Can REDD+ be corruption-free?
5 paths to REDD integrity
Manipulating baseline forest data, double-counting project benefits, and skewing monitoring schemes have been known as likely corruption risks for REDD+. But how do these risks map onto the actual political economy of REDD+ implementation in selected pilot countries?
U4 has looked into REDD+ readiness from an anti-corruption perspective in six countries: DRC, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines, Tanzania, and Vietnam. Our fieldwork – conducted with a range of local partners – reveals significant variations in corruption risks across pilot countries and institutions.
Innovative solutions are being adopted to enhance project transparency, improve understanding of risks, and create the potential for credible judicial sanctions. Yet REDD+ must still deal with immensely complex issues around forestland tenure and benefit-distribution – where incentives for corruption remain particularly high. Learn how programme designers and managers can rise to the challenge of ensuring corruption-free REDD+.
Assembe-Mvondo, S. 2015 . Corruption risks and mitigation strategies in the implementation of REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: An overview of the current situation. U4 Issue 2015:9. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen.
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farberk, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. LimburgI, S. Naeem, R. V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt. 1997. “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital”. Nature. Vol. 387. May 15th.
Dermawan, A. and A. Sinaga. 2015. Towards REDD+ integrity: Opportunities and challenges for Indonesia. U4 Issue 2015:5. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen.
Mayo-Anda, G. and J. N. V. Torres. 2014. The political economy of corruption and REDD+: Notes from the Philippines’ pilot sites. U4 Issue 2014:7. Chr. Michelsen Institute. Bergen.
Palmer, C. and S. Engel. (Eds.) 2009. Avoided deforestation: Prospects for mitigating climate change. Taylor and Francis. New York and London.
Sengupta, S. and S. Maginnis. 2005. “Forests and development: Where do we stand?”. In Sayer, J. (Ed.) The Earthscan reader in forestry and development. Earthscan. London and Sterling.
Standing, A. 2015. Governance considerations for the design of REDD+ in Tanzania: The dilemmas of a nested approach U4 Issue 2015:14. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen.
Standing, A. and M. Gachanja. 2014. The political economy of REDD+ in Kenya: Identifying and responding to corruption challenges. U4 Issue 2014:3. Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen.
Transparency International. 2014. Corruption Perceptions Index. Transparency International. Berlin.
WWF (threats, deforestation)