1932

Abstract

After several years of REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) readiness, countries are starting to move toward REDD+ implementation and accessing results-based payments (RBPs). Currently various parallel processes for accessing RBPs exist, including project and jurisdictional—approaches that often operate under a nascent national framework. This review is structured around the key considerations for countries to implement REDD+ and access RBPs. It offers a discussion focusing on three areas that are crucial for the success of REDD+: () REDD+ in the context of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), () the role of the private sector in achieving emissions reductions, and () access to RBPs for REDD+. We present some key considerations for future issues and possible successes of REDD+ implementation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060839
2019-10-17
2024-07-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/44/1/annurev-environ-102016-060839.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060839&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2015. Paris Agreement Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2015. Decision 1/CP.21 Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/9097
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2015. Decision 17/CP.21 Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/9099
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2015. Decision 16/CP.21 Bonn, Ger.: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/9099
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2015. Decision 18/CP.21 Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/9099
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2013. Warsaw Framework for REDD-Plus Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC http://unfccc.int/land_use_and_climate_change/redd/items/8180.php
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Recio ME, Ti C. 2014. The Warsaw Framework and the Future of REDD+. Yearb. Int. Environ. Law 24:137–69
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Voigt C, Ferreira F. 2015. The Warsaw Framework for REDD+: implications for national implementation and access to results-based finance. CCLR 2:113–29
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Forest Carbon Partnership Facility 2016. FCPF Carbon Fund Methodological Framework https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/carbon-fund-methodological-framework
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Gov. Peru, Gov. Norway, Gov. Germany 2014. Joint Declaration of Intent between the Government of the Republic of Peru, the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on “Cooperation on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Promote Sustainable Development in Peru https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/b324ccc0cf88419fab88f2f4c7101f20/declarationofintentperu.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Office of the Prime Minister 2010. Norway and Indonesia in partnership to reduce emissions from deforestation Press Release 66/10, Off. Prime Min. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/norway-and-indonesia-in-partnership-to-r/id605709/
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010. Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Green Climate Fund (GCF) 2017. Terms of reference for the pilot programme for REDD+ results-based payments Songdo, South Korea: GCF https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/1203466/Terms_of_reference_for_the_pilot_programme_for_REDD—results-based_payments.pdf/e26651fc-e216-c8b0-55a1-8eea16a90f39
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Lee DL, Llopis P, Waterworth RM, Roberts G, Pearson TRH 2018. Approaches to REDD: nesting lessons learned from country experiences Rep. 125270 World Bank Group Washington, DC: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/670171523647847532/Main-report
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Fischer R, Hargita Y, Günter S 2016. Insights from the ground level? A content analysis review of multi-national REDD+ studies since 2010. For. Policy Econ. 66:47–58
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Hamrick K, Gallant M. 2017. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2017—Forest Trends Washington, DC: For. Trends Assoc https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/doc_5591.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2015. Background Paper Prepared for the 2015 SCF Forum: Coherence and Coordination Issues Related to Finance for Forests, Taking into Account Different Policy Approaches Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/background_paper_prepared_for_the_2015_scf_forum.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Maniatis D, Todd K, Scriven J, Guay B, Hugel B et al. 2016. Towards a Common Understanding of REDD+ Under the UNFCCC New York: United Nations Dev. Progr https://www.unredd.net/documents/redd-papers-and-publications-90/un-redd-publications-1191/technical-resources-series/15901-towards-a-common-understanding-of-redd-under-the-unfccc.html
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Achard F, Brown S, Brady M, DeFries R, Grassi G, Herold M et al. 2012. GOFC-GOLD REDD Sourcebook, COP-18 release—a sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation Rep. COP18-1, GOFC-GOLD Wageningen, Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Federici S, Lee D, Herold M 2018. Forest Mitigation: A Permanent Contribution to the Paris Agreement Rep., Norw. Int. Clim. For. Init. http://www.climateandlandusealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Forest-Mitigation-a-Permanent-Contribution-to-the-Paris-Agreement-1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Nepstad DC, Boyd W, Stickler CM, Bezerra T, Azevedo AA 2013. Responding to climate change and the global land crisis: REDD+, market transformation and low-emissions rural development. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 368:161920120167
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Minang PA, Van Noordwijk M, Duguma LA, Alemagi D, Do TH et al. 2014. REDD+ readiness progress across countries: time for reconsideration. Clim. Policy 14:6685–708
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E, Mardiah S, Santoso L 2015. Deadlock or Transformational Change? Exploring Public Discourse on REDD+ Across Seven Countries. Glob. Environ. Polit. 15:46–85
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M, Mardiah S 2014. Governing the design of national REDD +: an analysis of the power of agency. For. Policy Econ. 49:23–33
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Lund JF, Sungusia E, Mabele MB, Scheba A 2017. Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Dev 89:124–39
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Neeff T, Göhler D, Ascui F 2014. Finding a path for REDD+ between ODA and the CDM. Clim. Policy 14:2149–66
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Mbatu RS. 2016. REDD+ research: reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. For. Policy Econ. 73:140–52
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Geist HJ, Lambin EF. 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. Bioscience 52:143–50
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Moonen PCJ, Verbist B, Schaepherders J, Bwama Meyi M, Van Rompaey A, Muys B 2016. Actor-based identification of deforestation drivers paves the road to effective REDD+ in DR Congo. Land Policy 58:123–32
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Kissinger G, Herold M, De Sy V 2012. Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers Vancouver, Can: Cent. Int. For. Res.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Yoshikura T, Amano M, Chikaraishi H, Supriyanto B, Wardhana D, Yoshikura T 2016. Evaluation of appropriate identification of deforestation agents and drivers for designing REDD+ readiness activities through an examination of the area around Gunung Palung National Park, Indonesia. Open J. For. 6:6106–22
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Tegegne YT, Lindner M, Fobissie K, Kanninen M 2016. Evolution of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the Congo Basin forests: exploring possible policy options to address forest loss. Land Policy 51:312–24
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Goetz SJ, Hansen M, Houghton RA, De Sy V, Herold M et al. 2014. How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: implications for monitoring systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:074004
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Hosonuma N, Herold M, De Sy V, De Fries RS, Brockhaus M et al. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. Environ. Res. Lett. 7:744009–12
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    De Sy V, Herold M, Achard F, Beuchle R, Clevers PW et al. 2015. Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America. Environ. Res. Lett. Environ. Res. Lett. 10:1012400
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Bey A, Sánchez-Paus Díaz A, Maniatis D, Marchi G, Mollicone D et al. 2016. Collect Earth: land use and land cover assessment through augmented visual interpretation. Remote Sens 8:10807
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Curtis PG, Slay CM, Harris NL, Tyukavina A, Hansen MC 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361:64071108–11
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Pasgaard M, Sun Z, Müller D, Mertz O 2016. Challenges and opportunities for REDD+: a reality check from perspectives of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Environ. Sci. Policy 63:161–69
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 2011. Ethiopia's Climate-Resilient Green Economy: Green Economy Strategy Addis Ababa UN Dev. Programme: https://www.undp.org/content/dam/ethiopia/docs/Ethiopia%20CRGE.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC) 2016. Mexico's Climate Change Mid-Century Strategy Mexico City: https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mexico_mcs_final_cop22nov16_red.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Hein J, Guarin A, Frommé E, Pauw P 2018. Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: An assessment of REDD + in the national climate action plans. For. Policy Econ. 90:7–11
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Nepstad D, Irawan S, Bezerra T, Boyd W, Stickler C et al. 2013. More food, more forests, fewer emissions, better livelihoods: linking REDD+, sustainable supply chains and domestic policy in Brazil, Indonesia and Colombia. Carbon Manag 4:6639–58
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2014. Emerging Approaches to Forest Reference Emission Levels and/or Forest Reference Levels for REDD+ Rome: FAO http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4846e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2015. Technical Considerations for Forest Reference Emission Level and/or Forest Reference Level Construction for REDD+ Under the UNFCCC Rome: FAO http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4847e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2018. From Reference Levels to Results Reporting: REDD+ Under the UNFCCC. 2018 Update Rome: FAO http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7163e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2011. Decision 12/CP.17 Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/7110
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Herold M, Verchot L, Angelsen A, Maniatis D, Bauch S 2012. A step-wise framework for setting REDD+ forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels CIFOR Infobriefs 52, Bogor, Ind .
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2013. Decision 13/CP.19 Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/8106
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Hargita Y, Günter S, Köthke M 2016. Brazil submitted the first REDD+ reference level to the UNFCCC—implications regarding climate effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Land Policy 55:340–47
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Köthke M, Schröppel B, Elsasser P 2014. National REDD + reference levels deduced from the global deforestation curve. For. Policy Econ. 43:18–28
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Johnson BA, Scheyvens H, Samejima H 2017. Quantitative assessment of the Earth observation data and methods used to generate reference emission levels for REDD+. Satellite Earth Observations and Their Impact on Society and Policy M Onoda, O Young 155–69 Singapore: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    De Sy V, Herold M, Achard F, Asner GP, Held A et al. 2012. Synergies of multiple remote sensing data sources for REDD+ monitoring. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4:696–706
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Ochieng RM, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Arts B, Brockhaus M, Herold M 2016. Institutional effectiveness of REDD+ MRV: Countries progress in implementing technical guidelines and good governance requirements. Environ. Sci. Policy 61:42–52
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA et al. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:6160850–53
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Crowther TW, Glick HB, Covey KR, Bettigole C, Maynard DS et al. 2015. Mapping tree density at a global scale. Nature 525:7568201–5
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Keenan RJ, Reams GA, Achard F, De Freitas JV, Grainger A, Lindquist E 2015. Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manag. 352:9–20
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Romijn E, Herold M, Kooistra L, Murdiyarso D, Verchot L 2012. Assessing capacities of non-Annex I countries for national forest monitoring in the context of REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 19–20:33–48
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Gebhardt S, Wehrmann T, Ruiz M, Maeda P, Bishop J et al. 2014. MAD-MEX: automatic wall-to-wall land cover monitoring for the Mexican REDD-MRV program using all Landsat data. Remote Sens 6:53923–43
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Paneque-Gálvez J, McCall M, Napoletano B, Wich S, Koh L 2014. Small drones for community-based forest monitoring: an assessment of their feasibility and potential in tropical areas. Forests 5:61481–507
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    McCall MK, Chutz N, Skutsch M 2016. Moving from measuring, reporting, verification (MRV) of forest carbon to community mapping, measuring, monitoring (MMM): perspectives from Mexico. PLOS ONE 11:e0146038
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Bustamante MMC, Roitman I, Aide TM, Alencar A, Anderson LO et al. 2016. Toward an integrated monitoring framework to assess the effects of tropical forest degradation and recovery on carbon stocks and biodiversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22:192–109
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Mitchell AL, Rosenqvist A, Mora B 2017. Current remote sensing approaches to monitoring forest degradation in support of countries measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) systems for REDD+. Carbon Balance Manag 12:9
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2016. Integration of Remote-Sensing and Ground-Based Observations for Estimation of Emissions and Removals of Greenhouse Gases in Forests: Methods and Guidance from the Global Forest Observations Initiative, Edition 2.0 Rome, FAO: https://www.reddcompass.org/documents/184/0/MGD2.0_English/c2061b53-79c0-4606-859f-ccf6c8cc6a83
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Böttcher H, Eisbrenner K, Fritz S, Kindermann G, Kraxner F et al. 2009. An assessment of monitoring requirements and costs of “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. .” Carbon Balance Manag 4:7
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Jodoin S. 2016. The human rights of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities in the complex legal framework for REDD+. Research Handbook on REDD+ and International Law C Voigt 157–85 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    den Besten JW, Arts B, Verkooijen P 2014. The evolution of REDD+: an analysis of discursive-institutional dynamics. Environ. Sci. Policy 35:40–48
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Jagger P, Brockhaus M, Duchelle A, Gebara M, Lawlor K et al. 2014. Multi-level policy dialogues, processes, and actions: challenges and opportunities for national REDD+ safeguards measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV). Forests 5:92136–62
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ. Sci. Policy 21:63–72
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2013. Decision 9/CP.19 Bonn, Ger.: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/8106
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2013. Decision 12/CP.19 Bonn, Ger: UNFCCC https://unfccc.int/documents/8106
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Young MA. 2016. REDD+ and interacting legal regimes. Research Handbook on REDD+ and International Law C Voigt 89–125 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Ogle L. 2013. Practical approaches to ensuring the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+. Natural Justice.org Sept. 14. https://naturaljustice.org/practical-approaches-to-ensuring-the-full-and-effective-participation-of-indigenous-peoples-in-redd-assessing-experiences-and-lessons-to-date/
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Feiring B. 2013. Participation and consultation standards, guidelines and country experiences Conf. Pap., Exp. Workshop Pract. Approach. Ensur. Full Effect. Particip. Indig. Peoples REDD+: Assess Exper. Lessons Date, Weilburg Ger: Sept 10–12 https://www.bmz.de/de/zentrales_downloadarchiv/Service/Konferenzen/Indigene/Input_Paper_I_Birgitte_Feiring.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Savaresi A. 2016. The legal status and role of safeguards. Research Handbook on REDD+ and International Law C Voigt 126–56 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Arhin AA. 2014. Safeguards and dangerguards: a framework for unpacking the black box of safeguards for REDD+. For. Policy Econ. 45:24–31
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Maniatis D, Todd K, Guay B, Pesti B, Scriven J et al. 2017. Comparative Analysis of the UNFCCC REDD+ Related Decisions and Other Multilateral and Bilateral Requirements to Access Results-Based Payments/Results-Based Finance for REDD+ Results-Based Actions New York: UN Dev. Progr https://www.unredd.net/documents/redd-papers-and-publications-90/un-redd-publications-1191/technical-resources-series/15942-technical-resources-series-5-comparative-analysis-of-the-unfccc-redd-related-decisions-and-other-multilateral-and-bilateral-requirements-to-access-results-based-payments-results-based-finance-for-redd-results-based-actions.html
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Clarke M, Mikkolainen P, Camargo M 2016. Second Evaluation of the Forest Carbon Partnership FacilityFinal Rep. Helsinki: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/Second+FCPF+Evaluation+Final+Report+Executive+Summary+Sept+2016+Eng.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Bodin B, Väänänen E, van Asselt H 2015. Putting REDD+ environmental safeguards into practice: recommendations for effective and country-specific implementation. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 9:2168–82
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Stankowitch M. 2013. Report of the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Dialogue with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Doha, Qatar: TEBTEBBA https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/Report%20of%20the%20Indigenous%20Peoples%27%20Global%20Dialogue%20with%20the%20FCPF.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Rights and Resources Initiative 2016. Community Rights and Tenure in Country Emission Reduction Programs—Status and Risks for the FCPF Carbon Fund Washington, DC: Rights Resourc. Init http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/RRI_Community-Rights-and-Tenure-in-Country-Emission-Reduction-Programs_June-2016.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Graham P, Silva-Chavez G. 2016. The Implications of the Paris Agreement for Private Sector Roles in REDD+. Washington, DC: For. Trends
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2016. The Agriculture Sectors in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions—Summary Rome: FAO http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5666e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Grassi G, House J, Dentener F, Federici S, den Elzen M, Penman J 2017. The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 7:3220–26
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Brana-Varela J, Lee D. 2016. Early Reflections on the Implications of the Paris Agreement for REDD+ Washington, DC: For. Trends https://merid.org/∼/media/Files/Projects/ImplicationsofParis/20160527%20-%20The%20PA%20and%20REDD%20-%20copy%20edited%20and%20cleaned.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Bastos Lima MG, Kissinger G, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Braña-Varela J, Gupta A 2017. The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: assessing institutional interactions and the pursuit of synergies. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 17:4589–606
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Lambin EF, Gibbs HK, Heilmayr R, Carlson KM, Fleck LC et al. 2018. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8:2109–16
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Brandi C, Cabani T, Hosang C, Schirmbeck S, Westermann L, Wiese H 2015. Sustainability standards for palm oil: challenges for smallholder certification under the RSPO. J. Environ. Dev. 24:3292–314
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    European Forest Institute, Proforest 2014. Working with the Private Sector on REDD+ Barcelona: EU REDD Facility https://redd.unfccc.int/uploads/2_89_redd_20150619_eureddfacility_working_with_the_private_sector_on_redd_2B.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Donofrio S, Leonard J, Rothrock P 2017. Supply Change: Tracking Corporate Commitments to Deforestation-Free Supply Chains Washington, DC: For. Trends
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Global Canopy Programme 2016. Sleeping Giants of Deforestation: The Companies, Countries and Financial Institutions with the Power to Save Forests Oxford, UK: https://www.globalcanopy.org/sites/default/files/documents/resources/sleeping_giants_of_deforestation_-_2016_forest_500_results.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Streck C. 2016. Mobilizing finance for REDD+ after Paris. J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law. 13:2146–66
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Hamrick K, Gallant M. 2018. Voluntary Carbon Markets Insights: 2018 Outlook and First-Quarter Trends Washington, DC: For. Trends https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/VCM-Q1-Report_Full-Version-2.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060839
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error