CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
    • CIAT Articles in Journals
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)
    • CIAT Articles in Journals
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Learning from REDD+: a response to Fletcher et al.

    Thumbnail
    Authors
    Angelsen, Arild
    Brockhaus, Maria
    Duchelle, Amy E.
    Larson, Anne
    Martius, Christopher
    Sunderlin, William D.
    Verchot, Louis V.
    Wong, Grace Y.
    Wunder, Sven
    Date
    2017-04
    Language
    en
    Type
    Journal Article
    Review status
    Peer Review
    ISI journal
    Accessibility
    Open Access
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    
    Citation
    Angelsen, Arild; Brockhaus, Maria; Duchelle, Amy E.; Larson, Anne; Martius, Christopher; Sunderlin, William D.; Verchot, Louis; Wong, Grace; Wunder, Sven. 2017. Learning from REDD+: a response to Fletcher et al.. Conservation Biology . 31(3): 718-720.
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/81138
    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12933
    Abstract/Description
    Although REDD+ is approaching its 10th anniversary, major impacts in terms of reduced forest loss are hard to document. Conservation practitioners and scholars are therefore increasingly asking why REDD+ has not delivered more tangible results. A recent Comment in Conservation Biology by Fletcher et al. (2016) addresses this question. We agree with Fletcher et al. that REDD+ has been hyped in some circles, which has created unrealistic expectations among policy makers and forest dwellers alike. Yet, we argue that Fletcher et al. put forward an incomplete interpretation of the evolving REDD+ concept and practice and wrongly place the responsibility for lack of progress on the principles of payment for environmental services (PES) and on reliance on market-based instruments (MBIs), in part based on their misunderstanding of the PES concept. Potential answers to the question of why REDD+ has not delivered more tangible results fall into 4 categories: REDD+ has not yet been implemented at the scale needed to make a difference, REDD+ has evolved from the initial PES vision to a modified version of previous and largely ineffective conservation efforts, REDD+ has been blocked by powerful actors interested in maintaining the status quo, and REDD+ is conceptually flawed in its design as a PES and MBI scheme. Fletcher et al. fail to fully appreciate the first 3 problems, overemphasize the presumed flaws in REDD+ as a PES design, and prepare the ground for the rise and fall of the next conservation fad (Redford et al. 2013). We believe that REDD+, although troubled, is not dead.
    CGIAR Author ORCID iDs
    Louis Verchothttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8309-6754
    CGIAR Affiliations
    Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
    AGROVOC Keywords
    deforestation; deforestación; redd+; learning; aprendizaje; bosques; forest; conservation; conservación
    Collections
    • CIAT Articles in Journals [2634]
    • CIAT Soils [227]

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy CCAFS subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy CRP subjectBy River basinBy Output typeBy Bioversity subjectBy CIAT subjectBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy CCAFS subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy CRP subjectBy River basinBy Output typeBy Bioversity subjectBy CIAT subjectBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback