IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i8-9p2469-2472.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation vs compensated reductions

Author

Listed:
  • Tacconi, Luca

Abstract

In recent years, several proposals for the design of a mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) within the United Nations Convention on Climate Change have been advanced. The essence of these proposals is to provide financial benefits to developing countries proportionally to the amount of avoided emissions they achieve, i.e. output based. A paper published in Ecological Economics [Combes Motel, P., Pirard, R., Combes, J.L. 2008. A methodology to estimate impacts of domestic policies on deforestation: Compensated Successful Efforts for "avoided deforestation" (REDD). Ecological Economics doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.001.] aims to provide an alternative termed Compensated Successful Efforts (CSE). It suggests that financial benefits should be provided on the basis of developing countries' successful 'efforts' to reduce emissions from deforestation, i.e. input based. The CSE approach also differs from previous ones in relation to the definition of what should be counted as avoided deforestation and how to estimate avoided deforestation. The present paper discusses the CSE approach and points out several shortcomings.

Suggested Citation

  • Tacconi, Luca, 2009. "Compensated successful efforts for avoided deforestation vs compensated reductions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2469-2472, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:8-9:p:2469-2472
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(08)00540-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Doupe, 2014. "The Costs of Error in Setting Reference Rates for Reduced Deforestation," CCEP Working Papers 1415, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Gary D. Libecap, 2014. "Addressing Global Environmental Externalities: Transaction Costs Considerations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(2), pages 424-479, June.
    3. Pirard, R. & Combes, J.-L. & Combes Motel, P., 2009. "A response to the commentary on "Compensated Successful Efforts"," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2179-2181, June.
    4. Doupe, Patrick, 2014. "The costs of error in setting reference rates for reduced deforestation," Working Papers 249497, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    5. Rachmat Mulia & Atiek Widayati & Suyanto & Putra Agung & Muhammad Zulkarnain, 2014. "Low carbon emission development strategies for Jambi, Indonesia: simulation and trade-off analysis using the FALLOW model," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 773-788, August.
    6. Mireille Chiroleu-Assouline & Jean-Christophe Poudou & Sébastien Roussel, 2012. "North / South Contractual Design through the REDD+ Scheme," Post-Print halshs-00747405, HAL.
    7. Mohammed, Essam, 2011. "Pro-poor benefit distribution in REDD+: Who gets what and why does it matter?," MPRA Paper 43648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2017. "Trade and Environmental Quality in African Countries: Do Institutions Matter?," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, January.
    9. Figuieres, Charles & Leplay, Solenn & Midler, Estelle & Thoyer, Sophie, 2012. "The REDD Scheme to Curb Deforestation: A Well-designed System of Incentives?," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 2(3), pages 239-257, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:8-9:p:2469-2472. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.