challenges in designing and implementing a system of RBA, namely, donor spending pressure, performance criteria, reference levels, risk sharing, and funding credibility. It then reviews the four partially performance-based, bilateral REDD+ agreements that Norway has entered with Tanzania, Brazil, Guyana, and Indonesia. These agreements and the aid experience provide valuable lessons for the design and implementation of future REDD+ mechanisms.
Download:

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12271
Puntuación Altmetric:
Dimensiones Recuento de citas:

    Año de publicación

    2016

    Autores

    Angelsen, A.

    Idioma

    English

    Palabras clave

    carbon markets, climate change, deforestation, emissions, environmental degradation, forest policy, funds

    Geográfico

    Norway

Publicaciones relacionadas