|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
138254
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper presents an analysis of changing rationales and tactics among actors engaged in mobilising private finance for Indonesia's emergent Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programme. Despite limited flows of private finance so far, private sector actors have been responsible for a great deal of development and innovation in the forest carbon sector in Indonesia, and have thus played – and continue to play – an important part in shaping the country's REDD+ programme. Drawing on extended field research and interviews with key actors engaged with REDD+ in Indonesia, we identify a variety of private investor motivations, strategies and tactics, many of which depart considerably from the common understanding of REDD+ as avoided deforestation funded through carbon offsets. As non-state actors increasingly shape emerging REDD+ projects, they assume important roles as agents of environmental governance – working through a variety of private market and hybrid modes of forest/climate governance. We describe four general modes of engagement, centred around: investment in REDD+ verified emissions reductions; corporate social responsibility; sustainable commodities; and impact investment. The research thus contributes to an improved understanding of the nature of private REDD+ finance in Indonesia, and the implications, potential and limits of private, market-based climate governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
136138
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is an ambitious global programme oriented towards improving forest carbon management. It aims to attract new sources of ‘green’ capital to fund emissions reductions from avoided deforestation and sustainable forest management. REDD+ is transforming forest conservation, as a diverse array of new stakeholders become involved. Not surprisingly, REDD+ has proved divisive, as critics concern themselves with issues of power, justice, and commodification, while practice-oriented researchers tackle similar issues from different perspectives, focusing on benefit sharing, safeguards, additionality, measuring and verification. In this paper we explore the different roles of critical and practical research, and argue that there is a need for greater sharing of knowledge across current divides. We draw on our own experiences of conducting a research project on REDD+ in Indonesia that involved critical and practice-oriented researchers. We argue that critical research disconnected from practical matters can have perverse outcomes for practitioners who are ultimately working towards similar goals; while uncritical practice-oriented research has the potential to lead to a dilution of core values of environmental justice and conservation. In contrast, forms of practical critique provide ways of researching REDD+ that have practical value while maintaining critical insights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|