Non-carbon benefits of REDD+ implementation and sustainable emission reductions – a review

References

• Abas A, Aziz A, Awang A. 2022. A systematic review on the local wisdom of indigenous people in nature conservation. Sustainability. 14(6):3415. doi: 10.3390/su14063415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abebe D, Bushby K, Little P, Mahmoud H, Stites E. 2016. Resilience and risk in pastoralist areas: recent trends in diversified and alternative livelihoods. USAID/East Africa resilience learning project. In: Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. Boston [MA]: Tufts University. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdfdocs/pa00m1pz.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Aggarwal A, Brockington D. 2020. Reducing or creating poverty? Analyzing livelihood impacts of forest carbon projects with evidence from India. Land Use Policy. 95:104608. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104608.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguilar-Støen M. 2017. Better safe than sorry? Indigenous peoples, carbon cowboys and the governance of REDD in the Amazon. Forum Dev Stud. 44(1):91–108. doi: 10.1080/08039410.2016.1276098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Airey S, Krause T. 2017. “Georgetown ain’t got a tree. We got the trees” - Amerindian power & participation in Guyana’s low carbon development strategy. Forests. 8(3):51. doi: 10.3390/f8030051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson KP, Smith SM, Alston LJ, Duchelle AE, Mwangi E, Larson AM, de Sassi C, Sills EO, Sunderlin WD, Wong GY. 2018. Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy. 72:510–522. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andoh J, Lee Y. 2018. National REDD+ strategy for climate change mitigation: a review and comparison of developing countries. Sustainability. 10(12):1–71. doi: 10.3390/su10124781.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelsen A. 2016. REDD+ as result‐based aid: general lessons and bilateral agreements of Norway. Rev Dev Econ. 21(2):237–264. doi: 10.1111/rode.12271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aquino A, Guay B. 2013. Implementing REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo: an analysis of the emerging national REDD+ governance structure. For Policy Econ. 36:71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Architecture for REDD+ Transactions [ART]. 2024. Guyana announces world’s first credits eligible for use by airlines in first phase of CORSIA. Arlington; [Assessed 20 Jun 2024]. https://www.artredd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Guyana-Announces-Worlds-First-Credits-Eligible-for-First-Phase-CORSIA.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Asiyanbi AP. 2016. A political ecology of REDD+: property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum. 77:146–156. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asiyanbi AP, Arhin AA, Isyaku U. 2017. REDD+ in West Africa: politics of design and implementation in Ghana and Nigeria. Forests. 8(3):78. doi: 10.3390/f8030078.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmadja S, Komalasari M, Alusiola R, Barboza I, S L, Theresia V, S G. 2023. The international database on REDD+ projects and programs. Linking economics, carbon and communities (ID-RECCO). Indonesia: CIFOR.
   Google Scholar
• Atmadja SS, Duchelle AE, De Sy V, Selviana V, Komalasari M, Sills EO, Angelsen A. 2022. How do REDD+ projects contribute to the goals of the Paris agreement? Environ Res Lett. 17(4):044038. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac5669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awung NS, Marchant R. 2020. Transparency in benefit sharing and the influence of community expectations on participation in REDD+ projects: an example from Mount Cameroon National Park. Ecosyst People. 16(1):78–94. doi: 10.1080/26395916.2019.1698658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barletti JPS, Larson AM. 2020. Environmental justice in the REDD+ frontier. Experiences from the Amazon and beyond. In: Robins N Fraser B, editors. Landscapes of inequity: environmental justice in the Andes-Amazon Region. (NE) [NE]: University of Nebraska Press; p. 167–198.
   Google Scholar
• Bluffstone R, Robinson E, Guthiga P. 2013. REDD+and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: any hope for a linkage? Ecol Econ. 87:43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown HC. 2017. Implementing REDD+ in a conflict-affected country: a case study of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Environments. 4(3):61. doi: 10.3390/environments4030061.
   Google Scholar
• Buotte PC, Law BE, Ripple WJ, Berner LT. 2020. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co‐benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecol Appl. 30(2). doi: 10.1002/eap.2039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catley A, Aklilu Y. 2012. Moving up or moving out? Commercialization, growth and destitution in pastoralist areas. In: Catley A, Lind J, and Scoones I, editors. Pastoralism and development in Africa: dynamic change at the margins. Oxfordshire, (UK): Routledge. p. 85–93.
   Google Scholar
• Chokkalingam U, Phanvilay K. 2015. Forest governance assessment for REDD+ implementation in Lao PDR through application of the PROFOR forest governance tool. Laos: FCPF-World Bank [accessed 23 May 2023]. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2015/June/Forestpdf.
   Google Scholar
• Conservation International [CI], Environmental Defense Fund [EDF], National Wildlife Federation [NWF], Rainforest Alliance [RA], Nature Conservancy [NC], Union of Concerned Scientists [UoCS]. 2014. Clarifying the role of non-carbon benefits in REDD+. Arlington: Conservation International [accessed 8 Jun 2024]. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/smsn/ngo/405.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cumpston MS, Je M, Thomas J, Brennan SE. 2021. The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions. F1000 Res. 9(9):678. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.24469.2.
   Google Scholar
• Dickson R, Baker M, Bonnin N, Shoch D, Rifkin B, Stewart FA, Piel AK. 2020. Combining deforestation and species distribution models to improve measures of chimpanzee conservation impacts of REDD: a case study from Ntakata mountains, Western Tanzania. Forests. 11(11):1195. doi: 10.3390/f11111195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchelle AE, De Sassi C, Jagger P, Cromberg M, Larson AM, Sunderlin WD, Atmadja SS, Resosudarmo IAP, Pratama CD. 2017. Balancing carrots and sticks in REDD+: implications for social safeguards. Ecol And Soc. 22(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-09334-220302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchelle AE, Simonet G, Sunderlin WD, Wunder S. 2018. What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Curr Opin Env Sust. 32:134–140. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duker AEC, Tadesse TM, Soentoro T, de Fraiture C, Kemerink-Seyoum JS. 2019. The implications of ignoring smallholder agriculture in climate-financed forestry projects: empirical evidence from two REDD+ pilot projects. Clim Policy. 19(sup1):S36–S46. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1532389.
   Google Scholar
• Dulal HB, Shah KU, Sapkota C. 2012. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) projects: lessons for future policy design and implementation. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 19(2):116–129. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2012.654410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunlop T, Corbera E. 2016. Incentivizing REDD+: how developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing. Environ Sci Policy. 63:44–54. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Errico S. 2016. Opportunities and challenges to strengthen indigenous peoples’ rights and livelihoods in the context of REDD+: a study of REDD+ implementation in Vietnam. Int For Rev. 18(4):412–428. doi: 10.1505/146554816820127523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2018. Study on EU financing of REDD+ related activities, and results-based payments pre and post 2020: sources, cost-effectiveness and fair allocation of incentives. Luxumburg: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2020. Global forest resources assessment 2020: main report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization [accessed 10 Jul 2024]. https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/2020/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer K, Giertta F, Hajdu F. 2019. Carbon-binding biomass or a diversity of useful trees? (Counter)topographies of carbon forestry in Uganda. Environ Plan E-Nat. 2(1):178–199. doi: 10.1177/2514848618823598.
   Google Scholar
• Fobissie K, Alemagi D, Minang P. 2014. REDD+ policy approaches in the Congo Basin: a comparative analysis of Cameroon and the Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). Forest. 5(10):2400–2424. doi: 10.3390/f5102400.
   Google Scholar
• Gillerot L, Grussu G, Condor-Golec R, Tavani R, Dargush P, Attorre F. 2021. Progress on incorporating biodiversity monitoring in REDD+ through national forest inventories. Glob Ecol Conserv. 32:e01901. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gizachew B, Astrup R, Vedeld P, Zahabu EM, Duguma LA. 2017. REDD+ in Africa: contexts and challenges. Nat Resour Forum. 41(2):92–104. doi: 10.1111/1477-8947.12119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GOG. 2024. Guyana announces world’s first carbon credits for use in UN airline compliance programme, CORSIA. Georgetown: Government of Guyana [accessed 8 Jun 2024]. https://dpi.gov.gy/guyana-announces-worlds-first-credits-eligible-for-use-by-airlines-in-first-phase-of-corsia.
   Google Scholar
• GRAIN. 2023. Stop carbon offsetting now. Barcelona: GRAIN [accessed 8 Jun 2024]. https://grain.org/en/article/7071-stop-carbon-offsetting-now.
   Google Scholar
• Granziera B, Hamrick K, Perrone M, Fernandez J. 2022. International REDD+ standards and financing: eligibility requirements. Arlington: The Nature Consevancy [4 Jul 2024. https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/EligibilityRequirementsforREDDPlus_Financing_2021.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Guardian T. 2023. Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows. London: The Gurdian [accessed 17 Jul 2024]. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe.
   Google Scholar
• Hajjar R, Sanchez Badini O, Kozak RA. 2017. Promoting small and medium forest enterprises in national REDD+ strategies: a global analysis of enabling environments. Clim Policy. 17(6):731–763. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1179617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harzing A-W. 2010. The publish or perish book- your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis 12. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes I, Potvin C, Coomes OT. 2017. Early REDD + implementation: the journey of an indigenous community in Eastern Panama. Forests. 8(3):1–18. doi: 10.3390/f8030067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugel B, Hicks C, Guedez P-Y, Vaananen E, Chiu M, Scriven J, Eggerts E. 2018. REDD+ safeguards under the UNFCCC. REDD+ academy learning journal. 3rd ed. Nairobi: UNEP.
   Google Scholar
• Hvalkof S, Krøijer S. 2013. Imperatives for REDD+ sustainability. Non-carbon benefits, local and indigenous peoples. Copenhagen: Nordeco.
   Google Scholar
• [ICROA] International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance. 2016. IETA response to the draft regulations: carbon offsets. Geneva, Switzerland [accessed 12 Mar 2022]. https://m.moam.info/ieta-response-to-the-south-african-consultation-on-draft-icroa_647a6b00097c476c028d0c8d.html?utm_source=slidelegend
   Google Scholar
• Ingalls ML, Dwyer MB. 2016. Missing the forest for the trees? Navigating the trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation under REDD. Clim Change. 136(2):353–366. doi: 10.1007/s10584-016-1612-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. 2019. Climate change and land, an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Geneva: IPCC [accessed 10 Jul 2023]. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.
   Google Scholar
• Isyaku U. 2021. What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria. For Policy Econ. 102598:102598. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102598.
   Google Scholar
• Isyaku U, Arhin AA, Asiyanbi AP. 2017. Framing justice in REDD+ governance: centring transparency, equity and legitimacy in readiness implementation in West Africa. Environ Conserv. 44(3):212–220. doi: 10.1017/S0376892916000588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagger P, Rana P. 2017. Using publicly available social and spatial data to evaluate progress on REDD+ social safeguards in Indonesia. Environ Sci Policy. 76:59–69. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaureguiberry P, Titeux N, Wiemers M, Bowler DE, Coscieme L, Golden AS, Guerra CA, Jacob U, Takahashi Y, Settele J, et al. 2022. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Sci Adv. 8(45):eabm9982. eng. 10.1126/sciadv.abm9982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karsenty A, Vogel A, Castell F. 2014. “Carbon rights”, REDD+ and payments for environmental services. Environ Sci Policy. 35:20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katerere Y, Fobissie K, Annies A. 2015. Non-carbon benefits of REDD+: the case for supporting non-carbon benefits in Africa.Addis Ababa: UN.ECA.
   Google Scholar
• Ken S, Entani T, Tsusaka TW, Sasaki N. 2020. Effect of REDD+ projects on local livelihood assets in keo seima and Oddar Meanchey, Cambodia. Heliyon. 6(4):e03802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim J, Madrigal R, Alpizar F, Rojas S, Brenes E, Salas A, An Y. 2016. Bridging the policy and investment gap for payment for ecosystem services. Learning from Costa Rican experience and roads ahead. Seoul: The Global Green Growth Institute [accessed 2 Jun 2023]. https://gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016-10-Bridging-the-Policy-and-Investment-Gap-for-Payment-for-Ecosystem-Services-Learning-from-the-Costa-Rican-Experience-and-Roads-Ahead.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kissinger G, Gupta A, Mulder I, Unterstell N. 2019. Climate financing needs in the land sector under the Paris agreement: an assessment of developing country perspectives. Land Use Policy. 83:256–269. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson AM, Solis D, Duchelle AE, Atmadja S, Aju I, Resosudarmo P, Dokken T, Komalasari M. 2018. Gender lessons for climate initiatives: a comparative study of REDD+ impacts on subjective wellbeing. World Dev. 108:86–102. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lua H, Liua G, Huanga Z, Yang Q. 2015. Carbon, soil, and ecological benefits of REDD+ policies in Southwest China. ScienceAsia. 42(1):1–11. doi: 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2016.42.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandal RA, Dutta IC, Jha PK, Karmacharya S. 2013. Relationship between carbon stock and plant biodiversity in collaborative forests in Terai, Nepal. ISRN Botany. 2013:1–7. doi: 10.1155/2013/625767.
   Google Scholar
• Massarella K, Sallu SM, Ensor JE, Marchant R. 2018. REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: the dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Dev. 109:375–385. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H. 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ Sci Policy. 21:63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDermott C, Vira B, Walcott J, Brockhaus M, Harris M, Kumeh EM, de Mendonça Gueiros C. 2022. The evolving governance of REDD+. In: Parrotta J, editor. Forests, climate, biodiversity, and people: assessing a decade of REDD+. Vienna: IUFRO; p. 21–60.
   Google Scholar
• Mcgregor A, Weaver S, Challies E, Howson P, Astuti R, Haalboom B. 2014. Practical critique: bridging the gap between critical and practice-oriented REDD+ research communities. Asia Pacific viewpoint 277–291. (NJ) [NJ]: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Moeliono M, Brockhaus M, Gallemore C, Dwisatrio B, Maharani CD, Muharrom E, Pham TT. 2020. REDD+ in Indonesia: a new mode of governance or just another project? For Policy And Econ. 121:102316. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. 2010. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 8(5):336–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Estarli M, Barrera ESA, et al. 2016. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet. 4(1):148–160. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
   Google Scholar
• Monjane B, Lang C, Carvalho DTD, Samuel E, Prawiranegara I, Cabello J, Kill J, Lohmann L, Yawanawa L, Environnement M, et al. 2022. 15 Years of REDD: a mechanism rotten at the core. World Rainforest movement. Montevideo: World Rainforest Movement [accessed 23 May 2023]. https://www.wrm.org.uy/publications/15-years-of-redd.
   Google Scholar
• Morveli V, Barletti JPS, Lasheras T, Larson AM. 2023. How can REDD+ do better for community rights? An examination of Peru’s interpretation of indigenous rights in the Cancun safeguards. Info brief. Borgor: CIFOR [accessed 23 May 2023]. https://www.cifor-icraf.org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/8933-Infobrief.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mulder BM, Caro T, Ngwali AS. 2021. A silver lining to REDD: Institutional growth despite programmatic failure. Conserv Sci Pract. 3(1). doi: 10.1111/csp2.312.
   Google Scholar
• Nantongo M, Vatn A, Vedeld P. 2019. All that glitters is not gold; power and participation in processes and structures of implementing REDD+ in Kondoa, Tanzania. For Policy Econ. 10:44–54. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.10.011.
   Google Scholar
• Neuteleers S. 2022. Survey article: trading nature: when are environmental markets (un)desirable? J Polit Philos. 30(1):116–139. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton P, Schaap B, Fournier M, Cornwall M, Rosenbach DW, Deboer J, Whittemore J, Stock R, Yoders M, Brodnig G, et al. 2015. Community forest management and REDD +. For Policy Econ. 56:27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NYDF Assessment Partners. 2019. Protecting and restoring forests: a story of large commitments yet limited progress. (NY): New York Declaration on Forests [accessed 23 May 2023]. https://climatefocus.com/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/2019NYDFReport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell PM. 2023. Cultural landscapes: integrating culture and nature to uplift global sustainability through the lenses of the UN SDGs 2030 Agenda 61–78. Singapore: Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Ojea E, Loureiro ML, Alló M, Barrio M. 2016. Ecosystem services and REDD: estimating the benefits of non-carbon services in worldwide forests. World Dev. 78:246–261. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panfil SN, Harvey CA. 2016. REDD+ and biodiversity conservation: a review of the biodiversity goals, monitoring methods, and impacts of 80 REDD+ projects. Conser Lett. 9(2):143–150. doi: 10.1111/conl.12188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paoli GD, Wells PL, Meijaard E, Struebig MJ, Marshall AJ, Obidzinski K, Tan A, Rafiastanto A, Yaap B, Ferry Slik JW, et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in the REDD. Carbon Balance Manag. 5(1):7. doi: 10.1186/1750-0680-5-7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pelletier J, Horning N, Laporte N, Samndong RA, Goetz S. 2018. Anticipating social equity impacts in REDD+ policy design: an example from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy. 75:102–115. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peskett L, Schreckenberg K, Brown J. 2011. Institutional approaches for carbon financing in the forest sector: learning lessons for REDD + from forest carbon projects in Uganda. Environ Sci Policy. 14(2):216–229. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham TT, Moeliono M, Brockhaus M, Le DN, Wong GY, Le TM. 2014. Local preferences and strategies for effective, efficient, and equitable distribution of pes revenues in Vietnam: lessons for REDD+. Hum Ecol. 42(6):885–899. doi: 10.1007/s10745-014-9703-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pham TT, Moeliono M, Yuwono J, Dwisatrio B, Gallo P. 2021. REDD+ finance in Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam: stakeholder perspectives between 2009-2019. Glob Environ Change. 70:102330. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poffenberger M. 2015. Restoring and conserving Khasi forests: a community-based REDD strategy from Northeast India. Forests. 6(12):4477–4494. doi: 10.3390/f6124382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poudel M, Thwaites R, Race D, Dahal GR. 2015. Social equity and livelihood implications of REDD+ in rural communities – a case study from Nepal. Int J Commons. 9(1):177. doi: 10.18352/ijc.444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roopsind A, Sohngen B, Brandt J. 2019. Evidence that a national REDD + program reduces tree cover loss and carbon emissions in a high forest cover, low deforestation country. PNAS. 116(49).
   Google Scholar
• Ruix-Jaen R-J, Schultz F, Insfran BA, van der Elstraeten A. 2020. Panama and Paraguay exchange knowledge on community monitoring and territorial planning. Rome: UN-REDD [accessed 24 May 2023]. https://www.fao.org/redd/news/detail/en/c/1259384/.
   Google Scholar
• Saeed A-R, McDermott C, Boyd E. 2017. Are REDD+ community forest projects following the principles for collective action, as proposed by Ostrom? Int J Commons. 11(1):572. doi: 10.18352/ijc.700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito-Jensen M, Sikor T, Kurniawan Y, Eilenberg M, Setyawan EP, Kustini SJ. 2015. Policy options for effective REDD+ implementation in Indonesia: the significance of forest tenure reform. Int For Rev. 17(1):86–97. doi: 10.1505/146554815814725040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salway H, Klaczynska-Lewis K, Burzec M, Waslicka E, Szczesna E, Krawczyk L, Wyrembkowski M. 2022. Carbon credit rights under the Paris agreement. How article 6 and the implementation of NDCs may shape government approaches to the carbon market, and what this mean for rights related to carbon credits. Châtelaine: Gold Standard [accessed 23 Apri 2024]. https://goldstandard.org/sites/default/files/documents/carbon_credit_rights_under_the_paris_agreement_november_2022.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid DV. 2022. Are forest carbon projects in Africa green but mean?: a mixed-method analysis. Clim Dev. 5(1):45–59. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2022.2054400.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider H. 2018. What role for culture in conservation? Oryx. 52(2):199–200. doi: 10.1017/S0030605318000248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder H, Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Pham TT. 2020. Policy learning in REDD+ donor countries: Norway, Germany and the UK. Glo Environ Change. 63:102106. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Setyowati A. 2020. Governing the ungovernable: contesting and reworking REDD+ in Indonesia. J Political Ecol. 27(1):reprint. doi: 10.2458/v27i1.23185.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma BP, Karky BS, Nepal M, Pattanayak SK, Sills EO, Shyamsundar P. 2020. Making incremental progress: impacts of a REDD+ pilot initiative in Nepal. Environ ResearchLett. 15(10):105004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aba924.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siikamäki J, Newbold SC. 2012. Potential biodiversity benefits from international programs to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation. AMBIO. 41(S1):78–89. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0243-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Simonet G, Subervie J, Ezzine‐De‐Blas D, Cromberg M, Duchelle AE. 2019. Effectiveness of a REDD+ project in reducing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Am J Agric Econ. 101(1):211–229. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aay028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunderlin W, De Sassi C, Ekaputri A, Light M, Pratama C. 2017. REDD+ contribution to well-being and income is marginal: The perspective of local stakeholders. Forests. 8(4):125. doi: 10.3390/f8040125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sylvera. 2023. What is the state of REDD+ carbon credits in 2022? London. sylvera.com/blog/redd-carbon-credits–2022 [accessed 20 May 2024]. https://www.
   Google Scholar
• UNDP. 2021. Considerations for integrating nature-based solutions into nationally determined contributions: illustrating the potential through REDD+. (NY) [NY]: UNDP [accessed 12 Mar 2024]. https://www.undp.org/publications/consideration-integrating-nature-based-solutions-nationally-determined-contributions-illustrating-potential-through-redd.
   Google Scholar
• UNDP. 2022. What are carbon markets and why are they important? Geneva: UNDP [accessed 10 May 2024]. https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/what-are-carbon-markets-and-why-are-they-important.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2014. Key decisions relevant for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Decision booklet REDD + (includes the Warsaw framework for REDD +). Bonn: UNFCCC [accessed 12 Oct 2024]. https://unfccc.int/files/land_use_and_climate_change/redd/application/pdf/compilation_redd_decision_booklet_v1.1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• UNFCCC. 2023. Warsaw framework for REDD+. Bonn: UNFCCC [ Accessed 2023 Dec10]. https://redd.unfccc.int/fact-sheets/warsaw-framework-for-redd.html.
   Google Scholar
• UN-REDD. 2023. A decade of REDD+: notable achievements by forest nations. Bonn: UN-REDD [accessed 12 Mar 2024]. https://unfccc.int/news/a-decade-of-redd-notable-achievements-by-forest-nations.
   Google Scholar
• van der Haar S, Gallagher EJ, Schoneveld GC, Slingerland MA, Leeuwis C. 2023. Climate-smart cocoa in forest landscapes: lessons from institutional innovations in Ghana. Land Use Policy. 132:106819. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villhauer B, Sylvester O. 2021. Decolonizing REDD+ for climate change mitigation: case study of Costa Rica’s cultural mediators program, 1–27. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Visseren-Hamakers IJ, McDermott C, Vijge MJ, Cashore B. 2012. Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Curr Opin Env Sust. 4(6):646–653. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voigt C, Ferreira F. 2015. The Warsaw framework for REDD +: implications for national implementation and access to results-based finance. Clim And Carbon Law. 28:113–129.
   Google Scholar
• Wallbott L, Rosendal GK. 2018. Safeguards, standards, and the science-policy interfaces of REDD: greening land use through forest-based mitigation in Costa Rica? J Environ Dev. 27(1):99–125. doi: 10.1177/1070496517751716.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West TAP, Börner J, Sills EO, Kontoleon A. 2020. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS. 117(39):24188–24194. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2004334117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West TAP, Grogan KA, Swisher ME, Caviglia-Harris JL, Sills EO, Roberts DA, Harris D, Putz FE. 2018. Impacts of REDD+ payments on a coupled human-natural system in Amazonia. Ecosyst Serv. 33:68–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong GY, Luttrell C, Loft L, Yang A, Pham TT, Naito D, Assembe-Mvondo S, Brockhaus M. 2019. Narratives in REDD+ benefit sharing: examining evidence within and beyond the forest sector. Clim Policy. 19(8):1038–1051. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1618786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woroniecki S, Spiegelenberg FA, Chausson A, Turner B, Key I, Md Irfanullah H, Seddon N. 2023. Contributions of nature-based solutions to reducing people’s vulnerabilities to climate change across the rural Global South. Clim Dev. 15(7):590–607. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2022.2129954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wunder S, Brouwer R, Engel S, Ezzine-De-Blas D, Muradian R, Pascual U, Pinto R. 2018. From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nat Sustain. 1(3):145–150. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar