Private sector perception of reducing deforestation in brazil: analysis of challenges from 2010 to 2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32358/rpd.2023.v9.637Keywords:
REDD+, stakeholder, policy network analysis, governance, policy domain, BrazilAbstract
Purpose: This paper aims to shed light on the private sector's perspective on REDD+ in Brazil, and how this perspective has evolved over time. Methodology/Approach: This research is part of the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS REDD+) on policies and political processes from the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Findings: Our results indicate that national business organizations believe that REDD+ is an affordable way to mitigate climate change. However, it suggests that while this sector is seeking financial benefits from REDD+ activities, it is taking a very cautious and risk-averse approach. The private sector is not engaged and does not self-identify within the operational challenges that REDD+ policymakers are grappling with as they seek to embrace the possibilities of this mechanism. Research Limitation/Implication: To explore how these private sector actors perceive REDD+, whether such a perspective has changed from 2010 to 2019, and its implications for further REDD+ design in the national context. Originality/Value of the paper: private actors' positions on key statements about financing, benefit sharing and equity, governance, and challenges over three different time periods. A better understanding of how the private sector perceives REDD+ will contribute to national framing and more effective multi-level governance.Downloads
References
[Brazilian REDD+ Alliance] (2020). Programa Floresta+ and voluntary carbon markets. Acessed 24 April 2021.
[CIF] Climate Investment Funds. (2013). Incentivizing the involvement of the private sector in REDD+: a review of early experiences and lessons learned in the Forest Investment Program. Accessed 14 June 2020.
[GEF] Global Environmental Facility. (2011). Revised strategy for enhancing engagement with the private sector. GEF Council, GEF/C.41/09/Rev.01.
[IETA] International Emissions Trading Association. (2018). Guidance and Conditions for Attracting Private Sector Investments to National REDD+. International Position Paper. Accessed 14 June 2020. https://www.ieta.org/resources/REDD/IETA%20%20Guidance%20and%20Conditions%20for%20Attracting%20Private%20Sector%20Investments%20to%20National%20REDD_Final.pdf
[MMA] Ministry of Environment. (2016). ENREDD+ Estratégia Nacional para Redução das Emissões Provenientes do Desmatamento e da Degradação Florestal, Conservação dos Estoques de Carbono Florestal, Manejo Sustentável de Florestas e Aumento de Estoques de Carbono Florestal. Accessed 03 February 2020.
[MMA] Ministry of Environment. (2018). REDD+ results-based payments for results achieved by Brazil in the Amazon biome in 2014 and 2015. GCF Documentation Funding Proposal, pdf version. Accessed 26 April 2020.
[NORAD] - Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. (2011). Real-Time Evaluation of Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative. Contributions to National REDD+ Processes 2007-2010: country report Brazil. Evaluation Report 13/2010. Evaluation Department, Oslo, Norway.
[PRODES] Projeto de Monitoramento do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal por Satélite (Program to Calculate Deforestation in the Amazon). (2020). Observação da Terra. Accessed 22 June 2021. http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes
[PRODES] Projeto de Monitoramento do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal por Satélite (Program to Calculate Deforestation in the Amazon). (2016). Observação da Terra. Accessed 22 June 2021. http://www.obt.inpe.br/OBT/assuntos/programas/amazonia/prodes
[UNFCCC] United Nations Framework on Climate Change. (2019). Forest protection in Brazil boosted through REDD-plus. Accessed 14 June 2020.
Adler, N.J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. MA: PWSKENT Publishing Company, 2nd edition, pp. 63-91, Boston, USA.
Agrawal, A., Nepstad. D., Chhatre, A. (2011). Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 373-396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-094508
Agrawal, S., Ambury, H., Parida, D., & Joshi, N. (2022). Understanding risk communication in practice: Insights from municipalities in Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 79, 103175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103175
Angelsen, A., Martius, C., De Sy, V., Duchelle, E., Larson A.M. & Pham T.T. (eds.). (2018). Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Assunção, J., & Chiavari, J. (2015) Towards efficient land use in Brazil. The New Climate Economy, 28 pp. https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2015.2015-708
Atmadja S., Arwida, S., Martius, C., & Pham, T.T. (2018). Financing REDD+: A transaction among equals, or an uneven playing field? In Angelsen A, Martius C, De Sy V, Duchelle AE, Larson AM and Pham TT, eds. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR. 29-39.
Azevedo, A., Rajão, R., Costa, M. Stabile, M., Macedo, M., Reis, T., Alencar, A., Soares-Filho, B., & Pacheco, R. (2017). Limits of Brazil's Forest Code as a means to end illegal deforestation. PNAS, 114, 7653-7658. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604768114
Azevedo-Ramos, C. & Moutinho, P. (2018). No man's land in the Brazilian Amazon: Could undesignated public forests slow. Amazon deforestation? Land Use Policy 73, 125-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.005
Bernard, F., Mcfatridge, S. & Minang, P. (2012). The private sector in the REDD+ supply chain: trends, challenges and opportunities. IISD Report, 62 pp.
Bidone, F., & Kovacic, Z. (2018). From nationalism to global climate change: analysis of the historical evolution of environmental governance in the Brazilian Amazon. International Forestry Review, 20(4), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818825240656
Böcher, M., & Toller, A.E. (2003). Conditions for the emergence of alternative environmental policy instruments, Paper presented at the Second European Consortium of Political Research Conference (ECPR), Marburg, Germany, 18-21 September.
Bodin, Ö., Sandström, A., & Crona, B. (2016). Collaborative Networks for Effective Ecosystem-Based Management: A Set of Working Hypotheses. Policy Studies Journal, 45(2), 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12146
Brockhaus, M., & Di Gregorio, M. (2014). National REDD+ policy networks: From cooperation to conflict. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06643-190414
Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., & Carmenta, R. (2014). REDD+ policy networks: Exploring actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 29. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07098-190429
Bureekul, T. (2000). Public participation in environmental management in Thailand. Center for the Study of Thai Politics and Democracy, King Prajadhipok's Institute, Thailand, pp. 67.
Cabello, J., & Gilbertson, T. (2012). A colonial mechanism to enclose lands: a critical review of two REDD+ focused special issues. Ephemera, 12, 162-180.
Carrer, M., Maia, A., Vinholis, M., & Filho, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of rural credit policy on the adoption of integrated crop-livestock systems in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 92, 1044-1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104468
Chesoh, S. (2010). Community perception, satisfaction and participation toward power plant development in Southernmost of Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(2), 84-88. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v3n2p84
Cleaver, F. (2012). Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management. London: Routledge, 224 pp.
Cotula, L. & Mayers, J. (2009). Tenure in REDD: start point or afterthought? Natural Resource Issues, No. 15. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development, 67 pp.
Da Silva A, Cenamo M & Chávez G. (2017). Mapeamento dos Fluxos Financeiros para REDD+ e Uso da Terra no Brasil: análise nacional e subnacional para período de 2009 a 2016. [In Portuguese]. Forest Trends/IDESAM Report, Brazil. pdf version, 33pp. Accessed 03 April 2020. https://idesam.org/ publicacao/Mapeamento-fluxos-REDD.pdf
Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2005). The contribution of network governance to sustainable development. Idées pour le débat (ex-Les Séminaires de l'Iddri n° 13), 15pp.
DeShazo, J., Lal Pandey, C. & Smith, Z. (2016). Why REDD will fail. Studies in Environmental Policy. Published by Routledge Focus, Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK and New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851105
Di Gregorio, M. & Brockhaus, M. (2010). A brief overview: Component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR Brief 13. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Di Gregorio. M., Brockhaus, M., Cronin, T., Muharrom, E., Mardiah, S., & Santoso, L. (2015). Deadlock or transformational change? Exploring public discourse on REDD+ across seven countries. Global Environmental Politics, 15(4), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00322
Duchelle, A., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32:134-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001
Fatorelli, L., Gebara, M. F., May, P., Zhang, S., & Di Gregorio, M. (2015). The REDD+ governance landscape and the challenge of coordination in Brazil (Vol. 115). CIFOR.
Fosci, M. (2013). The Economic Case for prioritizing governance over financial incentives in REDD+. Climate Policy, 13:170-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2013.745112
Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Scheyvens, H., & Cadman, T. (2016). Does REDD+ Ensure Sectoral Coordination and Stakeholder Participation? A Comparative Analysis of REDD+ National Governance Structures in Countries of Asia-Pacific Region. Forests, 7(195), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090195
Gallo, P., & Albrecht, E. (2019). Brazil and the Paris Agreement: REDD+ as an instrument of Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution compliance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Journal 19(1), 123-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-018-9426-9
Gallo, P., Brites, A., & Micheletti, T. (2020). REDD+ achievements and challenges in Brazil: Perceptions over time (2015-2019). Infobrief 288. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Gebara, M., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Beyond rewards and punishments in the Brazilian Amazon: Practical implications of the REDD+ discourse. Forests 2017(8), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8030066
Gebara, M., Fatorelli, L., May, P., & Zhang, S. (2014). REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: constraints and opportunities for successful policy making. Ecology and Society 19(3), 53. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06744-190353
Gebara, M., Gallo, P., Brites, A. & Micheletti, T. (2020). The Pluriversality of Efforts to Reduce Deforestation in Brazil over the Past Decade: An Analysis of Policy Actors' Perceptions. Forests, 11, 1061-1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101061
Gebara, M.F., May, P., Carmenta, R., Calixto, B., Brockhaus, M., & Di Gregorio, M. Norman, Marigold & Nakhooda, Smita, The State of REDD+ Finance (May 2015). Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 378, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2622743 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622743
Gibbs, H., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., & Walker, N. (2015). Brazil's Soy Moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377-378. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0181
Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for good governance in the 21st Century. Institute on Governance, Policy Brief 15, 9 pp.
Greenpeace (2015). The Amazon's silent crisis: license to Launder. Greenpeace Brazil Report, pdf version.
Gregersen H., Lakany H. E., Karsenty A., & White A. (2010). Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+. Technical Report, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.
Guéneau, S. (2018). Neoliberalism and the emergence of private sustainability initiatives: the case of the Brazilian cattle value chain. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2013
Guerra, R. & Moutinho, P. (2020). Challenges of Sharing REDD+ Benefits in the Amazon Region. Forests 11(9):1012 https://doi.org/10.3390/f11091012
Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Adshead, D., Bogaerts, M., Maguire-Rajpaul, V., Pinto, L., McDermott, C., Milder, J., Wollenberg, E., & Agrawal, A. (2019). Scaling up sustainability in commodity agriculture: transferability of governance mechanisms across the coffee and cattle sectors in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 206: 124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.102
Henderson, I., Coello, J., Fischer, R., Mulder, I., & Christophersen, T. (2013). The Role of the Private Sector in REDD+: The Case for Engagement and Options for Intervention. UN-REDD Policy Brief, 4:12.
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Koch, N., Ermgassen, E., Wehkamp, J., Filho, F. & Schwerhoff, G. (2019). Agricultural productivity and forest conservation: evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(3), 919-940. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay110
Laing, T., Taschini, L. & Palmer, C. (2016). Understanding the demand for REDD+ credits. Environmental Conservation, 43(4):389-396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000187
Lambin, E., Gibbs, H., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, k., Fleck, L., Garret, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDemort, C., McLaughlin, D., Nweton, P., Nolte C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., & Walker, N. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, Perspective. Macmillan Publishers, 8pp. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1
Larson, A.M., Corbera, E., Cronkleton, P., van Dam, C., Bray, D., Estrada, M., & Pacheco, P. (2010). Rights to forests and carbon under REDD+ initiatives in Latin America. CIFOR InfoBrief 33. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Leventon, J., Kalaba, F., Dyer, J.., Stringer, L., & Dougill, A. (2014). Delivering community benefits through REDD+: lessons from joint forest management in Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics, 44, 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.005
Lima, P.G.B. (2014). Strengthening livelihood flows on Payment for Environmental Services through local lenses: evidences from the Bolsa Floresta Programme. Journal of Sustainable Development Studies 7(1), 52-83.
Lima. P.G.B. (2017). Brazil in the global forest governance: The Brazilian initiative of developing a national strategy on REDD+ policies [PhD Thesis]. Cottbus, Germany: BTU Cottbus-Senftenberg.
Lindsay, P. & Norman, D.A. (1977). Human information processing: An Introduction to psychology. 2nd edition, Academic Press Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-450960-3.50010-5
Loft, L., Ravikumar, A., Gebara, M. F., Pham, T. T., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Assembe, S., Tovar, J. G., Mwangi, M., & Andersson, K. (2015). Taking stock of carbon rights in REDD+ candidate countries: concept meets reality. Forests, 6(4), 1031-1060. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6041031
Lubowski, R., & Rose, S. (2013). The potential for REDD+: Key economic modeling insights and issues. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 7(1), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/res024
Lujan, B., & Sliva-Chávez, G. (2018). Mapping Forest Finance: a Landscape of Available Sources of Finance for REDD+ and Climate Action in Forests. Environmental Defense Fund, Forest Trends, and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Working Paper. New York, USA.
Maniatis, D., Scriven, J., Jonckheere, I., Laughlin, J., & Todd, K. (2019). Toward REDD+ Implementation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44, 8.1-8.26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060839
May, P. H., Millikan, B., & Gebara, M. F. (2011a). The context of REDD+ in Brazil: drivers, agents, and institutions. Occasional paper 55. CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia. Revised edition.
May, P.H., Calixto, B., & Gebara, M.F. (2011b). REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Brazil. Working Paper 55. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Mbatu, R. (2016). Redd + research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.010
Moeliono, M., Brockhaus, M., Gallemore, C., Dwisatrio, B., Maharani, C., Muharrom, E., & Pham, T.T. (2020). REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project? Forest Policy and Economics 121, 102-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102316
Myers, R., Fisher, M., Monterroso, I., Liswanti, N., Maryudi, A., Larson, A. M., ... & Herawati, T. (2022). Coordinating forest tenure reform: Objectives, resources and relations in Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal, Peru, and Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics, 139, 102718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102718
Nepstad D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., DiGiano, M., Shimada, J., Motta, R., Armijo, E., Castello, L., Brando, P., Hansen, M., McGrath-Horn, M., Carvalho, O., & Hess, L. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(618), 1118-1123. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248525
Newig, J., D. Günther, & C. Pahl-Wostl. (2010). Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and Society 15(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03713-150424
Norman M. & Nakhooda S. (2015). The state of REDD+ finance. Center for Global Development Working Paper 378. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622743
Norsworthy, L. A. (2000). Rural Development, natural resources and the environment: lessons of experience in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. World Bank, n. 20265, 136 pp. Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4717-9
OECD. (2012). Measuring regulatory performance: a practitioner's guide to perception surveys, OECD Publishing.
Ozinga, S. (2012) The Impact of REDD on Forest Governance. In: Moving Forward with Forest Governance. ETFRN news, 53, 141-148.
Peskett, L., & Brodnig, G. (2011). Carbon Rights in REDD+: Exploring the Implications for Poor and Vulnerable People. World Bank and REDD-net Working Paper. Accessed 14 June 2020. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700581468331843375/pdf/658640WP00PUBL0ng0and0Carbon0Rights.pdf
Peters, B. G. (2018). The challenge of policy coordination. Journal Policy Design and Practice, 1(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1437946
Pham, T.T., Moeliono, M., Yuwono, J., Dwisatrio, B. & Gallo, P. (2021b). REDD+ finance in Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam: Stakeholder perspectives between 2009-2019. Global Environmental Change, 70, 1023-1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102330
Pham, T.T., Ngo, H.C., Dao, T.L.C., Hoang, T.L. & Moeliono, M. (2021a). Participation and influence of REDD+ actors in Vietnam, 2011-2019. Global Environmental Change, 68, 1022-1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102249
Phan T.H.D., Brouwer, R., & Davidson, M. (2014). The economic costs of avoided deforestation in the developing world: a meta-analysis. J Forest Econ 20(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2013.06.004
Picoli, M., Rorato, A., Leitão, P., Camara, G., Maciel, A., Hostet, P., & Sanches, I. (2020). Impacts of public and private sector policies on soybean and pasture expansion in Mato Grosso - Brazil from 2001 to 2017. Land, 9(20),15. Basel, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9010020
Pierre, J. & Peters, G. (2000). Governance, politics, and the state. New York, St. Martin's Press.
Purnomo, H., Okarda, B., Puspitaloka, D., Ristiana, N., Sanjaya, M., Komarudin, H., ... & Brady, M. A. (2023). Public and private sector zero-deforestation commitments and their impacts: A case study from South Sumatra Province, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 134, 106818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106818
Rao, V. S. P., & Narayana, P. S. (1998). Organisation theory and behaviour. Delhi: Konark Publishing Company, pp. 329-330.
Ravikumar, A., Larson, A., Myers, R. & Trench, T. (2018). Inter-sectoral and multilevel coordination alone do not reduce deforestation and advance environmental justice: Why bold contestation works when collaboration fail. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. SAGE, 36(8), 1437-1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418794025
Sanches, J. & Bataglia, W. (2015). The Legal institutional environment in Brazil and the collective and private guarantee mechanisms for economic transactions. 10th Research Workshop on Institutions and Organizations - RWIO Center for Organization Studies - CORS.
Sheng, J. (2020). Private sector participation and incentive coordination of actors in REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102262
Simonet G., Atmadja, S., Agrawal A., Bénédet F., Cromberg M., de Perthuis C., Haggard D., Jansen N., Karsenty A., Liang W., Morel, A., Newton P., Sales A-M, Satwika, A., Schaap B., Seyller C., Selviana, V., & Vaillant G. (2020). ID-RECCO, International Database on REDD+ projects and programs: Linking Economics, Carbon and Communities.
Skole, D., Chomentowski, W., Salas, W. & Nobre, A. (1994). Physical and human dimensions of deforestation in Amazonia. BioScience, 44(5), 314-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312381
Skutsch, M., Torres, A. & Fuentes, J. (2017). Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed. Forest Policy and Economics, 75, 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.014
Sparovek, G., Reydon, B., Pinto, L., Faria, V., Freitas, F., Azevedo-Ramos. C., Gardner, T., Hamamura, C., Rajão, R., & Cerignoni, F. (2019). Who owns Brazilian lands? Land Use Policy 87, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104062
Thompson, M.C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E.R. (2011). Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environental Science Policy, 14, 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.006
Tyler, T., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal Criminal Law, 6, 231-276.
Van der Hoff, R., Rajão, R., Leroy, P. & Boezeman, D. (2015). The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 55, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.005
Vatn, A. and Angelsen, A. (2009). Options for a national REDD+ architecture. In: Angelsen, A. with Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (eds) 2009. Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 5, 57-74.
Virah-Sawmy, M., Duran, A., Green, J., Guerrero, A., Biggs, D., & West, C. (2019). Sustainability gridlock in a global agricultural commodity chain: Reframing the soy-meat food system. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 210-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.01.003
Walker, N., Patel, S. & Kalif, K. (2013). From Amazon pasture to the high street: deforestation and the Brazilian cattle product supply chain. Tropical Conservation Science. Mongabay.com Open Access Journal, Special Issue, 6(3), 446-467. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291300600309
Wensing D. (2021). Why forest-based carbon trading is poised to go mainstream. Greenbiz.com. Accessed 28 June 2021. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-forest-based-carbon-trading-poised-go-mainstream
Wong, G., Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Yang, A., Pham, T., Naito, D., Assembe-Mvodo, S. & Brockhaus, M. (2019). Narratives in REDD + benefit sharing: examining evidence within and beyond the forest sector, Climate Policy, 19(8), 1038-1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1618786
Wunder, S., Duchelle, A., Sassi, C. Sills, E., Simonet, G. & Sunderlin, W. (2020) REDD+ in Theory and Practice: How Lessons From Local Projects Can Inform Jurisdictional Approaches. Frontiers in Forest and Global Change, 3(11), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00011
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Produção e Desenvolvimento
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All content on this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY Attribution 4.0 Unported license. The articles are free to use, with their CC BY attributions of license.
The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts emitted in the texts, as they are the sole responsibility of its author (s).
The publisher has the right to reject articles that in the evaluation process have been detected signs of plagiarism. The articles that have been detected indications of plagiarism after the publication, will be excluded from the edition. And the indication of the problem will be informed in the place of the text, keeping the same amount of pages.
This journal adopts the principles of ethical conduct of international quality Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the parameters of Integrity in the Scientific Activity indicated by SCOPUS and SCIELO.
