IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0493.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment of REDD+ Improve Forest Governance?

Author

Listed:
  • Slunge, Daniel

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Ekbom, Anders

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Loayza, F.

    (The World Bank, Environment Department)

  • Guthiga, P.

    (Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), Kenya)

  • Nyangena, Wilfred

    (Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), Kenya)

Abstract

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility has recently proposed the application of strategic environmental social assessment (SESA) for incorporating environmental and social considerations in the preparation of REDD+ initiatives. This paper discusses the potential contribution of SESA to REDD+ initiatives drawing on experiences from earlier attempts to large scale forestry sector reforms and a recent World Bank pilot program on strategic environmental assessment. The paper suggests that SESA can be a useful approach for strengthening institutions and governance needed for managing diverse environmental and social impacts related to REDD+. More specifically, SESA can enhance policy making and governance through raising attention to environmental and social priorities, strengthening constituencies for policy change and improving social accountability. In order for SESA to contribute to these outcomes it needs to be assured that broad national “ownership” is achieved and that it becomes part of a long-term policy learning process with repeated and sustained stakeholder interaction. Through strengthening constituencies in policy reform SESA can potentially reduce the risk of regulatory capture of REDD+ by vested interests and make institutional checks and balances more effective. An analysis of Kenyas process of preparing a national REDD+ strategy is used to illustrate our case in the paper.

Suggested Citation

  • Slunge, Daniel & Ekbom, Anders & Loayza, F. & Guthiga, P. & Nyangena, Wilfred, 2011. "Can Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment of REDD+ Improve Forest Governance?," Working Papers in Economics 493, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/25572
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Bank, 2005. "Integrating Environmental Considerations in Policy Formulation : Lessons from Policy-Based Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Experience," World Bank Publications - Reports 8457, The World Bank Group.
    2. Smith, Joyotee & Colan, Violeta & Sabogal, Cesar & Snook, Laura, 2006. "Why policy reforms fail to improve logging practices: The role of governance and norms in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 458-469, June.
    3. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    4. World Bank, 2007. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Kenya Forests Act 2005," World Bank Publications - Reports 12611, The World Bank Group.
    5. Nilsson, Sten, 2005. "Experiences of policy reforms of the forest sector in transition and other countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(6), pages 831-847, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson & Heidi J. Albers & Charles Meshack & Razack B. Lokina, 2013. "Implementing REDD through community‐based forest management: Lessons from Tanzania," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(3), pages 141-152, August.
    2. Bluffstone, Randy & Robinson, Elizabeth & Guthiga, Paul, 2013. "REDD+and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: Any hope for a linkage?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-52.
    3. Bluffstone, Randy & Robinson, Elizabeth & Guthiga, Paul, 2012. "Deforestation and forest degradation are estimated to account for between 12 percent and 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions. These activities, largely in the developing world, released abou," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-11-efd, Resources for the Future.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    2. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    3. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    4. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    5. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.
    7. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    8. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    9. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Golub, Alexander (Голуб, Александр), 2018. "Methodological Issues of Assessing Investment Risks in Projects Weakening the Dependence of the Russian Economy on Natural Resources and Providing a Transition to Low-Carbon Development [Методологи," Working Papers 071802, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    11. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.
    12. Lamperti, Francesco & Bosetti, Valentina & Roventini, Andrea & Tavoni, Massimo & Treibich, Tania, 2021. "Three green financial policies to address climate risks," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    13. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2014. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Public Policies: Evidence from California," NBER Working Papers 19965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    15. Kenneth Gillingham & William D. Nordhaus & David Anthoff & Geoffrey Blanford & Valentina Bosetti & Peter Christensen & Haewon McJeon & John Reilly & Paul Sztorc, 2015. "Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison," NBER Working Papers 21637, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    17. Lawrence H. Goulder, 2013. "Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 87-102, Winter.
    18. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    19. Roos, Michael W. M., 2015. "The macroeconomics of radical uncertainty," Ruhr Economic Papers 592, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. Sam Fankhauser & Cameron Hepburn, 2009. "Carbon markets in space and time," GRI Working Papers 3, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    REDD; forest management; GHG emissions; governance; stakeholder participation; World Bank;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:gunwpe:0493. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Jessica Oscarsson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    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.