REDD + research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward

Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

REDD + research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward Richard S Mbatu Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Geography, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, 140 Seventh Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 June 2016 Received in revised form 3 September 2016 Accepted 15 September 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: REDD+ Climate change Forest policy 4Is

a b s t r a c t This study analyzes articles of various research design methods such as case studies, survey studies, descriptive studies, exploratory studies, and historical studies, to determine research trends on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). The study investigates how REDD+ research has evolved over a nine-year period, from 2007 when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP13) agreed to adopt an international REDD mechanism, until 2015. The study found that even though there has been a significant increase in REDD+ research since 2007, there are variations in country and regional studies as well as significant gaps in the REDD+ literature. However, there is optimism that promising forthcoming research in the post-Paris Agreement era will cover the existing gaps in REDD+ literature. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Forests store vast amounts of carbon. They function as a net carbon sink globally. During 2001–2010, forests removed a net average of −2.2 Gt CO2 yr−1 and −2.1 Gt CO2 yr−1 during 2011–2015 (Federici et al., 2015). Deforestation and forest degradation contribute to CO2 emissions into the atmosphere which is the primary cause of global warming (Smith et al., 2014). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) notes that CO2 emissions from forest degradation have increased significantly in recent years (Pachauri et al., 2014), from 0.4 Gt CO2 yr− 1 in the 1990s, to 1.0 Gt CO2 yr−1 in 2011–2015 (Federici et al., 2015). Furthermore, results from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 (FAO, 2015) indicated that total forest area declined by 3%, from 4128 M ha in 1990 to 3999 M ha in 2015, while tropical forest area declined at a rate of 5.5 M ha yr−1 during the same period (Keenan et al., 2015; Sloan and Sayer, 2015). Tropical forests, which cover about 13% of the world's land area – about 2 billion ha – (Butler, 2014) and contain an estimated 25% of the carbon in the terrestrial biosphere (Bonan, 2008) are of particular interest, as their loss and degradation is a major driver of CO2 flux caused by land-use changes (Bonan, 2008; Pongratz et al., 2014). Although “CO2 emissions from net forest conversion decreased significantly, from an average of 4.0 Gt CO2 yr− 1 during 2001-2010 to 2.9 Gt CO2 yr−1 during 2011–2015” (Federici et al., 2015, p. 89), the IPCC AR5 indicates that deforestation and forest degradation are still a significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions source (Pachauri et al., 2014). Given that tropical forests are an important sink and source of carbon,

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.010 1389-9341/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

the international community has agreed that tackling tropical deforestation and forest degradation is vital to the fight against climate change (UNFCCC, 2008). To this effect, the conference of parties (COP) to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at its 21st meeting (COP21) in Paris, in December 2015, capped the decade-long negotiations on REDD +, agreeing to incorporate REDD + (Article 5.2) into the global climate regime (UNFCCC, 2016). REDD + is “designed to offer positive incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and to promote the conservation, management and enhancement of forest stocks in developing countries” (The REDD Desk, 2015). The fundamental idea behind REDD+ is that the international community will financially compensate countries that are able and willing to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Ever since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) first agreed at COP13 in Bali, Indonesia in 2007 to adopt the REDD mechanism many governments and non-governments have come up with differing proposals. The arguments presented in the proposals cover four fundamental REDD+ issues (Parker et al., 2008): (1) Scope – eligible activities, (2) Reference level – baseline (time period) for calculating emissions, (3) Finance – funding sources, and (4) Distribution – recipients of the funds. Different explanations have been made regarding what options would best resolve these issues. The issue of scope, for example, has seen explanations supporting three different options – Reducing emissions from deforestation (RED), reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+) (Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Angelsen, 2009; Olander et al., 2012; Pistorius, 2012). The reference level issue has also seen explanations in support of three options: historical baseline, historical adjusted baseline, and projected baseline (Vatn and Angelsen,

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

2009). With regard to the finance issue, explanations have focused on three options: direct-market funding, market-linked funding and voluntary funding (Boucher et al., 2008; Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Angelsen, 2009; Streck, 2012), while explanations for the distribution issue have focused on two options: a redistribution mechanism and an additional finance mechanism (Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Angelsen, 2009; Balderas-Torres and Skutsch, 2012). The aim of this study is to give general understanding to REDD+ by determining from the literature its overall direction. REDD+ processes are shaped by elements of the 4Is framework1 – institutions (path-dependency), information (data), ideas (beliefs), and interests (individual/group) (Angelsen et al., 2012) – and their associated environmental, political, economic, social, and cultural factors that work together, producing outcomes that could prove advantageous or detrimental to the overall outcome of REDD+. The 4Is framework is based on the rationale that REDD+ processes are characterized by a large number of actors at different levels and scales operating within established institutions that stick to specific ideas serving particular interests using diverse information (Angelsen et al., 2012). Therefore this study analyzes REDD+ research in the context of the 4Is and their associated factors vis-à-vis the four fundamental REDD+ issues – scope, reference level, finance, and distribution – in studies conducted at various levels – regional, national, sub-national, and project, published in various types of journals over a nine-year period to determine trends in the findings of REDD+ research and recommend future directions for research. While it is understood that it is the policy process that has provided direction to REDD+, literature provides understanding of the policy process itself and thus the overall direction in which REDD + will take shape in the post-Paris Agreement era. This study contributes to the body of work on REDD+ by determining the overall direction of the REDD+ process and identifying the limitations of REDD+ research and ways forward.

2. Methods This study analyzes articles of various research design methods such as case studies, survey studies, descriptive studies, exploratory studies, and historical studies, to determine trends in REDD+ research. Following a review model established by Spruijt et al. (2014), the study investigates how REDD+ research has evolved over a nine-year period, from 2007 when COP13 agreed to adopt REDD, until 2015. The Spruijt et al. methodology combines structured literature search with literature identified in reference lists of peered reviewed papers to identify suitable publications for discipline clustering analysis and co-citation analysis and interpretation. This approach allows for the review of REDD+ studies on a broader perspective. Although the past nine years have witnessed a rapid increased inquiry on the topic of REDD+, the existing review literature on REDD+ has a very narrow perspective (e.g., Hufty and Haakenstad, 2011; Lawlor et al., 2013). The lack of compiled information about these inquiries, and the fact those nine years is reasonable length of time to constitute a generation of REDD+ activities, it is time to reflect on the REDD+ field. The increase in the number of different types of REDD+ studies has important implications for both policy-makers and researchers in the REDD+ area. Analysis of various theories underpinning the different REDD+ studies could allow policy-makers to see how best they can address the four fundamental REDD+ issues.2 For instance, in studies examining the relationship between REDD+ activities and poverty alleviation, those activities that are found to increase trends in findings could be

1 The 4Is framework was developed by Angelsen et al. (2012) within the context of the Center for International Forestry Research's (CIFOR) work on REDD+. 2 It is worthwhile noting that it is not a given that policy makers will draw on scientific research for their decision making; in fact often the opposite as we have seen in climate policy.

141

recommended to policy-makers for serious consideration as solution to the distribution (recipients of funds) issue of REDD+. The articles considered for this study were published in a variety of journals identified from two online databases: Web of Science and Google Scholar. Web of Science and Google scholar were chosen because when used together both data bases yield a multidisciplinary scope search that is suitable for REDD+ as a multidisciplinary research discipline. In addition they are powered with tracking and citing features that are lacking in other search engines. A broad, but “sensitive” search of the databases was carried out in order to identify possible articles on the topic of REDD + using a variety of keywords and terms used in REDD+ literature including: RED, REDD, REDD+ scope, REDD+ reference level, REDD + baseline, REDD + financing, REDD + governance, REDD + indigenous peoples, REDD + benefits, REDD + implementation, REDD+ climate change, REDD+ forest tenure, REDD+ poverty alleviation, REDD+ co-benefits. The starting date for the search was 2007. The search yielded a total of 1239 articles. A preliminary review of all 1239 articles was carried out to determine the suitability of the article, that is, the “type” of article. Of the 1239 articles, 864 were excluded for the following reason: article not in English language, book review, news item, correction, meeting abstract, editorial material, grey literature material, note, annotated policy brief, and non-project report. That left 375 articles potentially eligible for the study (see Table 1). The analysis was carried out in two parts. First, bibliographic coupling analysis (Kessler, 1963; Martyn, 1964) was carried out to structure the articles based on citation relationships. This allowed for the grouping of articles which have two or more common citations. The more number of common citations two or more articles get, the higher their bibliographic coupling strength, which is a measure of the degree of similarity (related subject matter) of the articles (Zhao and Strotmann, 2008; Boyack and Klavans, 2010). For example, if article A and B both cite article C, then, articles A and B would have a bibliographic coupling strength of one. In the same way if articles D, E and F cite article C, then, article C would have a bibliographic coupling strength of three (see Fig. 1). The bibliographic coupling analysis was performed using the Visualization of Similarities software program, VOSviewer. Fig. 2 below illustrates network visualization of the bibliographic coupling. Next, a qualitative review analysis of articles in the bibliographic coupled clusters was carried out. Three qualitative data analysis techniques – domain analysis, theme analysis (Spradley, 1979; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012), and discourse analysis (Brown and Yule, 1983; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012), were used for the analysis (see Table 2). Domain analysis is a type of data analysis that involves the grouping of things together – physical, observable things or conceptual things with the aim of communicating meaning to the sphere of influence of the identified things. Though first applied in cultural knowledge-based studies such as ethnographic sequence studies (Spradley, 1979), domain analysis is now commonly used in other research areas for example, information science (Hjørland, 2002), software engineering (Prieto-Díaz, 1990), and biomedical science (Corpet et al., 2000). The following excerpt from Onwuegbuzie et al. (2012, p. 17) succinctly explains domain analysis: “Specifically, domain analysis starts with examining symbols because of the belief that symbols are an essential way of communicating cultural meaning. Every culture—including the research culture and numerous research subcultures—has symbols or elements that represent other items. Symbols have three components: (a) the symbol itself (i.e., cover term); (b) one or more referents (i.e., to what the symbol refers; included term); and (c) a relationship between the symbol and the referent (i.e., semantic relationship). In other words, domains are created from (a) cover terms (concepts; Y); (b) included terms (referents; X); and (c) a semantic relationship between the cover term (Y) and the included terms (X). To understand the symbol, it is necessary for the researcher to analyze the relationship of the symbol to the referents. This is undertaken by examining semantics.”

142

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

Table 1 A matrix of the article selection process. Starting point

Inclusion criteria

Search of databases:

Use of keywords and Search yield: terms: RED 1239 articles identified REDD REDD+ REDD+ scope REDD+ reference level REDD+ baseline REDD+ financing REDD+ governance REDD+ indigenous peoples REDD+ benefits REDD+ Implementation REDD+ climate change REDD+ forest tenure REDD+ poverty alleviation REDD+ co-benefits Article type: 864 articles excluded Article not in English language Book review News item Correction Meeting abstract Editorial material Grey literature material Note Annotated policy brief Non-project report

Web of science

Google scholar

Total number of identified articles: 1239

End result

Starting point Total number of identified articles: 375 (1239–864)

Analysis Bibliographic coupling

End result 11 clusters identified

Starting point Total number of articles/clusters identified: 375/11

Exclusion criteria Connection to other articles: Unrelated to the REDD+ subject matter

End result 32 articles excluded and 4 clusters excluded

Starting point Total number of articles identified: 343 (375–32)

Final analysis Analysis technic: Domain analysis Theme analysis Discourse analysis

End result 343 articles in 7 cluster

Accordingly, this study identified “cover terms”, “referents” of the terms, and the “semantic relationship” between the terms and the referents to identify domains (sphere of influence). Theme analysis involved the search for relationship between domains. That is, looking for relationships between the different signifiers of a domain. Theme analysis is conducted by using identified signifiers to develop themes that link the different domains (Spradley, 1979). Theme analysis was conducted on articles in different clusters to identify themes (common denominator) for the clusters. Discourse analysis is an approach that analyzes language – written or vocal (Brown and Yule, 1983) by selecting segments of the language and examining them “in detail for rhetorical organization, variability, accountability, and positioning” (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012, p. 12). Discourse analysis was used to review the selected articles in different clusters in the study. Finally, in order to classify the articles as global, regional and national studies a spatial/temporal analysis was carried out by carefully analyzing the title, abstract and objectives of the articles. The qualitative review analysis helped in understanding the dynamics and interplay among the 4Is and their associated environmental, political, economic, social, and cultural factors vis-à-vis the four REDD + issues.

Fig. 1. Illustrating bibliographic coupling strength.

3. Results All 375 articles identified from the two online databases were used for the bibliographic coupling analysis. The bibliographic coupling analysis generated 11 clusters from the 375 articles. However, when the clusters were assessed – using domain analysis – for connection with other articles (i.e. network connectivity), the comprehensive nature of the REDD + issues being addressed, the investigation method used in the study, the holistic approach to REDD +; that is, the various REDD + issues considered, and the nature of data used in the study, only seven clusters were considered for the final analysis. Articles in three clusters (8, 9 and 11) were found to fit better in clusters 5, 1 and 7 respectively, hence were merged into these clusters. One cluster (10) was dropped from the analysis altogether because all articles in the cluster (32 articles) were completely unrelated3 to the REDD+ subject matter; leaving 343 articles for the final analysis (see Table 1). Each of the seven clusters was then assigned a theme (common denominator) based on the dynamics and interplay among the 4Is in each of the articles within a cluster, after a thematic analysis was conducted by identifying relationships between the 4Is. The following themes were identified: Benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+; forest cover monitoring; land tenure, local peoples and indigenous communities; ecosystems and biodiversity conservation; safeguards and environmental and social principle; community-based monitoring and land tenure security; and institutional and governance structures. 3.1. Qualitative analysis of clusters Based on content analysis the qualitative review produced subgroups within certain clusters. 3.1.1. Cluster 1: benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+ (70 articles) The highlight of the 70 articles reviewed in this cluster is the issue of benefit and opportunity cost associated with REDD+ implementation (Gregersen et al., 2010; Huettner, 2012). That is, the application of the theory of incentives to the REDD+ mechanism (Karsenty and Ongolo, 2012) – the idea that owners of forests and other woodlands (governments, communities and private individuals) forgo certain opportunities (benefits) when they make the choice to conserve the forests/ woodlands, since they would otherwise put the land to other uses. 3 While assessing articles in this cluster it was found that the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases identified articles with the word “redd” in the fisheries and aquatic sciences, which is a shallow depression in the gravel in which spawning fish deposits its eggs and sperm. Of course redd in this context is different from redd in the context of this paper hence, the reason for excluding that entire cluster of articles from the study.

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

143

Fig. 2. Extract of network visualization of the bibliographic coupling.

Hence they require compensation (rents) for the forgone opportunity. Using different theoretical frameworks, the authors discuss the impacts of different REDD+ policy objectives under different opportunity cost scenarios. The authors explore how the availability of information and other knowledge-based resources to policy makers influence the outcomes of avoiding deforestation and the welfare of local people and other stakeholders. The authors show how the political and technical dimension of “information” – an element of the 4Is framework – is used to accept or reject the implementation of REDD+. Farming is the main activity of most forest dwelling communities in the tropics (Geist and Lambin, 2002). It is therefore no surprise that many authors in this cluster (e.g., Dyer et al., 2012; Thangata and Hildebrand, 2012; Pirard and Belna, 2012; Cerbu et al., 2013; Noponen et al., 2013) use agriculture-based case studies – subsistence/commercial-agriculture – to analyze the outcome of REDD + programs vis-à-

vis the four fundamental REDD+ issues in the context of benefit and opportunity cost. It is important to understand farm households' and agri-businesses' response to REDD+ as crop and livestock production averaged 5 billion tons CO2 eq/yr emissions over the 2001–2010 period (IPCC, 2014). However, it is even more important to understand agricultural-based and other land-based activity accounting systems such as the Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal (RaCSA) (Van Noordwijk, 2007), as this could help in identifying REDD +’s causal chain and determine how farm households and agri-businesses can make trade-offs between the costs and benefits of REDD+. The authors, therefore, following the “information” element of the 4Is framework, suggest household socioeconomic data (house-hold income and assets), socio-demographic data (household composition, age, and education), household wellbeing data (health status, social connection, and housing), and land clearing data (productivity capacity (agriculture versus forest) and

Table 2 Clusters, themes and their characteristics. Cluster

Theme (common denominator)

Characteristic

Cluster 1 Cluster 2

Benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+ Forest cover monitoring

Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Land tenure, local peoples and indigenous communities Ecosystems and biodiversity conservation

Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Safeguards and environmental and social principle Community-based monitoring and land tenure security

Cluster 7

Institutional and governance structures

Cluster 8 Cluster 9 Cluster 10 Cluster 11

Merged with cluster 5 Merged with cluster 1 Dropped (not considered in the final analysis) Merged with cluster 7

Agriculture-based case studies; theory of incentives; opportunity cost scenarios Monitoring capacity; monitoring tools; remote sensing monitoring systems; different models and allometric equations Tenure aspects of REDD+; nexus between payments and tenure; incentive-based models Payments for ecosystem services (PES); REDD-based PES frameworks; Forest emissions reduction funding and ecosystem services/biodiversity protection REDD+ co-benefits for forest communities and indigenous peoples; Social safeguards of REDD+ Community involvement in REDD+ monitoring; community-based monitoring (CBM) in the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system under REDD+; land tenure security and land rights Interdependence of institutional and governance structures in the context of REDD+; governance challenges under REDD+; institutional capacity REDD+ co-benefits for forest communities and indigenous peoples; Social safeguards of REDD+ Agriculture-based case studies; theory of incentives; opportunity cost scenarios Dropped (not considered in the final analysis). Interdependence of institutional and governance structures in the context of REDD+; governance challenges under REDD+; institutional capacity

144

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

fragmentation potential), as a way to determine the potential interaction between REDD+ and agricultural production and other land-use activities (Palm et al., 2010; West et al., 2010). The main issue here is the authors' finding out the maximum potential cash benefit from carbon sequestration and comparing it to household needs in order to determine cost-effectiveness of REDD+ in specific communities. Although the authors generally find subsistence agriculture households to be attracted to REDD+, they, in most cases cite methodological problems in estimating opportunity cost and the lack of access to financial instruments as a drawback to subsistence agriculture households' attraction to REDD+. An omission by authors in this cluster is the issue of gender and household fuelwood demand and supply. Although some authors (e.g., Pirard and Belna, 2012) analyze land clearing data with respect to productivity capacity (agriculture versus forest) to determine costs and benefits of REDD+, the authors in this cluster generally do not address the issue of gender and household fuelwood demand and supply even though it is an important source of land clearing data (Leach and Mearns, 2013). Given that women are generally responsible for collecting household fuelwood in tropical forest-rich countries (Upadhyay, 2005; Sunderland et al., 2014), gender is an important variable in the household fuelwood demand and supply equation requiring the attention of REDD+ scholar, as it is important for determining and making trade-offs between the costs and benefits of REDD+. Another focus area of this cluster is agroforests and agroforestry. The main challenge of considering agroforests and agroforestry as an element of REDD+ is the issue of the definition of “forest”. This is because while the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's definition of forest as an “area of N0.05–1 ha with N10–30% cover of plants N2–5 m tall at maturity” (UNFCCC, 2002; Sasaki and Putz, 2009) puts agroforests at par with natural forests, many experts argue that this definition could precipitate further loss and degradation of natural forests as agroforests would still qualify to receive compensation under REDD+. The challenge of having a heuristic definition of forest has so far left every country to its own definition under REDD+. This has led to two main dimensions of looking at how agroforests and agroforestry relate to the REDD + mechanism (Minang et al., 2014): (1) when agroforests and agroforestry is an integral component of REDD+; and (2) when agroforests and agroforestry is an enhancement strategy for the attainment of REDD + goals. Focusing on various aspects of these two dimensions such as carbon stock enhancement (Thangata and Hildebrand, 2012), eligibility threshold (Suyanto et al., 2014), and the land sparing hypothesis (Minang et al., 2014), authors in this cluster explore the benefit and opportunity cost of agroforestry as a REDD + component. They analyze the theoretical and practical bends of the two dimensions using local and global empirical and simulation models. A prominent aspect of the analyses is the authors' awareness of the “interests” element of the 4Is framework and the issue of “scope” in the REDD+ domain. The authors show how scope and interests exhibit a two-way function when dealing with the issue of forest definition in the REDD + policy and technical arenas, arguing that a heuristic definition of forest – that includes or excludes agroforests and agroforestry – will delineate the scope of REDD+ and serve the interests of some of the stakeholders, and that the interests of some of the stakeholders will also delineate the scope of REDD+. The general conclusion of the authors is that with or without an across-the-board definition of forest, which may or may not include agroforestry under REDD+, the benefit and opportunity cost associated with agroforestry systems as a whole depend on the condition of the market economy, as it is the determining factor for both the agroforest products (coffee, cocoa, rubber, palm oils, etc.) and the carbon commodity. Community forestry is another focus area of this cluster. Unlike authors of the farm household and agribusiness REDD+ cost-effectiveness oriented focus, authors of the community forestry focus area explore community and family-based forestry as the main source of livelihood, assessing the cost-benefit of linking it to compensation for emission reductions and co-benefits of sustainable forest management. Some

authors (e.g., Bottazzi et al., 2013) attempt to provide answers to output- and input-based compensated reduction in relation to community and/or family-based forest management. The general conclusion of the authors is that output-based compensated reductions are conservation oriented. Hence they argue that this does not favor poor landless members of the community, who, in situation of input-based compensated reduction would receive compensation for the opportunity cost of their labor inputs, as input-based compensated reduction is more cost-effective and compensates for the general lack of tenure and land rights (cluster 3) by poorer members of the community. The authors, for example Bottazzi et al. (2013) and Minang and van Noordwijk (2013), nevertheless, draw attention to the low cost-effectiveness of the input-based compensated reduction design which, when trying to increase compensation by diversifying rural economies by improving local institutional structures, local social amenities, local capacity building and forest management techniques, aligns closely with integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), an approach that is well noted for its shortcomings in multi-scale REDD+ programs such as nesting, leakage and lack of permanence (Brandon and Wells, 2009; Streck, 2012). The focus on agroforestry and community forestry is shaped by the “interests” element of the 4Is framework as the authors explore the cost-benefit of REDD+ to organized and individual interests in family-based and community forestry. However, even though women are known to play a vital role in agroforestry in many tropical forest-rich countries (Kiptot and Franzel, 2011); none of the authors in this cluster address the specific issue of women's interests in agroforestry within the context of cost-benefit under REDD+. In summary, authors of the benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+ cluster provide useful indicators for making REDD+ policy decisions on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. However, while some authors see opportunity cost assessments as the most justifiable way for offsetting costs, others question the practicability of applying the concept in the context of REDD +. The latter group of authors cites political, social and economic problems associated with the concept under REDD+. 3.1.2. Cluster 2: forest cover monitoring (58 articles) Forest information and monitoring is one of the most essential aspects of REDD+. REDD+ needs an effective accounting system to monitor and keep track of forest cover change and carbon emissions, as a number of studies (e.g., Lepers et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2008) have shown paucity in the systematic and periodic collection of data and information on tropical forests. Many of these studies (e.g., Herold and Skutsch, 2009; Romijn et al., 2012) point to weak monitoring capacity as the main cause of the lack of information on forests. Therefore for REDD+ to have an effective system for monitoring forest cover change and carbon emissions the monitoring capacity for REDD+ participating countries must be significantly improved. Improving the monitoring capacity could help REDD+ participating countries trace back their historical forest loss and forest carbon emissions and establish a historical base-line for calculating emissions credits (Angelsen et al., 2012). The establishment of a credible reference scenario could also help to deal with the REDD + investment problem of leakage, permanence and additionality, as the REDD + investment problem is fundamentally a credibility problem which is tied to what happened in the past (Angelsen et al., 2012; Van Oosterzee et al., 2012). Although from the technical perspective experts recognize the potential of remote sensing as a monitoring tool for forest cover change (e.g., Hansen et al., 2013) and quantifying stocks and flows of carbon (e.g., Asner, 2014), there are no clear heuristics methodologies for the tool yet. Nevertheless, remote sensing is still used by a number of technicians quantifying forest cover loss trends in some REDD+ pilot projects currently taking place around the world. Hence the focus of a number of authors in this cluster is on the role of remote sensing in monitoring forest cover under REDD+. The authors undertake different types of studies assessing the use of various remote sensing monitoring systems including, the Landsat system, the Moderate-resolution

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) system, the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system, and the Synthetic Aperture Radar system to analyze various aspects of REDD+. For example, Avtar et al. (2013) employ the PALSAR (Phased Array type L-band Synthetic Aperture Radar) polarimetric land cover monitoring system to better understand how the system can influence REDD + policy implementation. Also, given that the consequences for fire hazards on REDD+ are not well understood, Aragao and Shimabukuro (2010) and Müller et al. (2013) study the impact of fire on forest carbon emissions under different forest conditions using the MODIS and Landsat systems. Other authors in this cluster (e.g., Nakakaawa et al., 2011) apply synthetic approach, using a combination of remote sensing and other traditional forest data inventory technics (e.g., ground plots and flux tower), to monitor forest cover change and quantify stocks and flows of carbon under REDD+. Although remote sensing technics are useful forest monitoring tools, the lack of a clear heuristic methodology, the lack of technical knowhow in its applications, and the lack of capacity to assemble and disseminate remotely sensed data have led to the continuous use of traditional forest inventories for forest monitoring systems. As a result, some studies in this cluster (e.g., Maniatis and Mollicone, 2010; Herold et al., 2011) examine the role of traditional forest inventories for forest monitoring under REDD +. The authors generally explain the use of different models and allometric equations in monitoring forest cover and carbon flux, focusing on the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006). Although some authors (e.g., Grainger and Obersteiner, 2011; Henry et al., 2011) express concerns about the impact of the absence of national REDD+ frameworks and policies on national monitoring systems, other authors (e.g., Herold and Skutsch, 2011; Joseph et al., 2013; Köthke et al., 2014) are optimistic about the reference level issue, as many subnational level projects have established reference levels and developed monitoring systems. Overall, drawing from the “information” element of the 4Is framework, the studies in this cluster provide general understanding about the efficacy of different monitoring tools for forest cover and carbon stock change vis-à-vis the four fundamental REDD + issues. However, it is worthwhile noting that because the search strategy for articles centered on the term REDD, but not just the terms deforestation, degradation, or forest cover change, remote sensing-based studies of deforestation and forest degradation that are not REDD+ related were not captured by the search. The core of analysis in studies in this cluster is the extent to which biophysical and operational land cover monitoring systems can support the implementation of REDD + at national, subnational and project levels. 3.1.3. Cluster 3: land tenure, local peoples and indigenous communities (58 articles) The system that determines ownership and rights to land (tenure system) in most forest-rich countries is unclear (Unruh, 2008; Larson, 2011; Sunderlin et al., 2014). The lack of tenure clarity has significant implications for REDD+, as it is crucial for identifying stakeholders, distributing benefits emanating from REDD + projects, developing efficient participatory management strategies, and developing conflict resolution strategies (Larson et al., 2013). Although not an indispensable precondition for the implementation of REDD+, land tenure insecurity poses serious challenges for achieving the overall goals of REDD +. Without secure tenure rights meaningful participation of local peoples and indigenous communities in REDD + design and implementation is not guaranteed. These concerns have sparked debates around land tenure and REDD+ (Cotula and Mayers, 2009; Westholm et al., 2011; Angelsen et al., 2012), generating substantial amounts of literature on its role in successful implementation of REDD+. The studies in this cluster highlight the impact of secure and insure tenure rights on REDD+ from different perspectives. The authors employ empirical and theoretical approaches to address pertinent issues around tenure aspects of REDD + including co-benefits emanating

145

from REDD+ schemes, payment for avoided deforestation, and governance of tenure. Authors, Barbier and Tesfaw (2012), and Duchelle et al. (2014) express optimism about the nexus between payments and tenure in fostering a win-win outcome for forest conservation and forest emissions reduction. Many of the authors focus on incentive-based models within the payment-tenure nexus context of REDD+, and the role of the 4Is framework, to illustrate the potential role of tenure/property rights and payment/incentive-based instruments in realizing the overall goal of REDD +. For example, Awono et al. (2014) and Sunderlin et al. (2014) emphasize the “interests”, “ideas” and “institutions” elements of the 4Is framework by focusing on the issue of “right holder” and “payment beneficiaries” and the issue of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). They argue that in order for REDD+ to accommodate the interests of the local peoples, the legacy of marginalization of local peoples in the management of forests must be overcome by ensuring that REDD+ institutions include local peoples and their ideas in the decision-making process. This, they argue, will incentivize the local population to fully cooperate in the implementation of REDD+. Other studies in this cluster, for example, those by Larson (2011), Lyster (2011), Reed (2011), and Jaung and Bae (2012), however, stress the need for a better understanding of the necessity for clear tenure security and land rights for indigenous peoples and other forest-based communities, as this is crucial to the success or failure of REDD+. The authors address questions related to threats and opportunities presented by REDD+ to local peoples and indigenous communities. One crucial question address by these authors is how the rights of local peoples and indigenous communities will be guaranteed and protected under REDD+ schemes. The authors examine different rights issues such as those related to participation in decision-making, respecting their knowledge of forest resources use and protection, and forest-carbon ownership, among many others. In short, all authors in this cluster agree that it is necessary to address tenure insecurity and related rights of local peoples and indigenous communities to forests and its resources. This will be a crucial issue in moving REDD+ forward in the post-Paris Agreement era. 3.1.4. Cluster 4: ecosystems and biodiversity conservation (43 articles) Research on REDD+ has produce significant literature on its potential impact on biodiversity and ecosystem protection. A significant focus of the scholarship on biodiversity and ecosystem protection under REDD + centers on payments for ecosystem services (PES) (e.g., Corbera, 2012; Busch, 2013; Mahanty et al., 2013; Karsenty et al., 2014). With the “market failure” problem plaguing the forest sector in most forest-rich tropical counties (Bulte and Engel, 2006), some of the scholarship (e.g., Pirard, 2012) highlights the role of market-based instrument in designing and implementing PES projects that benefit the environment, the government, and forest communities. A number of authors in this cluster take on the issue of using REDD-based PES frameworks to integrate biodiversity indicators into national forest inventory systems. For example, Gardner et al. (2012) and Grussu et al. (2014) developed frameworks that while focusing on ecological principle in identifying and integrating biodiversity indicators into national REDD + strategic planning processes, maintained the ability of REDD+ to enhance forest carbon storage. Inasmuch as these general frameworks portray a “win-win” outcome for both ecosystems-biodiversity conservation and forest carbon emissions reduction agendas, other studies in this cluster (e.g., Stickler et al., 2009; Pistorius et al., 2011; Persson, 2012; Pistorius et al., 2012; Schmitt, 2013) raise concerns about the adequateness of such general frameworks accounting for the real market value of ecosystems services and the negative influence that certain forest-related projects under REDD+ have on ecosystems and biodiversity conservation. The authors express important concerns how pursue of carbon credits by governments and private entities influence forest use and land management choices that have negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. For example, within the context of the “interests” element of the 4Is framework, Persson (2012) and Schmitt

146

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

(2013) argue that agroforestry – perceived by many as an interest seeking activity – which is earmarked to receive carbon credit under REDD+ (cluster 1), could precipitate the replacement of low-carbon native forests, which are rich in biodiversity and provide a wide range of ecosystem services, with high-carbon density agroforests, which are lacking in biodiversity and provide little ecosystem services. Another focus area of authors in this cluster is the issue of funding for forest emissions reduction activities related ecosystem services and biodiversity protection. Although the lack of funding has raised concerns about the future of REDD+ (Streck, 2012), Agrawal et al. (2011) are optimistic about the enormous potential for funding opportunities for ecosystems and biodiversity conservation under REDD +. While some authors express optimism about sustained support for ecosystems and biodiversity conservation initiatives under REDD +, at least in the short-term, owing to the drastic reduction in international funding for traditional conservation projects like the integrated conservation development projects (ICDPs), others (e.g., Phelps et al., 2011) caution that the support may only last for a short time, arguing that due to the “significant financial risks” – voluntary public finance and volatile carbon market – associated with forest carbon emissions reduction initiatives, the “unprecedented potential funding” supports for REDD + −related ecosystem services and biodiversity protection projects may in fact last only for a short time. It is worthwhile noting that although the payments for ecosystem services concept of this cluster is similar to the benefit and opportunity cost concept discussed in cluster 1, the difference is that while the focus of authors in this cluster is the win-win scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem protection under REDD +, the focus of authors in cluster 1 is cost-effectiveness of carbon sequestration under REDD+.

3.1.5. Cluster 5: safeguards and environmental and social principle (44 articles) Some authors (e.g., Hiraldo and Tanner, 2011) argue that the idea of asking forest communities and indigenous peoples not to do business as usual with the forest resource would have negative impacts on the economic and social benefits these stakeholders derive from the forest. Therefore, in spite rising optimism that REDD+ could generate substantial co-benefits for forest communities and indigenous peoples (Edwards et al., 2010; Corbera and Schroeder, 2011), the socioeconomic wellbeing of forest dependent communities and their environment is at stake if proper measures are not put in place to lessen or mitigate the potential negative impacts. These measures are called safeguards, as they ensure that not only the livelihoods of forest dependent peoples are protected, but also that any gains in forest emissions reduction are not lost through leakage (displacement of emissions) or reverse behaviors (UNFCCC, 2011). Scholars focusing on REDD + safeguards (e.g., Menton et al., 2014) express concerns that forest communities may be kept out of the REDD+ process. Therefore their studies are largely focused on the human rights dimension of REDD + (Savaresi, 2013), and around the issue of indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) (Anderson, 2011). Emphasis on social safeguards of REDD+ has also been highlighted by authors in this cluster. For example, Arhin (2014) identifies four categories of social safeguards of REDD+ – (1) preventive safeguards, (2) mitigative safeguards, (3) promotive safeguards, and (4) transformative safeguards – explaining how these safeguards work under the Cancun Agreements. First, the safeguards must adhere to environmental principles and criteria, and to the REDD+ social and environmental standards; and second, the safeguards must be monitored through the safeguards information system linked to the measurement, reporting and verification system which is the main accountability system of REDD+. All authors in this cluster address at least one of these two aspects of the Cancun Agreements. Some authors (e.g., McDermott et al., 2012) emphasize the operationalization of social safeguards in REDD+, focusing on the role of the “interests” and the “ideas” elements of the 4Is framework.

3.1.6. Cluster 6: community-based monitoring and land tenure security (34 articles) As much as biophysical and operational land cover monitoring systems (cluster 2) are of central importance in assessing forest carbon stock change under REDD +, community-based monitoring (CBM) is also an important tool for the attainment of success in many development projects, including the REDD + project. As a land use project, REDD + integrates community-based monitoring at various levels (Agrawal and Angelsen, 2009). It allows for civic engagement through public participation in the REDD+ process. CBM is therefore an essential aspect of land governance as it empowers communities to become partners with policy-makers in managing land issues through democratic governance processes such as dialogue, openness, transparency, accountability and inclusion. Through CBM, the most contested issue – arguably – in land use development policy – land tenure security and land rights (cluster 3) – is beginning to gain recognition at both national and international levels (Sietchiping et al., 2012; Robinson et al., 2014). Thus, authors of the community-based monitoring and land tenure security cluster, drawing from the “information” and “institutional” elements of the 4Is framework investigate the role of community-based monitoring in the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system under REDD+, and its impact on the issue of land tenure security and land rights. Issues address by the authors includes CBM and participatory MRV (e.g., Danielsen et al., 2011), CBM and the cost-effectiveness of MRV (e.g., Pratihast et al., 2013), CBM approaches to MRV (Larrazábal et al., 2012; Jagger et al., 2014), and CBM and benefit sharing (Fry, 2011; Torres et al., 2014). Some authors (e.g., Pratihast et al., 2013) employ governance analysis to show the cost-effectiveness of using CBM as a tool for enhancing MRV under REDD +. Others (e.g., Jagger et al., 2014) use multidisciplinary approach combining quantitative and qualitative social research techniques (involving principles and processes) and governance analysis to assess local participation in MRV and their overall impact on REDD +. The use of different approaches by authors in this cluster is a reflection of the different objectives of CBM in the MRV system under REDD+, as the authors seek to show how CBM generates and feeds data into REDD+ monitoring system; demonstrate the critical role of CBM generated data in REDD + benefit sharing systems using different policy legitimacy criteria – technical practicability, economic efficiency, political feasibility, and administrative implementability –; illustrate the technical knowledge-based potential and challenges of CBM in MRV system under REDD+; and illustrate how CBM facilitates interactions with different land policy regimes – land tenure security and land rights – under REDD +. The works of these authors encompass all elements of the 4Is framework, as they shade light on information (data) gathering for the MRV process, the role played by different actors in the collective (grouped) interests of the community, and the ideas furnished by international, national and local institutions in the MRV system under REDD+. To better understand the role of CBM in MRV system under REDD+ it is necessary to show its relationship to key indicators of land governance issues. The World Bank's Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) is the platform on which this relationship is better understood. The LGAF provides opportunity for collaboration between national and local actors that facilitates identification of specific country level key indicators, as the framework allows for a holistic review of land governance issues through different policy intervention areas including land use planning, management and taxation; management of public land; public provision of land information; dispute resolution and conflict management; and a variety of legal and institutional mechanisms (Deininger et al., 2011). Authors of community-based monitoring and land tenure security cluster analyze this policy intervention areas vis-à-vis their contribution to CBM's facilitation of MRV system under REDD+. The authors, however, argue that CBM can play a more valuable role in REDD+ when supported by land-based monitoring initiatives provided by different organizations such as intergovernmental

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

organizations (IGOs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society organizations (CSOs). Overall, unlike authors in the forest cover monitoring cluster (cluster 2) that focus on biophysical and operational land cover monitoring systems, authors in this cluster stress the importance of community involvement in REDD+ monitoring, focusing on evidence of challenges and opportunities of MRV systems to communities.

3.1.7. Cluster 7: institutional and governance structures (36 articles) Institutional and governance structures are a key pillar of REDD + (Thompson et al., 2011; Vatn and Vedeld, 2011; Lederer, 2012). The many years of difficult negotiations on REDD + revolved around the general acceptance of an international governance structure and the efficiency of national institutions responsible for the design and implementation of REDD+ at national, local and project levels (Obersteiner et al., 2009; Verchot and Petkova, 2010; den Besten et al., 2014). Scott (2001) explains the interdependence of existence between institutional and governance structures as an interplay of norms, rules, regulations and values (components of the “institutional” element of the 4Is framework) that determine outcomes to meet the objectives of stakeholders. Therefore, governance, Vatn and Vedeld (2011) argue, is a function of institutions that enhance interaction between stakeholders; that is, between different interests and actors. In this regard therefore, an efficient REDD+ governance structure, be it at the local, national or international level, must have: (1) the potential for capacity building for different interests, actors and institutions, (2) the ability to foster collaboration among different interests, actors and institutions, and (3) the capability to coordinate multiple functions of different institutions and different actors and interests in the design and implementation of REDD + schemes (Vatn and Angelsen, 2009; Thompson et al., 2011). The authors in this cluster, using empirical and theoretical approaches, examine the interdependence of institutional and governance structures in the context of REDD+. Many of the studies focus on national governance structure on REDD+ (e.g., Vatn and Vedeld, 2011; Aquino and Guay, 2013; Somorin et al., 2014). A considerable number of authors (e.g., Petkova et al., 2010; Corbera and Schroeder, 2011; Kanowski et al., 2011; Gupta, 2012; Mulyani and Jepson, 2013) examine governance challenges, highlighting key issues such as, corruption, lack of transparency, lack of accountability, and exclusiveness, all of which point to low institutional capacity. The authors argue that a high institutional capacity is necessary for overcoming major challenges of REDD+ at national level such as land tenure (cluster 3). Although a majority of studies in this cluster point to low institutional capacity as a threat to the success of REDD + in many developing countries, especially those in the Congo Basin (e.g., the Democratic Republic of Congo) (Aquino and Guay, 2013), few studies identify the emergence of high institutional capacity in some developing countries, notably in Central and South American (e.g., Brazil) (Toni, 2011) which is proving to be the main driving force advancing the REDD+ process in these countries. Other REDD+ governance factors that received considerable attention by authors in this cluster include adaptiveness (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011), agency (Somorin et al., 2012; Somorin et al., 2014), finance (Gupta, 2012; Lederer, 2012), legality (Lederer, 2011), and social equity (Mahanty and McDermott, 2013). The general argument made by authors in this cluster is that good governance, which is a function of effective institutional arrangements, will play a key role in the success of REDD +. Given that REDD + is a resource management regime, and given that the inefficiency of resource management regimes have been linked to governance failure (Pahl-Wostl, 2009), the success of REDD + will depend largely on good governance (and efficient institutions), especially given that the Paris Agreement's so-called “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) to the climate change regime is based on voluntary pledges with no obligation for countries to live up to their promises.

147

3.2. Classifying articles by their year, geographic region and country origin of study The second section of the study, focus on classifying and analyzing articles by their year, geographic region and country origin of study. The analysis of the title, abstract and objectives of the articles is the main focus here. 3.2.1. Classifying and analyzing articles by their year and geographic region of study Analysis of the articles indicates that there has been annual increase in the number of publications4 from 2007 to 2014, except for 2009 and 2013 (see Fig. 3). Only three articles were published in 2007. The number increased to nine in 2008, and then dropped to seven in 2009. The number of publications increased significantly from 22 in 2010 to 56 in 2011 and to 77 in 2012. However the number dropped to 72 in 2013 before increasing again to 95 in 2014. At the time the article search for this study (January 2015) was conducted the Web of Science and Google Scholar online databases could only identify two publications for 2015. The overall growth in the number of publications can be attributed to a number of factors including increase salience of REDD+ in the UNFCCC's agenda, increase corporate and organizational involvement in REDD + activities, and increase in REDD + funding activities, all of which provided more research avenues for scholars and practitioners in the forest sector and in other forest-related sectors of the global economy. Not only has there been a significant increase in REDD+ research since 2007 when REDD was adopted at COP13, the geographic areas of studies has varied as well. Three categories of geographic areas of studies were considered in this analysis: country study (CS), regional study (RS) and global study5 (GS). Table 3 shows the three categories and the number of studies in each category within each of the seven research clusters. The table indicates that the majority of the 343 articles identified for this study is GS (178), followed by CS (132), and RS (33). Of the 70 articles reviewed in cluster one, 43 are GS, 21 are CS, and six are RS. The 58 articles in cluster two are dominated by GS (32), followed by CS (22), and RS (4). A similar distribution is seen in cluster three where the majority of the 58 articles is GS (26), followed by CS (21), and RS (11). The same trend is seen in cluster four where 27 of the 43 articles is GS, and again followed by CS (3) and RS (3). Unlike in clusters one through four where GS dominates, the majority of the 44 articles in cluster five is CS (26) followed by GS (17), and RS (1). In cluster six, both CS and GS dominate, with each having 16 of the 34 articles analyzed. Only two of the articles in this cluster are RS. Finally, the 36 articles in cluster seven is dominated by GS (17), followed by CS (13) and RS (6). The limited number of regional studies seems unsurprising given that REDD+ is a global mechanism that is implemented at a national (primarily) and sub-national level. This analysis suggests that global studies in benefit and opportunity cost in REDD + (cluster 1) is by far the most studied REDD + subject (43 articles), while regional studies in safeguards and environmental and social principles (cluster 5) is the least studied subject (1 article). Although it is unclear why the subject of benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+ has attracted more research than other REDD+ subject matters, it could be attributed to the debate on REDD+ architecture in the early years (2007–2010) focusing too much on the problematique of the mechanism (leakage, permanence and additionality), thereby building momentum in benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+ which is now being reflected in the increased number of publications on the subject in these later years (since 2011). As for safeguards and environmental and social principles the reason the subject has not attracted much regional studies research could be explained by the fact that REDD + 4 A complete list of the authors (first author only) and the year of publication of their article is added as supplementary material to this paper. 5 Articles in this category represent work at both country and regional levels.

148

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

Number of publications vs year of publication

Table 4 Countries and regions with the most number of studies.

Number of publications

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Country of study

Number of studies

Indonesia Brazil Tanzania

29 14 12

Region of study Africa Latin America

Number of studies 13 11

20 10 0 2006

4. Key findings, limitations and ways forward 2007

2008

2009

2010 2011 2012 Year of publication

2013

2014

2015

Fig. 3. Summary representation of publication over time.

safeguards are designed to have a national focus; that is, to relate with the objectives of national forest programs, how they cater to the concerns of local communities (Rajamani, 2011). Although the Cancun Agreements note the importance of relating the safeguards to relevant international obligations such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it however places emphasis on the sovereignty of nation-states and their national laws. Therefore, by design, REDD + safeguards do not serve regional needs as much as they do national needs hence, a reason the literature tilts more in favor of country studies. The analysis also suggests that certain countries and regions are more attractive to researchers than others. The majority of country studies were conducted in Indonesia (29) followed by Brazil (14) and Tanzania (12) (see Table 4). For example, Tanzania, which is not wellknown for being a forest-rich country, was among the countries with the majority of published articles on country studies. This suggests that there are many factors that make a REDD + country other than the size of a country's forest (Phelps et al., 2010). In the case of Tanzania, the country has gotten so much attention because it was an early target of Norway funding for REDD+ (Burgess et al., 2010; Beymer-Farris and Bassett, 2012) as a result it is one of the countries with the largest number of REDD+ projects. Therefore it is not a surprise that in spite not well-known for being a forest-rich country Tanzania is attracting more REDD+ researchers than the more prominent forest-rich countries of the Congo Basin. With regard to regional studies, the majority of studies have been on Africa (13) and Latin America (11). Angelsen et al. (2008) have argued that the reason regional level studies are less attractive to REDD+ researchers (at least for the time being) is that they do not attract financial support from donor countries and private investors as compared to subnational or project level REDD+ activities which eventually provide more opportunities for research. This explains why Indonesia, the country with the majority of country studies even though is an Asian country, does not make Asia the region with the majority of studies.

Table 3 Number of articles per geographic area of study and cluster. Cluster

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Total

Geographic area

Total

GS (global study)

RS (regional study)

CS (country study)

43 32 26 27 17 16 17 178

6 4 11 3 1 2 6 33

21 22 21 13 26 16 13 132

70 58 58 43 44 34 36 343

There has been a significant increase in REDD+ research over the past nine years. This study grouped the research in seven clusters: Benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+; forest cover monitoring; land tenure, local peoples and indigenous communities; ecosystems and biodiversity conservation; safeguards and environmental and social principle; community-based monitoring and land tenure security; and institutional and governance structures. Authors in the benefit and opportunity cost in REDD + cluster provide useful indicators for making REDD+ policy decisions on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. However, while some authors see opportunity cost assessments as the most justifiable way for offsetting costs, others question the practicability of applying the concept in the context of REDD +. Studies in the forest cover monitoring cluster provide general understanding about the effectiveness and weakness of different monitoring tools for forest cover and carbon stock change vis-à-vis REDD+. Although remote sensing technics are useful forest monitoring tools, the lack of a clear heuristic methodology, the lack of technical knowhow in its applications and the lack of capacity to assemble and disseminate remotely sensed data have led to the continuous use of traditional forest inventories for forest monitoring systems. Authors in the land tenure, local peoples and indigenous communities cluster address questions related to threats and opportunities presented by REDD+ to local peoples and indigenous communities. There is general consensus among authors in this cluster regarding the necessity to address tenure insecurity and related rights of local peoples and indigenous communities to forests and its resources. A significant focus of the scholarship on ecosystems and biodiversity conservation cluster centers on payments for ecosystem services (PES) and the issue of funding for forest emissions reduction activities related ecosystem services and biodiversity protection. While many of the authors highlight the enormous potential for funding opportunities for ecosystems and biodiversity conservation under REDD+ others are less optimistic about the sustainable nature of the funding opportunities. Studies in the safeguards and environmental and social principle cluster focus around the issue of indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent, with highlights on social safeguards of REDD+. Authors of the community-based monitoring and land tenure security cluster argue that community-based monitoring can play a more valuable role in REDD+ when supported by land-based monitoring initiatives provided by different organizations such as intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society organizations (CSOs). The authors emphasize the importance of community involvement in REDD+ monitoring. The general argument made by authors of the institutional and governance structures cluster is that good governance, which is a function of effective institutional arrangements, will play a key role in the success of REDD+. Overall, the review found that there are variations in country and regional studies as well as significant gaps in the REDD+ literature. The review also found that global studies in benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+ is the most studied REDD+ subject, while regional studies in safeguards and environmental and social principles is the least studied subject.

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

The review found REDD+ research to be limited in six ways. First, although many studies of deforestation and forest degradation are based on remote sensing,6 with various calibration studies (see for example, Gibbs et al., 2010; Hansen et al., 2013; Margono et al., 2014; Sloan and Sayer, 2015), the majority of countries currently involved in REDD + are deficient in remote sensing technology support system. Although remote sensing has proved to be a vital tool in measuring and verifying actual forest cover change dynamics, much work still needs to be done in terms of making the technology available to REDD + participating countries. Increase in technology sharing/transfer in general, and remote sensing technology in particular, will go a long way to getting REDD+ countries ready for the practical application of the technical aspects of REDD+; an aspect which has been overshadowed in the literature by the policy and politics of REDD+. Second, the lack of clear heuristics methodologies for the remote sensing tool has led to limited research on actual forest emissions reduction accounting. The limited research on this aspect of REDD+ is in the area of traditional forest inventories. However, concrete forest emissions reductions is better accounted for using a combination of remotely sensed data, country-specific allometric equations and forest inventories (Wertz-Kanounnikoff et al., 2008). Therefore, developing a synchronized model that accommodates remotely sensed data, countryspecific allometric equations and forest inventories would lead to the adoption of clear heuristics methodologies for the remote sensing application under REDD +, a move that could improve actual forest emissions accounting activity and contribute to closing the forest emissions reduction accounting gap in the REDD+ literature. Third, although a fairly significant number of REDD+ studies have been done on the impact of REDD + on poverty, livelihoods, equity and stakeholder participation, little has been done on the role of gender. Women play a strategic role in forest resource management, yet review of the REDD+ literature reveal that REDD+ scholars have only amply researched the role of women in REDD +. Even though it has been more than five years since the development of REDD + safeguards under the Cancun Agreements which ensures that REDD + does not harm women, scholars have still not properly engaged the issue of gender in REDD+, limiting gender discussion only to a subset issue in a few publications. Although generally there is a certain degree of salience on the issue of gender inequity in resource use and management, the lack of traction in the REDD+ literature could prove detrimental to the overall goal of REDD+. Fourth, there is significant gap in the REDD+ literature in the area of regional studies. As intimated earlier, support for REDD+ research from donor countries and private investors has so far been directed mostly to project and country level activities with only limited support for regional studies. But as noted earlier this is not surprising as REDD+ is a global mechanism that is implemented primarily at a national and sub-national level. Nevertheless the disproportional support may be the result of the fact that regional studies require more financial engagement, which puts it at the disadvantage when it comes to competing for funding. Also, the fact that so far the majority of REDD+ activities are pilot or simply experimental projects could be another reason for the limited regional studies research, given that pilot projects are generally more appropriate at a smaller scale. However, one can expect to see more funding support for REDD+ activities at the regional level, following the Paris Agreement,7 and consequently more scholarly regional research on REDD+. Fifth, based on the argument on the relationship between financial support and research publication one could argue that it is for the same reason that countries like Indonesia, Brazil and Tanzania are

6 There have been tons of remote sensing applications in tropical forests, but this may predate REDD+ or may not be linked directly to the REDD+ literature. 7 Western governments are rallying financial support for REDD+ following the Paris Agreement. Already, the governments of Norway, Germany and the UK have collectively committed $5 billion for REDD+ over the next five years.

149

witnessing a large number of studies compared to other forest-rich countries participating in REDD+. In fact, it is not a surprise that in Africa it is Tanzania – a country not known for being a forest-rich country – and not one of the well-known forest-rich Congo Basin countries – that is among the countries with the majority of published studies on REDD +, given that it was an early target of Norway funding for REDD+. The fact that Tanzania is attracting much REDD+ funding suggests that the primary reason the donors support REDD+ research is not necessary for emissions reductions purpose (as reflected in the research topics), but for the plus (+) element which deals with socio-economic issues such as livelihoods and poverty alleviation. Such a trend could lead to REDD + becoming just another development project with an element of emissions reduction and conservation tied to it, just like the many integrated- conservation development projects (ICDP) that were common in Africa and many developing countries in the 1980s and 90s, but in most cases, expired without achieving their objectives (Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Blom et al., 2010). It is therefore important not to lose sight of the primary objective of REDD + which is emissions reduction, by channeling more support to forest-rich countries with greater capacity for forest emissions reduction, while emphasizing the need for greater studies on actual emissions reduction. Six, although the overall publication output on REDD+ studies has increased, the figures indicate that there is the need to put more emphasis on scholarly publication. One way of increasing scrutiny of scholarly publication on REDD+ would be to involve academics in government, private and organization led REDD+ projects, which will allow them to use the data and information in the project reports to produce peer review publications of scholarly standards. But if scholarly literature is to have significant influence on the REDD+ policy process, more journal articles will have to be published as open-access articles. Currently, significant numbers of articles are still published in closed-access journals. Finally, although the focus of the article search for this study was on peer reviewed publications, we do however, acknowledge the complementary role of non-scholarly publications in the REDD+ policy arena. 5. Conclusion This paper examined trends in REDD+ research over a nine year period, from 2007 when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP13) agreed to adopt an international REDD mechanism, until 2015. Based on bibliographic coupling analysis, the paper identified and grouped authors and their works during this time period in seven clusters under the themes: Benefit and opportunity cost in REDD+; forest cover monitoring; land tenure, local peoples and indigenous communities; ecosystems and biodiversity conservation; safeguards and environmental and social principle; community-based monitoring and land tenure security; and institutional and governance structures. The review analysis indicates that benefit and opportunity cost issues are the most salient in REDD+ research. This finding is understandable given that, as a compensation mechanism, stakeholders would benefit more by adopting efficient benefit-cost approaches to REDD+. Moreover, given that private sector involvement in REDD+ leans more in the market-based direction (Streck, 2012; Phelps et al., 2011), it is understandable why there is much emphasis on benefit and opportunity cost issues, as it allows private investors to evaluate from a business point of view whether they are getting returns (carbon offset) from their investments (buying of carbon credits); that is, if they are paying for real forest carbon sequestration. In spite being a potent issue, some authors have expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the opportunity cost concept, citing political, social and economic drawbacks in its application in the REDD+ context. Authors in all seven clusters touched on at least one element of the 4Is framework in their studies; an indication of the crucial role that institutions (path-dependency), information (data), ideas (beliefs), and

150

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

interests (individual/group) (Angelsen et al., 2012) play in determining the outcome of REDD+. The authors explore formal and informal institutional paths (norms and regulation) taken by REDD+ actors to reach their goal and how these institutional paths influence the actors' organized and/or individual interests. They show how information in the form of data and knowledge influence the outcome of REDD+ at different levels. The authors also look at how ideas through belief and practices shape the REDD + process at different levels. Given that elements of the 4Is framework, working together with their associated environmental, political, economic, social, and cultural factors, and the four fundamental REDD+ issues – scope, reference level, finance, and distribution – would produce outcomes that are advantageous or detrimental to the overall outcome of REDD+, the authors in the different clusters focus on both the positive and the negative outcomes of REDD+. Overall, although the past nine years have seen significant growth in literature on REDD+, some important aspects of REDD+ have been ignored and or under researched. These include, technology sharing/ transfer, actual forest emissions reductions accounting, the role of gender, and regional studies. However, given that research momentum has been building over the past nine years, and given the inclusion of REDD+ in the Paris Agreement (Article 5), there is optimism that the above mentioned areas that have not received enough attention so for, will be covered in the post-Paris Agreement era. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.010. References Agrawal, A., Angelsen, A., 2009. Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. Realizing REDD+. National Strategy and Policy Options 1, 201–212. Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D., Chhatre, A., 2011. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 36, 373–396. Anderson, P., 2011. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD +: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development. Center for People and Forests, Bangkok, Thailand. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L.V., 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices. Cifor. Angelsen, A., Streck, C., Peskett, L., Brown, J., Luttrell, C., Angelsen, A., 2008. What is the right scale for REDD? Moving Ahead With REDD: Issues, Options and Implications. 1. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 53–64 Aquino, A., Guay, B., 2013. Implementing REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo: an analysis of the emerging national REDD+ governance structure. Forest Policy Econ. 36, 71–79. Aragao, L.E., Shimabukuro, Y.E., 2010. The incidence of fire in Amazonian forests with implications for REDD. Science 328, 1275–1278. Arhin, A.A., 2014. Safeguards and dangerguards: a framework for unpacking the black box of safeguards for REDD+. Forest Policy Econ. 45, 24–31. Asner, G.P., 2014. Satellites and psychology for improved forest monitoring. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (2), 567–568. Avtar, R., Takeuchi, W., Sawada, H., 2013. Full polarimetric PALSAR-based land cover monitoring in Cambodia for implementation of REDD policies. International Journal of Digital Earth. 6, 255–275. Awono, A., Somorin, O.A., Atyi, R.E.A., Levang, P., 2014. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: insights from southern Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 76–86. Balderas-Torres, A., Skutsch, M., 2012. Splitting the difference: a proposal for benefit sharing in reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Forests. 3, 137–154. Barbier, E.B., Tesfaw, A.T., 2012. Can REDD+ save the forest? The role of payments and tenure. Forests. 881-895. Beymer-Farris, B.A., Bassett, T.J., 2012. The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in Tanzania's mangrove forests. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22 (2), 332–341. Blom, B., Sunderland, T., Murdiyarso, D., 2010. Getting REDD to work locally: lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environ. Sci. Pol. 13 (2), 164–172. Bonan, G.B., 2008. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449. Bottazzi, P., Cattaneo, A., Rocha, D.C., Rist, S., 2013. Assessing sustainable forest management under REDD+: a community-based labor perspective. Ecol. Econ. 93, 94–103. Boucher, D.M., Movius, D., Davidson, C., 2008. Filling the REDD Basket: Complementary Financing Approaches. Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, DC, p. 2008http:// www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/TFCI_ REDD-Basket.pdf.

Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R., 2010. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61 (12), 2389–2404. Brandon, K., Wells, M., 2009. Lessons for REDD+ From Protected Areas and Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Realizing REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. pp. 225–236. Brown, G., Yule, G., 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Bulte, E., Engel, S., 2006. In: Lopez, R., Toman, M. (Eds.), Conservation of Tropical Forests: Addressing Market Failure, pp. 412–452. Burgess, N.D., Bahane, B., Clairs, T., Danielsen, F., Dalsgaard, S., Funder, M., Hagelberg, N., Harrison, P., Haule, C., Kabalimu, K., Kilahama, F., 2010. Getting ready for REDD+ in Tanzania: a case study of progress and challenges. Oryx 44 (03), 339–351. Busch, J., 2013. Supplementing REDD+ with biodiversity payments: the paradox of paying for multiple ecosystem services. Land Econ. 89 (4), 655–675. Butler, R., 2014. Tropical Rain Forests of the World. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/ 0101.htm. Cerbu, G.A., Sonwa, D.J., Pokorny, B., 2013. Opportunities for and capacity barriers to the implementation of REDD+ projects with smallholder farmers: case study of Awae and Akok, Centre and south regions, Cameroon. Forest Policy Econ. 36, 60–70. Corbera, E., 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 (6), 612–619. Corbera, E., Schroeder, H., 2011. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14, 89–99. Corpet, F., Servant, F., Gouzy, J., Kahn, D., 2000. ProDom and ProDom-CG: tools for protein domain analysis and whole genome comparisons. Nucleic Acids Res. 28 (1), 267–269. Cotula, L., Mayers, J., 2009. Tenure in REDD: Start-point or Afterthought? (No. 15) IIED Danielsen, F., Skutsch, M., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M., Andrianandrasana, H., Karky, B., Lewis, R., Lovett, J.C., Massao, J., Ngaga, Y., Phartiyal, P., 2011. At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv. Lett. 4 (2), 158–167. Deininger, K., Selod, H., Burns, A., 2011. The Land Governance Assessment Framework: Identifying and Monitoring Good Practice in the Land Sector. World Bank Publications. den Besten, J.W., Arts, B., Verkooijen, P., 2014. The evolution of REDD+: an analysis of discursive-institutional dynamics. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 40–48. Duchelle, A.E., Cromberg, M., Gebara, M.F., Guerra, R., Melo, T., Larson, A., 2014. Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Dev. 55, 53–67. Dyer, G.A., Matthews, R., Meyfroidt, P., 2012. Is there an ideal REDD+ program? An analysis of policy trade-offs at the local level. PLoS One 7, e52478. Edwards, D.P., Fisher, B., Boyd, E., 2010. Protecting degraded rainforests: enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD+. Conserv. Lett. 3, 313–316. FAO, 2015. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. FAO Forestry Paper No. 1. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Federici, S., Tubiello, F.N., Salvatore, M., Jacobs, H., Schmidhuber, J., 2015. New estimates of CO2 forest emissions and removals: 1990–2015. For. Ecol. Manag. 352, 89–98. Fry, B.P., 2011. Community forest monitoring in REDD+: the ‘M’ in MRV? Environ. Sci. Pol. 14 (2), 181–187. Gardner, T.A., Burgess, N.D., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Clements, T., 2012. A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol. Conserv. 154, 61–71. Geist, H.J., Lambin, E.F., 2002. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: tropical forests are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical locations. Bioscience 52, 143–150. Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (38), 16732–16737. Grainger, A., Obersteiner, M., 2011. A framework for structuring the global forest monitoring landscape in the REDD+ era. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14 (2), 127–139. Gregersen, H., El Lakany, H., Karsenty, A., White, A., 2010. Does the Opportunity Cost Approach Indicate the Real Cost of REDD+. Rights and Realities of Paying for REDD+. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC. Grussu, G., Attorre, F., Mollicone, D., Dargusch, P., Guillet, A., Marchetti, M., 2014. Implementing REDD+ in Papua New Guinea: can biodiversity indicators be effectively integrated in PNG's National Forest Inventory? Plant Biosystems-An International Journal Dealing With all Aspects of Plant Biology 148, 519–528. Gupta, J., 2012. Glocal forest and REDD+ governance: win–win or lose–lose? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 620–627. Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Kommareddy, A., 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342 (6160), 850–853. Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Loveland, T.R., Townshend, J.R., DeFries, R.S., 2008. Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000 to 2005 quantified by using multitemporal and multiresolution remotely sensed data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9439–9444. Henry, M., Maniatis, D., Gitz, V., Huberman, D., Valentini, R., 2011. Implementation of REDD+ in sub-Saharan Africa: state of knowledge, challenges and opportunities. Environ. Dev. Econ. 16 (04), 381–404. Herold, M., Skutsch, M., 2009. Measurement, reporting and verification for REDD. Realizing REDD 85. Herold, M., Skutsch, M., 2011. Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD+ programmes: two proposals. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (1), 014002. Herold, M., Román-Cuesta, R.M., Mollicone, D., Hirata, Y., Van Laake, P., Asner, G.P., Souza, C., Skutsch, M., Avitabile, V., MacDicken, K., 2011. Options for monitoring and estimating historical carbon emissions from forest degradation in the context of REDD+. Carbon Balance and Management 6 (1), 1–7.

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152 Hiraldo, R., Tanner, T., 2011. Forest voices: competing narratives over REDD+. IDS Bull. 42 (3), 42–51. Hjørland, B., 2002. Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches-traditional as well as innovative. J. Doc. 58 (4), 422–462. Huettner, M., 2012. Risks and opportunities of REDD + implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environ. Sci. Pol. 15 (1), 4–12. Hufty, M., Haakenstad, A., 2011. Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation: a critical review. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development. 5 (1), 1–24. Hughes, R., Flintan, F., 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. IPCC, 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses Volume 4. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan. IPCC, 2014. Chapter 11: agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/ wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf. Jagger, P., Brockhaus, M., Duchelle, A.E., Gebara, M.F., Lawlor, K., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Sunderlin, W.D., 2014. Multi-level policy dialogues, processes, and actions: challenges and opportunities for national REDD+ safeguards measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV). Forests 5 (9), 2136–2162. Jaung, W., Bae, J.S., 2012. Evaluating socio-economic equity of REDD+ in a rights-based approach: rapid equity appraisal matrix. Environ. Sci. Pol. 22, 1–12. Joseph, S., Herold, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Verchot, L.V., 2013. REDD+ readiness: early insights on monitoring, reporting and verification systems of project developers. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (3), 034038. Kanowski, P.J., McDermott, C.L., Cashore, B.W., 2011. Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14 (2), 111–117. Karsenty, A., Ongolo, S., 2012. Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism. Forest Policy Econ. 18, 38–45. Karsenty, A., Vogel, A., Castell, F., 2014. “Carbon rights”, REDD+ and payments for environmental services. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 20–29. Keenan, R.J., Reams, G.A., Achard, F., de Freitas, J.V., 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. Kessler, M.M., 1963. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am. Doc. 24, 123–131. Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., 2011. Gender and Agroforestry in Africa: Are Women Participating. ICRAF Occasional Paper, 13. Köthke, M., Schröppel, B., Elsasser, P., 2014. National REDD+ reference levels deduced from the global deforestation curve. Forest Policy Econ. 43, 18–28. Larrazábal, A., McCall, M.K., Mwampamba, T.H., Skutsch, M., 2012. The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD+: a review of experiences. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 (6), 707–716. Larson, A.M., 2011. Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: lessons for REDD+. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21, 540–549. Larson, A.M., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., Duchelle, A., Babon, A., Dokken, T., Pham, T.T., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Selaya, G., Awono, A., Huynh, T.B., 2013. Land tenure and REDD+: the good, the bad and the ugly. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23 (3), 678–689. Lawlor, K., Madeira, E.M., Blockhus, J., Ganz, D.J., 2013. Community participation and benefits in REDD +: a review of initial outcomes and lessons. Forests 4 (2), 296–318. Leach, G., Mearns, R., 2013. Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis: People, Land and Trees in Africa. Routledge. Lederer, M., 2011. From CDM to REDD+—what do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance? Ecol. Econ. 70, 1900–1907. Lederer, M., 2012. REDD+ governance. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 3, 107–113. Lepers, E., Lambin, E.F., Janetos, A.C., DeFRIES, R.U.T.H., Achard, F., Ramankutty, N., Scholes, R.J., 2005. A synthesis of information on rapid land-cover change for the period 1981– 2000. Bioscience 55, 115–124. Lyster, R., 2011. REDD+, transparency, participation and resource rights: the role of law. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14, 118–126. Mahanty, S., McDermott, C.L., 2013. How does free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) impact social equity? Lessons from mining and forestry and their implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy 35, 406–416. Mahanty, S., Suich, H., Tacconi, L., 2013. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31, 38–47. Maniatis, D., Mollicone, D., 2010. Options for sampling and stratification for national forest inventories to implement REDD+ under the UNFCCC. Carbon Balance and Management 5 (1), 1. Margono, B.A., Potapov, P.V., Turubanova, S., Stolle, F., Hansen, M.C., 2014. Primary forest cover loss in Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4 (8), 730–735. Martyn, J., 1964. Bibliographic coupling. J. Doc. 20, 236. McDermott, C.L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A., Schroeder, H., 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 21, 63–72. Menton, M., Ferguson, C., Leimu-Brown, R., Leonard, S., Brockhaus, M., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., 2014. Further guidance for REDD+ safeguard information systems? An analysis of positions in the UNFCCC negotiations. Vol. 99. CIFOR. Minang, P.A., van Noordwijk, M., 2013. Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins. Land Use Policy 31, 61–70. Minang, P.A., Duguma, L.A., Bernard, F., Mertz, O., van Noordwijk, M., 2014. Prospects for agroforestry in REDD+ landscapes in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6, 78–82.

151

Müller, D., Suess, S., Hoffmann, A.A., Buchholz, G., 2013. The value of satellite-based active fire data for monitoring, reporting and verification of REDD+ in the Lao PDR. Hum. Ecol. 41, 7–20. Mulyani, M., Jepson, P., 2013. REDD + and forest governance in Indonesia a multistakeholder study of perceived challenges and opportunities. The Journal of Environment and Development 22 (3), 261–283. Nakakaawa, C.A., Vedeld, P.O., Aune, J.B., 2011. Spatial and temporal land use and carbon stock changes in Uganda: implications for a future REDD strategy. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 16, 25–62. Noponen, M.R., Haggar, J.P., Edwards-Jones, G., Healey, J.R., 2013. Intensification of coffee systems can increase the effectiveness of REDD mechanisms. Agric. Syst. 119, 1–9. Obersteiner, M., Huettner, M., Kraxner, F., McCallum, I., Aoki, K., Böttcher, H., Fritz, S., Gusti, M., Havlik, P., Kindermann, G., Rametsteiner, E., 2009. On fair, effective and efficient REDD mechanism design. Carbon Balance and Management 4 (1), 1. Olander, L.P., Galik, C.S., Kissinger, G.A., 2012. Operationalizing REDD+: scope of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 661–669. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L., Collins, K.M., 2012. Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qual. Rep. 17, 1–28. Pachauri, R.K., Allen, M.R., Barros, V.R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., Dubash, N.K., 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multilevel processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 354–365. Palm, C.A., Smukler, S.M., Sullivan, C.C., Mutuo, P.K., Nyadzi, G.I., Walsh, M.G., 2010. Identifying potential synergies and trade-offs for meeting food security and climate change objectives in sub-Saharan Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (46), 19661–19666. Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M., Mardas, N., 2008. The Little REDD Book: A Guide to Governmental and Non-Governmental Proposals for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Global Canopy Project, Oxford, UK. Persson, U.M., 2012. Conserve or convert? Pan-tropical modeling of REDD–bioenergy competition. Biol. Conserv. 146, 81–88. Petkova, E., Larson, A., Pacheco, P., 2010. Forest governance, decentralization and REDD+ in Latin America. Forests 1 (4), 250–254. Phelps, J., Guerrero, M.C., Dalabajan, D.A., Young, B., Webb, E.L., 2010. What makes a ‘REDD’ country? Glob. Environ. Chang. 20, 322–332. Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., Koh, L.P., 2011. Risky business: an uncertain future for biodiversity conservation finance through REDD+. Conserv. Lett. 4, 88–94. Pirard, R., 2012. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Pol. 19, 59–68. Pirard, R., Belna, K., 2012. Agriculture and deforestation: is REDD+ rooted in evidence? Forest Policy Econ. 21, 62–70. Pistorius, T., 2012. From RED to REDD+: the evolution of a forest-based mitigation approach for developing countries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 638–645. Pistorius, T., Schaich, H., Winkel, G., Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Konold, W., Volz, K.R., 2012. Lessons for REDDplus: a comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate. Forest Policy Econ. 18, 4–12. Pistorius, T., Schmitt, C.B., Benick, D.I.N.A.H., Entenmann, S.T.E.F.F.E.N., Reinecke, S., 2011. Greening REDD+—challenges and opportunities for integrating biodiversity safeguards at and across policy levels. German Journal of Forest Science. Allg. Forst-u. Jagd Zeitung. 182 (5/6), 82–98. Pongratz, J., Reick, C.H., Houghton, R.A., House, J.I., 2014. Terminology as a key uncertainty in net land use and land cover change carbon flux estimates. Earth System Dynamics 5 (1), 177. Pratihast, A.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Murdiyarso, D., Skutsch, M., 2013. Linking community-based and national REDD+ monitoring: a review of the potential. Carbon Management 4 (1), 91–104. Prieto-Díaz, R., 1990. Domain analysis: an introduction. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 15 (2), 47–54. Rajamani, L., 2011. The Cancun climate agreements: reading the text, subtext and tea leaves. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 60, 499–519. Reed, P., 2011. REDD+ and the indigenous question: a case study from Ecuador. Forests 2, 525–549. Robinson, B.E., Holland, M.B., Naughton-Treves, L., 2014. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 29, 281–293. 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. Pol. 19, 33–48. Sasaki, N., Putz, F.E., 2009. Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global climate change agreements. Conserv. Lett. 2, 226–232. Savaresi, A., 2013. REDD+ and human rights: addressing synergies between international regimes. Ecol. Soc. 18, 5. Schmitt, C.B., 2013. Global tropical forest types as support for the consideration of biodiversity under REDD+. Carbon Management 4, 501–517. Scott, W.R., 2001. Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Sietchiping, R., Dyfed, A., Bazoglu, N., Augustinus, C., Gora, M., 2012. Monitoring tenure security within the continuum of land rights: methods and practices. Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, pp. 23–26. Sloan, S., Sayer, J.A., 2015. Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. For. Ecol. Manag. 352, 134–145. Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F., Tubiello, F., 2014. Agriculture,

152

R.S. Mbatu / Forest Policy and Economics 73 (2016) 140–152

forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Edenhofer, O., PichsMadruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., von Stechow, C., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Somorin, O.A., Brown, H.C.P., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Sonwa, D.J., Arts, B., Nkem, J., 2012. The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 288–298. Somorin, O.A., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Arts, B., Sonwa, D.J., Tiani, A.M., 2014. REDD+ policy strategy in Cameroon: actors, institutions and governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 35, 87–97. Spradley, J.P., 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Fort Worth, TX. Spruijt, P., Knol, A.B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E., Petersen, A.C., 2014. Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: a literature review. Environ. Sci. Pol. 40, 16–25. Stickler, C.M., Nepstad, D.C., Coe, M.T., Mcgrath, D.G., Rodrigues, H.O., Walker, W.S., Soares-filho, B.S., Davidson, E.A., 2009. The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15 (12), 2803–2824. Streck, C., 2012. Financing REDD+: matching needs and ends. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 628–637. Sunderland, T., Achdiawan, R., Angelsen, A., Babigumira, R., Ickowitz, A., Paumgarten, F., Reyes-García, V., Shively, G., 2014. Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: a global comparative study. World Dev. 64, S56–S66. Sunderlin, W.D., Larson, A.M., Duchelle, A.E., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Huynh, T.B., Awono, A., Dokken, T., 2014. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Dev. 55, 37–52. Suyanto, S., Ekadinata, A., Sofiyuddin, M., Rahmanullah, A., 2014. Opportunity costs of emissions caused by land-use changes. Open Journal of Forestry 4 (01), 85. Thangata, P.H., Hildebrand, P.E., 2012. Carbon stock and sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in smallholder agroecosystems of sub-Saharan Africa: mechanisms for ‘reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ (REDD+). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 158, 172–183. The REDD Desk, 2015. A Collaborative Resource for REDD Readiness. http://theredddesk. org/encyclopaedia/reducing-emissions-deforestation-and-forest-degradation-reddconservation-forest. Thompson, M.C., Baruah, M., Carr, E.R., 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ. Sci. Pol. 14, 100–110.

Toni, F., 2011. Decentralization and REDD+ in Brazil. Forests 2 (1), 66–85. Torres, A.B., Acuña, L.A.S., Vergara, J.M.C., 2014. Integrating CBM into land-use based mitigation actions implemented by local communities. Forests 5 (12), 3295–3326. UNFCCC, 2002: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Seventh session; Marrakesh, 29 October to 10 November 2001: 2002. FCCC/CP/2002/13. UNFCCC, 2008. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf. UNFCCC, 2011. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf. UNFCCC, 2016. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10.pdf. Unruh, J.D., 2008. Carbon sequestration in Africa: the land tenure problem. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18 (4), 700–707. Upadhyay, B., 2005. Women and natural resource management: illustrations from India and Nepal. Natural Resources Forum Vol. 29, No. 3. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd., pp. 224–232. Van Noordwijk, M., 2007. Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal (RaCSA). World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Program, Bogor, Indonesia. Van Oosterzee, P., Blignaut, J., Bradshaw, C.J., 2012. iREDD hedges against avoided deforestation's unholy trinity of leakage, permanence and additionality. Conserv. Lett. 5 (4), 266–273. Vatn, A., Angelsen, A., 2009. Options for a national REDD+ architecture. In: Angelsen, A., et al. (Eds.), Realizing REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 57–74. Vatn, A., Vedeld, P., 2011. Getting ready! A study of national governance structures for REDD+. NORAGRIC Report No. 59. Verchot, L.V., Petkova, E., 2010. The State of REDD Negotiations: Consensus Points, Options for Moving forward and Research Needs to Support the Process. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Angelsen, A., 2009. Global and national REDD+ architecture: linking institutions and actions. In: Angelsen, A. (Ed.), Realizing REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 13–24. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Verchot, L.V., Kanninen, M., Murdiyarso, D., 2008. How can we Monitor, Report and Verify Carbon Emissions from Forests? In: Angelsen, A. (Ed.), Moving Ahead with REDD. CIFOR, Bogor, pp. 87–98 West, P.C., Gibbs, H.K., Monfreda, C., Wagner, J., Barford, C.C., Carpenter, S.R., Foley, J.A., 2010. Trading carbon for food: global comparison of carbon stocks vs. crop yields on agricultural land. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (46), 19645–19648. Westholm, L., Biddulph, R., Hellmark, I., Ekbom, A., 2011. REDD+ and Tenure: A Review of the Latest Developments in Research, Implementation and Debate. Focali Report, 2. Zhao, D., Strotmann, A., 2008. Evolution of research activities and intellectual influences in information science 1996–2005: introducing author bibliographic-coupling analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59 (13), 2070–2086.