CIFOR-ICRAF s’attaque aux défis et aux opportunités locales tout en apportant des solutions aux problèmes mondiaux concernant les forêts, les paysages, les populations et la planète.

Nous fournissons des preuves et des solutions concrètes pour transformer l’utilisation des terres et la production alimentaire : conserver et restaurer les écosystèmes, répondre aux crises mondiales du climat, de la malnutrition, de la biodiversité et de la désertification. En bref, nous améliorons la vie des populations.

Découvrez les évènements passés et à venir dans le monde entier et en ligne, qu’ils soient organisés par le CIFOR-ICRAF ou auxquels participent nos chercheurs.

CIFOR-ICRAF publie chaque année plus de 750 publications sur l’agroforesterie, les forêts et le changement climatique, la restauration des paysages, les droits, la politique forestière et bien d’autres sujets encore, et ce dans plusieurs langues. .

CIFOR-ICRAF s’attaque aux défis et aux opportunités locales tout en apportant des solutions aux problèmes mondiaux concernant les forêts, les paysages, les populations et la planète.

Nous fournissons des preuves et des solutions concrètes pour transformer l’utilisation des terres et la production alimentaire : conserver et restaurer les écosystèmes, répondre aux crises mondiales du climat, de la malnutrition, de la biodiversité et de la désertification. En bref, nous améliorons la vie des populations.

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.

Lessons from voluntary partnership agreements for REDD+ benefit sharing

Exporter la citation

The experience of FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements offer several lessons on how to design benefit sharing mechanisms under REDD+ so that they build credibility and trust among the potential recipients of REDD+ benefits. This paper focuses on lessons for three specific design aspects of REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms: (i) the balance between state and non-state actors in the architecture of benefit-sharing mechanism institutions; (ii) the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in monitoring; and (iii) the design of multistakeholder processes. The choice and arrangement of institutions and actors is crucial for credibility: independence can be enhanced or reduced by the architecture of check and balance mechanisms and the type of actors involved. Lessons from VPAs also highlight the trade-off between the cost efficiency and capacity building gains of using existing (often state) institutions and actors versus the potential increased effectiveness and independence that may be provided by new and/or non-state institutions and actors. The use of civil society monitors and multistakeholder processes can provide credibility through enhancing accountability and transparency as well as increasing commitment and confidence in the system. The impact of civil society monitoring can be enhanced by formal recognition of its role, establishing complaints mechanisms and formalizing access to information. Multistakeholder processes can be strengthened by clarifying roles, responsibilities and decision-making mandates of the process; clarifying who should be included; accepting that such processes take time; and maintaining technical and financial support.
Download:

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005737
Score Altmetric:
Dimensions Nombre de citations:

    Année de publication

    2015

    Auteurs

    Luttrell, C.; Fripp, E.

    Langue

    English

    Mots clés

    liabilities, environmental degradation, forests, organization, stakeholders, cost effectiveness analysis, forest management, institutions, society, deforestation, forest policy, monitoring, sociology

Publications connexes