What Difference Does CBDR Make? A Socio-Legal Analysis of the Role of Differentiation in the Transnational Legal Process for REDD

Jodoin, Sébastien; Mason-Case, Sarah

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2942140

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We acknowledge that many countries and commentators use the phrase "common but differentiated responsibility" (CBDR) to refer to differential treatment 24 and CBDR has indeed been extended to refer (among other things) to the distribution of financial commitments for REDD+ 25 . However, CBDR is not explicitly included in the CBD and remains controversial 26 , as it was for climate talks until it was finally incorporated into the UNFCCC process in 2012 27 .…”

Section: Implications For Cost Sharing and Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

Waldron

Besançon²,

Watson

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the biggest stumbling blocks for global environmental agreements is how higher-income and lower-income countries share the costs of implementing them. This problem has become particularly acute as biodiversity and climate ambitions have increased across recent COPs (Conferences of Parties). Here, we estimate the likely distribution of costs for one of the most ambitious proposals: draft Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which would increase coverage of protected and conserved areas (PCAs) to 30% of global land and sea area - more than triple the current value. Since the GBF does not specify where new PCAs would be placed, we use three scenarios of how Target 3 might be implemented, cost those scenarios, and then compare the mean distribution of costs across World Bank income groups. We find that in relative terms, lower-income countries could face considerably larger financial burdens than high-income countries, even though the benefits of conservation are disproportionately enjoyed by high-income countries. Lower-income countries would also face larger increases in the amount of land or sea under conservation, implying higher opportunity and establishment costs. Resolving this potential cost-sharing inequity may be a key requirement to achieve consensus on draft Target 3, and indeed on ambitious environmental proposals more generally.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Cost Sharing and Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

Waldron

Besançon²,

Watson

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing the politics of REDD+ and peasant resistance 4 Introduction momentum for the inclusion of forest conservation in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agenda (Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to previous market mechanisms and climate finance mechanisms, such as the Clean Development Mechanisms and the Adaptation Fund of the Kyoto Protocol, REDD+ is not governed by a central management or financing body. No final agreement has yet been made on how REDD+ will be financed, and whether emission reductions from REDD+ activities should be considered as voluntary contributions from developing countries supported by the developed countries, or whether REDD+ should be eligible for offsetting (Angelsen et al, 2014;Horstmann and Hein, 2017;Jodoin and Mason-Case, 2016). In fact, today's REDD+ governance is highly fragmented (Zelli et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Ecology of REDD+ in Indonesia

Hein¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indonesia's commitment to reducing land-based greenhouse gas emissions significantly includes the expansion of conservation areas, but these developments are not free of conflicts. This book provides a comprehensive analysis of agrarian conflicts in the context of the implementation of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and forest carbon offsetting in Indonesia, a country where deforestation is a major issue. The author analyzes new kinds of transnational agrarian conflicts which have strong implications for global environmental justice in the REDD+ pilot province of Jambi on the island of Sumatra. The chapters cover: the rescaling of the governance of forests; privatization of conservation; and the transnational dimensions of agrarian conflicts and peasants' resistance in the context of REDD+. The book builds on an innovative conceptual approach linking political ecology, politics of scale and theories of power. It fills an important knowledge and research gap by focusing on the socially differentiated impacts of REDD+ and new forest carbon offsetting initiatives in Southeast Asia, providing a multi-scalar perspective. It is aimed at scholars in the areas of political ecology, human geography, climate change mitigation, forest and natural resource management, as well as environmental justice and agrarian studies.

show abstract

What Difference Does CBDR Make? A Socio-Legal Analysis of the Role of Differentiation in the Transnational Legal Process for REDD

Cited by 2 publications

References 30 publications

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

The costs of global protected-area expansion (Target 3 of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework) may fall more heavily on lower-income countries

Political Ecology of REDD+ in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About