UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Reassessing REDD: governance, markets and the hype cycle

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9768-y

Auteurs

Margaret Skutsch · Michael Keith McCall

Année déclarée

2010

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:17:40.300504+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:17:40.300504+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Centro de Investigaciones en Geografía Ambiental · Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

With the increasing perception that catastrophic climate change is not just a wild figment of the imagination but a very real possibility, governments and policy makers are searching desperately for effective solutions that are palatable enough to be sold to their electorates. It is not surprising then that a new policy in discussion under the UNFCCC, REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries), by which reductions in emissions related to deforestation in tropical countries would be rewarded through valuation of the carbon saved, has been embraced with enthusiasm by a wide range of Parties, official observers and the general public (Economist 2009). REDD has already expanded somewhat, now also including forest enhancement, sustainable forest management and forest conservation, under the rubric REDD+. This seems to be an all round winner: cheap carbon reductions (as evidenced by the well-received report of the Stern Commission (2007)), with multiple additional environmental benefits, requiring forest policies and management measures selected by each participating country in line with its own long run objectives for forest management and conservation, and with the potential for participation and benefit sharing by a large number of developing countries and local stakeholders. Although they are still contesting the details of how it should be operationalised and rewarded, many environmental organizations are on board, having jettisoned their earlier doubts about including forest related projects in the international climate agreements. The EU, which does not permit credits from CDM forestry projects within its trading system, is supportive of the idea of REDD+ although still very cautious about a full fledged market-based credit system in the short term. Indeed, most of the doubts as aired in the international negotiations have not been on technical questions but rather on the policy question of whether REDD/REDD+

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W1556646859

DOI

10.1007/s10584-009-9768-y

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Forêt

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9768-y
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W1556646859

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w2077016814 · CITES
• openalex:w2090240630 · CITES
• openalex:w3170999623 · CITES

3 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.