Abstract
Purpose: REDD is being criticized on several fronts and thus, there is a need for an integrated, comprehensive paradigm that incorporates emissions reduction, biodiversity conservation, and community development, and is leveraged towards sustainability in forests and livelihoods rather than narrower goals such as emissions reduction or conservation.
Design/methodology/approach: A SWOT analysis of REDD is conducted and based on the results of the analysis, a new framework is proposed.
Findings: Although REDD has enormous potential to not just reduce emissions but also provide significant co-benefits, there has also been criticism on various fronts. A new theoretical framework with carbon, conservation, and community as the three pillars has been proposed.
Originality/value: The paper proposes a new paradigm that addresses GHG emission reduction, conservation of forests and biodiversity, community livelihoods support, and valuation of environmental services provided by forests. Forests, covering one-third of the earth’s surface, are home to more than half of the biodiversity on earth, provide multiple ecosystem services, and contribute to more than a billion livelihoods globally. However, forests have largely been mismanaged and remain one of the key challenges in international as well as national policy and governance. The dual role of forests in climate change, both as a source and sink of GHG emissions, adds to the urgency for action. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is being intensely discussed for its likely role in climate change mitigation. The argument had originated with avoided deforestation, subsequently broadened to REDD and is currently being discussed around REDD+, an indication that there is more to this debate than just incentivizing emissions reduction. Although REDD has enormous potential to not just reduce emissions but also provide significant co-benefits, there has also been criticism on various fronts. The author proposes the climate, community, conservation, and sustainability (C3S) paradigm which would include objectives such as GHG emissions reduction, valuation of environmental services provided by forests, conservation of forests and biodiversity, and community livelihoods support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Angelsen A (2008) REDD models and baselines. Int For Rev 10(3):465–475
Benndorf R, Federici S, Forner C, Pena N, Rametsteiner E, Sanz MJ, Somogyi Z (2007) Including land use, land-use change, and forestry in future climate change agreements: thinking outside the box. Environ Sci Policy 10:283–294
Chomitz KM, Buys P, De Luca G, Thomas TS, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S (2007) At Loggerheads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction and environment in the tropical forests, Jakarta, Indonesia, The World Bank. Available at: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/10/19/000112742_20061019150049/Rendered/PDF/367890Loggerheads0Report.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2009
Fry I (2008) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: opportunities and pitfalls in developing a new legal regime. Rev Eur Commun Int Environ Law 17(2):166–182
IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Joint Liaison of the Rio Conventions (n.d.) Forests: climate change, biodiversity and land degradation. Available at: http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/factsheets/pdf/forest_eng.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2009
Kolshus HH (2001) Carbon sequestration in sinks: an overview of potential and costs, CICERO Working Paper 11. Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo. http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/1616.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2009
Kurtilla M, Pesonena M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000) Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process AHP in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. For Policy Econ 1:41–52
Larsson T-B, Barbati A, Bauhus J, van Brusselen J, Lindner M, Marchetti M, Petrriccione B, Petersson H (2007) The role of forests in carbon cycles, sequestration and storage: climate change mitigation, forest management and effects on biological diversity, Issue 5, n.s. www.iufro.org/download/file/2018/3754/issue5_aug07-c.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2009
Lozano M, Vallés J (2007) An analysis of the implementation of an environmental management system in a local public administration. J Environ Manage 82:495–511
Montagnini F, Nair PKR (2004) Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 61:281–295
Myers EC (2007) Policies to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in tropical forests. Resources for the Future, Washington DC. http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-07-50.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2009
O’Connor D (2008) Governing the global commons: linking carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation in tropical forests. Global Environ Change 18:368–374
Ognowski M, Guimaraes L, Ma H, Movius D, Schmidt J (2009) Utilizing payments for environmental services for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries: challenges and policy options. Centre for Clean Air Policy, Washington DC
Schlamadinger B, Ciccarese L, Dutschke M, Fearnside PM, Brown S, Murdiyaso D (2005) Should we include avoidance of deforestation in the international response to climate change? In: Murdiyarso D, Herawati H (eds) Carbon forestry: who will benefit? Proceedings of Workshop on Carbon Sequestration and Sustainable Livelihoods, held in Bogor on 16–17 Feb 2005, Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. http://www.joanneum.at/carboinvent/post2012_/Bird/Schlamadinger_et_al_2004.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2009
Schmidt L (2008) Broadening the horizon – assessing REDD from an integrated perspective – a discussion paper. German Development Institute, Bonn, Germany. http://www.scribd.com/doc/13259028/DRAFT-Assessing-REDD-From-an-Integrated-Perspective-German-Development-Institute-2008-COP14. Accessed 15 Feb 2009
Skutsch M, Bressers H Th A (2008) Power, motivation and cognition in construction of climate policy: the case of tropical forestry. Science, Enfield NH, USA
Skutsch M, Bird N, Trines E, Dutschke M, Frumhoff P, de Jong BHJ, van Laake P, Masera O, Murdiyarso D (2007) Clearing the way for reducing emissions from tropical deforestation. Environ Law Policy 10:322–334
Stern SN (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Strassburg B, Turner RK, Fisher B, Schaeffer R, Lovett A (2009) Reducing emissions from deforestation – The ‘combined incentives’ mechanism and empirical solutions. In: Global environmental change. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4VH330V-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=151809f8ba2ee5a1bc18a2fa6920a402 (in press, accepted 29 Nov 2008)
Tacconi L (2009) Compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation versus compensated reductions. Ecological Economics. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VDY-4VGCGNT-1&_user=483692&_coverDate=01%2F27%2F2009&_alid=860057761&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5995&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=10&_acct=C000022720&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=483692&md5=554756e5ba30d5c3f340312cfab20f87 (in press, Accepted 16 Dec 2008)
The Forests Dialogue (TFD) (2008) Beyond REDD: the role of forests in climate change. The Forests Dialogue, New Haven. http://research.yale.edu/gisf/tfd/pdf/fcc/TFD%20Forests%20and%20Climate%20Statement%20w%20Briefing%20Notes.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2009
United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) (2009) Forests and climate change. http://www.un.org/esa/forests/pdf/session_documents/unff8/2009_4_AV.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2009
Wendland KJ, Honzak M, Portela R, Vitale B, Rubinoff S, Randrianariosa J (2009) Targeting and implementing payment for ecosystem services: opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar. Ecol Econ Doi. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.002
Wunder S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Center for International Forestry Research Occasional Paper No. 42, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Dr Margaret Skutsch (Associate Professor, Technology and Sustainable Development Section, University of Twente, Netherlands), Dr Lloyd Irland and Dr Benjamin Cashore (Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, USA), Dr Rizaldi Boer (Bogor Agriculture University, Indonesia), Mr Chetan Aggarwal, Winrock International India, Mr Varghese Paul, TERI, India and Dr VRS Rawat, ICFRE, India for suggestions and input. This study was carried out as an extension to Master’s dissertation research carried out by the author at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, USA and TERI University, India.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Pant, P. (2011). Carbon, Conservation, Communities Under Sustainability (C3S) Paradigm for Forests. In: Leal Filho, W. (eds) The Economic, Social and Political Elements of Climate Change. Climate Change Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14776-0_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14776-0_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14775-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14776-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)