Approaches to REDD+ Nesting

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.creatorLee, Donna
dc.creatorLlopis, Pablo
dc.creatorWaterworth, Rob
dc.creatorRoberts, Geoff
dc.creatorPearson, Tim
dc.date2018-04-24T14:50:13Z
dc.date2018-04-24T14:50:13Z
dc.date2018-04-13
dc.date.accessioned2026-07-01T00:41:54Z
dc.descriptionMitigation of greenhouse gases in the land sector is complex and has a unique set of challenges. The most significant challenges arise from the geographically diffuse nature of the emissions sources (compared to, for example, point-based energy sources of emissions), the vast array of potential management responses, the ongoing effects of past actions, the interaction of human and natural processes, and the strong influences of policy and markets. These factors result in a large number and diversity of actors involved, temporal variability in emissions sources and volumes, and higher uncertainty associated with the processes generating the emission reductions. Because of this, achieving large-scale mitigation in the land sector requires collective action involving multiple stakeholders undertaking different activities. This paper synthesizes several lessons learned in efforts to develop systems that integrate incentive mechanisms at multiple scales. It illustrates many lessons through examples and the appendix presents individual case studies from a variety of geographies, Acre (state in Brazil), Australia, Brazil (Amazon), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Guatemala, and Zambia. The hope is that the experiences of emerging ‘nested’ systems can provide inspiration to countries developing REDD systems, particularly those which seek to catalyze across a landscape local actions that contribute to national mitigation. The objective of this paper is to share a few lessons from nested systems. While there are many positive benefits to nesting, experience suggests that countries struggle with development of nested systems. Very few have been operationalized (with exception to a few developed countries, such as Australia and New Zealand), although several REDD nested systems are now emerging. Section two explores four high-level ‘typologies’ that countries may consider when developing a nested system. Section three summarizes three key technical challenges that countries face: alignment of measurement systems, reference levels, and double counting. Both sections illustrate options using real-world examples from countries pioneering nested approaches and explain why certain choices were made. The paper concludes with thoughts on overall lessons learned, recognizing that the journey is still young.
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.identifierhttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/670171523647847532/Main-report
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/10986/29720
dc.identifier10.1596/29720
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/409392
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherWorld Bank, Washington, DC
dc.rightsCC BY 3.0 IGO
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo
dc.rightsWorld Bank
dc.subjectDEFORESTATION
dc.subjectDEGRADATION
dc.subjectGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
dc.subjectBIODIVERSITY
dc.subjectCLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
dc.subjectCLIMATE CHANGE
dc.subjectREDUCED EMISSIONS
dc.subjectCARBON FINANCE
dc.subjectCARBON POLICY
dc.subjectCARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE
dc.subjectINDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
dc.subjectNATIVE FOREST
dc.subjectECONOMIC ZONING
dc.subjectSUBNATIONAL GOVERNMENT
dc.subjectLOCAL GOVERNMENT
dc.subjectSTAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
dc.titleApproaches to REDD+ Nesting
dc.titleLessons Learned from Country Experiences
dc.typeWorking Paper
dc.typeDocument de travail
dc.typeDocumento de trabajo

Archivos

Colecciones

AgroKnow