Advertisement

Understanding Stakeholders’ Perspective on REDD+ Implementation as a Multi-Sectoral Approach

  • Himangana Gupta
Chapter

Abstract

Until the Paris Agreement on Climate Change accorded equal importance to adaptation and mitigation, the market instruments framed under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) focused mainly on mitigation. However, realizing the importance of existing forests in storing and sequestering carbon, the UNFCCC introduced the concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+) at Bali in 2007, promising to benefit multiple sectors linking climate change, biodiversity, sustainable livelihoods, and water resource conservation. Due to its widespread acceptance among the forest rich countries, it became increasingly relevant to study the impacts of its implementation in developing countries. This work is a case study of a USAID-funded pilot project in the northern Indian hill state of Himachal Pradesh designed to draw lessons for forest conservation and generate data for future REDD+ projects. Focused group discussions with the local people to solicit their views on the promises and potential of the initiative bring out the loss of trust in such projects. They fear loss of livelihoods and homes as they are largely dependent on the ecosystem services provided by the forests, including non-timber forest produce (NTFP), medicinal plants, and honey. They expressed concern over the ruthless destruction of forests in the nearby regions and felt that the Government has been supporting destructive projects at the cost of their livelihoods. Feeling left out of monetary benefits resulting out of projects, they compared the REDD+ initiative with the ‘industry-oriented’ motives. In addition, the study also integrates expert views of scientists on implementing REDD+ as an effective adaptation mechanism. Effective governance, increased stakeholder participation and synergizing the program with watershed management initiatives can help yield full potential of REDD+.

Keywords

REDD+ Forest communities India UNFCCC CBD Governance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out as a part of my PhD research in Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. I am, therefore, thankful to the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, India for providing funding support in the form of Senior Research Fellowship at the time of PhD. I also thank Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta (Environmental and Social Policy Analyst), Dr. Rajiv Pandey (Scientist-E, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education), and the interviewees for their valuable inputs.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of any department of the Government of India.

References

  1. Agrawal, A., & Angelsen, A. (2009). Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. Realising REDD Natl. Strategy Policy Options (pp. 201–212). Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
  2. Angelsen, A. (2008). Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  3. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sills, E., et al. (2009). Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D., Seymour, F., & Peskett, L. (2008). How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and avoid doing harm? Mov. Ahead REDD Issues Options Implic (pp. 107–156). Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  5. Caplow, S., Jagger, P., Lawlor, K., & Sills, E. (2011). Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 152–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christophersen, T., Stahl, J., & Secretariat of CBD. (2011). REDD-plus and biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Quebec: Montreal.Google Scholar
  7. COP-13. (2008). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. UNFCCC.Google Scholar
  8. Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corbera, E., Estrada, M., & Brown, K. (2010). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Climatic Change, 100, 355–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9773-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Díaz, S., Hector, A., & Wardle, D. A. (2009). Biodiversity in forest carbon sequestration initiatives: not just a side benefit. Current Opinion in Environment Sustainability, 1, 55–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2009.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ENB. (2005). Summary of the eleventh conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change and first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol. 28 November–10 December 2005. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).Google Scholar
  12. Forsyth, T., & Sikor, T. (2013). Forests, development and the globalisation of justice. The Geographical Journal, 179, 114–121.  https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. India. (2011). Submission by India to SBSTA, UNFCCC for SBSTA Agenda item 4. Government of India: Ministry of Environment and Forests.Google Scholar
  14. IPCC. (2013). In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Karsenty, A. (2008). The architecture of proposed REDD schemes after Bali: facing critical choices. International Forestry Review, 10(3), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kiarago, H. (2014). The value of trees in landscapes goes way beyond carbon. Transformations.Google Scholar
  17. Larson, A. M. (2011). Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: Lessons for REDD+. Global Environmental Change, 21, 540–549.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Quéré, C., Andres, R. J., Boden, T., et al. (2013). The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth System Science Data, 5, 165–185.  https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Melick, D. (2010). Credibility of REDD and experiences from Papua New Guinea. Conservation Biology, 24, 359–361.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01471.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MoEF. (2014). Sustainable management of forests as per agreed methodology for REDD+. Government of India: Ministry of Environment and Forests.Google Scholar
  21. Palmer, C. (2011). Property rights and liability for deforestation under REDD+: Implications for “permanence” in policy design. Ecological Economics, 70, 571–576.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pandey, R., & Jha, S. (2012). Climate vulnerability index – measure of climate change vulnerability to communities: A case of rural Lower Himalaya, India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17, 487–506.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9338-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pandey, R., Rawat, G. S., & Kishwan, J. (2012). Carbon balance assessment in Indian Himalayan managed forests: Analysis of anthropogenic extractions for domestic combustion vis-a-vis accretions of forest biomass. SAARC Forestry, 1, 132–153.Google Scholar
  24. Rawat, V. R. S. (2011). REDD Plus in India: From negotiations to implementation. Pre-Congress workshop of 1st Indian forests congress for Theme: Forest and Climate Change, Shimla.Google Scholar
  25. Secretariat of CBD. (2009). Biodiversity and climate change action. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  26. Sharma, V., & Chaudhry, S. (2013). An overview of Indian forestry sector with REDD. International School of Research Notice, 2013, e298735.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/298735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strassburg, B. B. N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., et al. (2010). Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 3, 98–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00092.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The Economist. (2008). Fiddling with words as the world melts. The Economist.Google Scholar
  29. Totten, M., Pandya, S. I., & Janson-Smith, T. (2003). Biodiversity, climate, and the Kyoto Protocol: risks and opportunities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 262–270.  https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0262:BCATKP]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UNFCCC. (2007). Bali Action Plan. Bonn: UNFCCC.Google Scholar
  31. UNFCCC. (2011). Report of the conference of the parties on its sixteenth session, Held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010.Google Scholar
  32. UNFCCC. (2013). Addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.Google Scholar
  33. UNFCCC. (2015). Report of the Conference of Parties on its twenty-first session, Held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015. United Nations, Paris.Google Scholar
  34. World Bank. (2015). Outcomes from COP21: Forests as a key climate and development solution. World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/18/outcomes-from-cop21-forests-as-a-key-climate-and-development-solution. Accessed 4 Dec 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Himangana Gupta
    • 1
  1. 1.National Communication Cell, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate ChangeGovernment of India, New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations