This book contributes to our understanding of linkages between carbon management and local livelihoods by taking stock of the existing evidence and drawing on field experiences in the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region, an area that provides fresh water to more than 2 billion people and supports the world’s largest population of pastoralists and millions of livestock. This edited volume addresses two main questions: 1. Does carbon management offer livelihood opportunities or present risks, and what are they? 2. Do the attributes of carbon financing alter the nature of livelihood opportunities and risks? Chapters analyze the most pressing deficiencies in understanding carbon storage in both soils and in above ground biomass, and the related social and economic challenges associated with carbon sequestration projects. Chapters deliver insights to both academics from diverse disciplines (natural sciences, social sciences and engineering) and to policy makers.

This book investigates the existing and possible links between the concept of a Carbon Club and the Paris Agreement. In doing so the book defines those criteria that may lead to an effective establishment of a Carbon Club acting within the mandate of the Paris Agreement and identifies the key questions that such an option may help to tackle: Which low-carbon pathways are compatible with the new temperature targets set by the Paris Agreement? Can new entities like the Carbon Club have a decisive role in guaranteeing the alignment of the aggregate mitigating actions with the global objectives identified within the Paris Agreement? What role will be played by market and non-market approaches within the proposed framework? How can economic, social, and environmental sustainability be ensured during the implementation of the Agreement? How can justice and equity be encouraged between the Parties and all the involved actors as required by the Agreement? Which instruments can be designed and adopted to provide the expected degree of transparency for the new system? To respond to these questions the book adopts a holistic approach, able to emphasize the strong interrelations. The book discusses the opportunity to develop a Carbon Club within the Article 6 framework, and provides a feasible roadmap for its means of implementation, rules and governance structure. The final result is a feasible policy proposal that takes into account all the key issues introduced by the questions, and draws a roadmap towards a 'low-carbon Bretton Woods’.

Guyana is a small country with 87.5% of its area covered with forest (GFC 2018b) and lies in the center of the Guiana Shield, one of the four largest remaining standing tropical rainforests in the world. In 2006, Guyana took advantage of the recognition of the value of standing forest to mitigate climate change and became actively engaged in REDD+. Subsequently, in 2009, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with Norway to support implementation of a Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). This was a national plan to reorient Guyana’s economy and move towards more sustainable extractive industries and forest management. The bilateral agreement with Norway established a framework for performance-related finance of up to USD 250 million from 2010 to 2015 for implementation of the LCDS. Three main pillars of the LCDS, linked to its REDD+ agenda, included maintaining historically low deforestation, endorsing low carbon development and adapting to climate change (Bellfield et al. 2015).More recently, and building on the LCDS, a new Green State Development Strategy: Vision 2040 has been developed for Guyana as a “twenty-year, national development policy that reflects the guiding vision and principles of the ‘green agenda’. The central objective is development that provides a better quality of life for all Guyanese derived from the country’s natural wealth – its diversity of people and abundant natural resources (land, water, forests, mineral and aggregates, biodiversity)” (GoG 2019b, p. 1).Since 2009, CIFOR has conducted the Global Comparative Study (GCS) in 13 countries, with Guyana as the final addition. Among the GCS-REDD+ case studies, Guyana is one of the most advanced REDD+ countries, alongside Brazil (KorhonenKurki et al. 2019), and the Norway–Guyana bilateral agreement is the world’s second largest national-level REDD+ scheme (Bade 2013). Yet, Guyana’s economy still largely depends on extractive resources, with mining remaining the main driver of deforestation and forest degradation. The potential revenue anticipated from offshore oil extraction might change the country’s landscape and outlook, putting the permanence of REDD+ under scrutiny. The Guyana case study, therefore, presents many lessons on how to balance development paths without jeopardizing national forest resources.

Key messages for the ASEAN Social Forestry Network REDD+ and social forestry programs have both benefits and costs. Understanding who is bearing the costs of these policies and programs, and ensuring fair compensation, will be important to achieving effective and equitable outcomes. Equity depends on the context and perceptions of the affected stakeholders. Including considerations of equity in the design of REDD+ and social forestry policies can positively influence the policies’ outcomes and sustainability. REDD+ and social forestry requires an inclusive process. Purposeful multistakeholder participation throughout the decision-making process can increase the credibility and legitimacy of a program and enhance its chances of successful outcomes

Explores normative and institutional innovation in international law as a response to the challenges to global order posed by rapid environmental change.

Many environmental and social benefits will result from implementing activities to tackle emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to promote the conservation of forest carbon stocks, as well as from the sustainable management of forests and carbon enhancements in developing countries (REDD+). Benefit sharing in REDD+ refers to the ways in which the financial benefits resulting from these activities will be distributed among different local stakeholders within a country. It is necessary to create ad hoc institutional frameworks and design equitable and transparent benefit sharing schemes such that the rewards may be distributed among all the many stakeholders within the country who have in some way participated in the achievements. This report presents a summary of the gaps and problems in the design of benefit sharing schemes, focusing particularly on the need to develop pro-poor schemes, and includes the Forest Dialogues' main recommendations and suggestions. An assessment of both the challenges and the potential paths for implementation is included in the example provided by the case of implementation of REDD+ in Mexico.

REDD+ represents countries’ efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, the sustainable management of forests, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. The basic idea is that more carbon can be sequestrated and stocked in tropical forests by improving their conservation, management, and sustainable use, thus contributing to mitigating climate change. The developing countries and relevant stakeholders concerned will be financially compensated for these endeavors, either through public funds or private carbon markets. Given this context, this book will address the need to assess the political and socio–economic dimensions of the performance of REDD+, which is relevant to policy-makers, practitioners, and scholars. This implies taking into account the various levels (from global to local) and dimensions (e.g., results-based payments, MRV, co-benefits, and community engagement), as well as divergent (disciplinary) connotations, of performance. We, therefore, pose the following question: What does performance mean? In answering this question, we provide examples of assessments of performance. We present 9 cases of how REDD has performed on local, national and international scales, and reflect on the representativeness of these examples and their limitations when looking at the current range of REDD initiatives, along with what is missing in terms of evaluating the performance of REDD+. We conclude by establishing why performance assessment remains so relevant today.

Key messages In Indonesia, early involvement and support for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) has led to numerous achievements, but progress has been slower than anticipated. National and subnational REDD+ initiatives are susceptible to political turnover at each election cycle. To ensure its longevity, REDD+ needs to be embedded in national and regional laws, regulations, institutions and other state devices. REDD+ institutionalization in Indonesia has focused on technicalities rather than on directly addressing socioeconomic and political drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. The rate of deforestation has decelerated enough to result in two REDD+ payments. However, transformational change in the forestry and broader land-use sector has not progressed far enough. REDD+ is inherently multilevel and multisectoral. However, much information, action, knowledge exchange and decision making on REDD+ is concentrated within relatively few organizations. Transformational change requires that other stakeholders and sectors that impact forests get involved.

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.