Next Article in Journal
Implementing Supported Employment. Lessons from the Making IPS Work Project
Previous Article in Journal
Associations between History of Hospitalization for Violence Victimization and Substance-Use Patterns among Adolescents: A 2017 Korean National Representative Survey
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Uncertainty in Estimates, Incentives, and Emission Reductions in REDD+ Projects

1
Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, 219 Ningliu Road, Nanjing 210044, Jiangsu, China
2
Business School, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, 219 Ningliu Road, Nanjing 210044, Jiangsu, China
3
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), The Earth Institute at Columbia University, P.O. Box 1000, Palisades, NY 10964, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(7), 1544; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph15071544
Submission received: 12 June 2018 / Revised: 16 July 2018 / Accepted: 20 July 2018 / Published: 21 July 2018

Abstract

:
The accurate monitoring and measurement of emission reductions is a critical step in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+). However, the existence of uncertainty in emission reduction estimates affects the performance of REDD+ projects. We assert that incentive could be a valuable policy tool for reducing monitoring errors and transaction costs. Using Stackelberg models and simulation research, this paper examines the effects of uncertainty and incentive on performance and stakeholder benefits of REDD+ projects. Finally, the uncertainties in REDD+ projects are further discussed, and equilibrium errors, emission reductions, and stakeholder benefits in different scenarios are compared. The results show that errors do affect the measured value of carbon emissions and compensation payments. However, incentive for investors can reduce monitoring errors and improve the performance of REDD+ projects. Therefore, in the future, incentive should be provided to investors rather than landholders.

1. Introduction

The absorption of CO2 by forest land is a critical means of carbon capture and storage. Tropical forests account for only 15% of the global land area, but absorb about 25% of the carbon in the terrestrial biosphere [1]. A total of 28.9 billion tons of carbon were stored in the global forest in 2010 [2]. However, greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation have become the second major cause of global warming, which has accounted for 12%–20% of the total amount of carbon emissions caused by human factors [3]. Over 1990–2010, an annual average of 0.5 Gt carbon was released into the atmosphere due to deforestation [2]. Owing to these high forest emissions, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) introduced Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) in 2007 [4], which was incorporated into the Paris Agreement in 2015 [5]. REDD+ aims to help developing countries reduce deforestation and forest degradation through various policy approaches and positive incentives, as well as forest conservation, sustainable forest management, and increasing forest carbon sink.
Accurate monitoring and measurement of emission reductions are especially important in the implementation of REDD+ projects. The potential benefits of REDD+ projects depend primarily on the precise measurement of the emission reductions [6], which can directly affect the stakeholder benefits obtained from REDD+ projects [7]. Thus, there is a need to assess the reliability of community-based monitoring and measurement of emission reductions, especially given the potential impact it may have on the cost-effectiveness and local acceptability of REDD+ projects [8]. The latter is particularly relevant to the situation of indigenous people (landholders), whose territory plays a vital role in above-ground carbon stocks in the tropics [9]. The legitimate participation of indigenous peoples in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) is a fundamental principle that respects their human rights and will also promote their ownership of the REDD+ projects [10].

The Problem and the Approach to Investigate

At present, reliable estimates of emission reductions remain very difficult. The high uncertainties in input data may seriously compromise the credibility of the estimates of emission reductions and jeopardize the feasibility of REDD+ as a mitigation option [11]. The existing studies examined the issue of uncertainty in estimates of emission reductions for REDD+, and mainly involved the uncertainty at the project scale [12], with the theoretical estimation of several error sources [13] or with the approach of dealing with uncertainty [14]. Existing research indicates that the uncertainty relates to measuring forest area, forest area changes and trends [12,15,16,17], forest carbon density [18,19,20], carbon emissions after deforestation and degradation [21,22], and the activities and processes contained in the accountability for land-use-change fluxes [23,24]. When uncertainty is equal to or greater than the promised emission reductions, compliance with REDD+ contracts will become particularly difficult to assess and may cause controversy [25]. Thus, it is critically important to evaluate the impacts of monitoring errors on the performance of REDD+ projects.
To reduce uncertainty in REDD+, a reliable MRV system for emission reductions is necessary. The cost to establish an MRV system is a transaction cost in REDD+ projects that includes investigation costs as well as computer equipment and software [26,27]. In addition to the transaction cost, there is another important type of costs in REDD+ projects, namely, opportunity costs resulting from the foregone revenues that deforestation would have generated for livelihoods and the national economy [28]. Only when income from the REDD+ projects is higher than opportunity costs will the emission reductions become the best choice for landholders [29]. The investors, as other essential stakeholders in REDD+ projects, can transform forest emission reductions into “forest carbon credits”. However, a reliable MRV system is required for investors to accurately estimate emission reductions, which would create transaction costs [26]. An important role of incentives is to cover the cost of emission reductions by selling “carbon credit” [30]. Thus, it is necessary to provide incentives for investors to make up the transaction costs of REDD+ programs [31]. Moreover, the uncertainty in estimates of emission reductions may make the carbon credits available to investors become overvalued, leading to an increase in the transaction costs of investors and ultimately impairing their interests [7]. Thus, when the acquired funds from the sale of “carbon credit” are sufficient to cover the transaction costs of emission reductions, an incentive for REDD+ investors will be created [30].
High transaction costs in REDD+ projects are not conducive to the implementation of REDD+ projects in developing countries. However, the transaction costs of REDD+ projects can be efficiently reduced if policymakers can provide an incentive for transaction costs [32]. Skutsch, Vickers, Georgiadou, and McCall [8] also found that the stakeholders with better negotiation skills and experience in tapping government incentives have more advantages in the implementation of REDD+ projects than the stakeholders with the lowest opportunity costs. People think that stakeholders should be given the incentive to improve the performance of REDD+ projects [33,34].
Multiple stakeholders are often involved in REDD+ projects, and the stakeholders’ benefits typically differ [35]. The general uncertainty is likely to have a direct impact on all stakeholders’ benefits, but which stakeholder has more advantages in uncertainty is still unclear. The overestimation and underestimation of emission reductions in REDD+ directly determine the number of carbon credits, which may affect the benefits of various stakeholders. Thus, high uncertainties around emission reduction estimates would have a significant impact on the interests of stakeholders [36]. Meanwhile, reducing uncertainty implies the need to take a series of measures, including the establishment of a more efficient MRV system, which may increase transaction costs in REDD+ projects [37]. It also means that more incentives are needed to provide enough incentive for stakeholders. Since forestry is the sector identified as having one of the largest uncertainties, it is necessary to consider uncertainty in the context of REDD+ incentives [38]. Our aim in the current study was to fill this research gap by examining how uncertainty and incentive can influence stakeholder benefits and emission reductions.
This paper focuses mainly on the effects of uncertainty and incentive on the performance of REDD+ projects, and makes the following three contributions: (i) illustrating the potential effects of uncertainty and incentive on emission reductions and stakeholder benefits of REDD+ projects through Stackelberg models and numerical simulations; (ii) demonstrating that the increase in the errors or incentives will lead to an increase in emission reductions and stakeholder profits, while the equilibrium errors and emission reductions are both related to the market size; and (iii) confirming that incentives for investors are better than incentives for landholders in reducing monitoring errors and improving the performance of REDD+ projects.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 briefly reviews the relevant literature on uncertainty, incentive, and their associations with the performance of REDD+ projects. Section 3 establishes several Stackelberg models to hypothetically examine the effects of uncertainty and incentive on the performance of REDD+ projects. Section 4 uses policy simulation to examine the relationship between uncertainty in estimates, incentive, and performance of REDD programs in different scenarios. Based on the above study, the discussion constitutes Section 5, followed by the conclusion in Section 6.

2. Literature Review

Existing literature on REDD+ has been very abundant, and mainly concerned with the international to the national level of the system design [39]. On summarizing the existing literature it can be seen that six topics dominate [40]. One is about the studies on performance-oriented financing in REDD+ [41,42,43]. The second topic is concerned with the institutional design and responsibilities in REDD+ [44,45,46]. The third topic is to examine the issues of uncertainties and MRV in REDD+ [47,48,49,50]. The fourth topic concerns the REDD+ safeguard, including land property rights [51,52,53], indigenous community participation [54,55,56], social safeguards and benefit sharing [57,58,59], and biodiversity conservation [60,61,62]. The fifth topic focuses on the issue of REDD+ reference levels [63,64,65]. The sixth topic examines the specific drivers of deforestation [66,67,68]. According to our research goals, this paper pays more attention to the relationship between uncertainty in estimates, incentive, and performance of REDD+ projects.
Past studies on uncertainties in the REDD+ projects demonstrated that the economic and political dimensions of REDD+ projects and their performance-based criteria require highly accurate monitoring, reporting, and verification of emissions from the forest [69]. The success of a REDD+ project depends on the ability of countries to provide measurable, reportable, and verifiable emission reductions [36]. Most studies focus on data availability in MRV systems [18,70,71,72] and related costs [73,74]. Some of the literature also finds that the current status of the MRV system is not satisfactory [40]. According to the REDD+ projects implemented in recent years, Joseph, Herold, Sunderlin, and Verchot [47] argue that MRV’s flaws are not only due to the limitation of technical expertise, but also to the slowness of international REDD+ policy development and the uncertainties in the development of the forest carbon market. Romijn, Herold, Kooistra, Murdiyarso, and Verchot [48] argue that the MRV capacity gaps in most developing countries are large, and monitoring capacity building needs to be part of the investment commitment in the performance-based REDD+ projects. However, none of the above literature focuses on the impacts of uncertainty caused by imperfect MRV on the performance of REDD+ projects.
So far only a few literature works involve the association of uncertainty with the performance of the REDD+ project. Pelletier, Ramankutty, and Potvin [36] argue that relevant uncertainties may overshadow the actual emission reductions in developing countries, and uncertainties arising from imperfect MRV may prevent widespread implementation of performance-based financing [75]. Bucki, et al. [76] as well as Pelletier, Martin, and Potvin [22] both argue that uncertainties in REDD+ projects may lead to the effects of changes in forest management remaining within error range for a few years, and thus REDD+ incentives cannot be allocated to the countries that actually reduce emissions based on a reliable benchmark. Lusiana, van Noordwijk, Johana, Galudra, Suyanto, and Cadisch [7] argue that the uncertainty of carbon emission estimates depends on scale, while local stakeholders’ views on reasonable REDD+ projects affect and limit transaction costs. Thus, uncertainty analysis can be used as the basis for determining an appropriate scale for monitoring carbon emission estimates, which can be used as a performance indicator for REDD+ incentives. This paper extends the above studies, but uses a Stackelberg game approach to examine the effects of uncertainty on stakeholder profitability in REDD+ projects.
Another core issue relating to the performance of REDD+ projects is the incentive scheme for investment, which encourages developing countries to conserve forests, and reduce deforestation and degradation [77]. There have been more studies on the incentive issue for public sector investors [78]. With the deepening of studies on incentives in REDD+ projects, some studies have focused on optimizing the market and stimulating global private investment to shift to mitigation and adaptation activities related to climate change [79]. However, Barron and McDermott [80] argue that an important reason to explain the lack of incentives for private investors is that a global REDD+ system of emissions trading or cap-and-trade has not yet formed. Carbon emission credits from REDD+ projects have been accepted by the California cap-and-trade program [43], but are excluded from the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) [81]. An important reason is that the EU insists that a transparent and accurate MRV system is urgently required for carbon emissions in the forest and agricultural sectors [82]. Since each member state has different reasons for deforestation and degradation, this may make it difficult for EU member states to agree on the effectiveness of REDD+. However, the EU reiterates the need to develop a policy to integrate land use and forestry into the 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework once the necessary technical conditions allow [82]. Thus, it indirectly indicates that REDD+ is likely to be incorporated in the EU ETS and even included in the global emissions trading system if the uncertainty issue can be effectively solved. Given that China launched the national emission trading system in 2017 [83], carbon credits from the REDD+ program and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are likely to be incorporated in the system in the future. The global emission trading market for REDD+ projects is currently under formation, and REDD+ projects still have great attraction for private investors due to the potentially large future market size [84].
Another critical issue related to the performance of REDD+ projects is the incentives for indigenous people. Pandey, et al. [85] argue that the motivation to realize REDD+ carbon incentives in indigenous community forests can contribute to the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. McDermott, et al. [86] argue that bilateral and multilateral financing initiatives have played a “funds-based” authority through the implementation of operational safeguards to protect indigenous and local communities, but limited funding and low capacity of REDD+ countries to absorb these funds have limited their impact. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen inclusive participation and improve incentive management within the indigenous communities if incentive-based conservation projects are to achieve their social development and environmental goals [87]. Similarly, Corbera, et al. [88] also reveal the role of incentives for indigenous peoples by examining governance and livelihood changes in the community-based participatory forest management in Tanzania. To effectively protect the rights of indigenous people, Savaresi [89] argues that concerns about the social impact of REDD+ projects can be addressed by establishing clearer and stronger links with human rights instruments. Moreover, Wright [90] argues that security tenure must be seen as a prerequisite for effective REDD+ that is sensitive to indigenous rights. Thus, the Paris Agreement in December 2015 regarded REDD+ as a critical policy tool for climate change mitigation and clearly recognized the need to respect human rights in all climate actions [57].
Although the values are diverse in REDD+, the neoliberal incentive remains a useful starting point for us to understand stakeholder behaviour in REDD+. We recognize that values are pluralistic in REDD+, including efficiency, equity, social and environmental justice, as well as poverty alleviation [91,92,93]. However, when we consider all the values in REDD+ design, the value pluralism may “risk reinforcing the problematic dimensions and entrenched power structures of the approach as a whole and hence work against the effective resolution of these very concerns” [94]. As Wunder [95] argued, the incentive in REDD+ should not be “burdened” with many public concerns around “alleviating poverty, gender, indigenous people, human rights, and other noble causes”, since this would limit private sector investment, resulting in REDD+ losing new financing options. Even in the experiment on power inequality in Nicaragua [96], the “payments for ecosystem services (PES) simulation game” is still based on the neoliberal incentives, which can increase our understanding of the complex negotiations between different participants involved in ecosystem service governance. Moreover, lots of theoretical and empirical studies have confirmed that stakeholders in REDD+ are driven by self-interest and economic rationality to obtain maximum profits from the forests they exploit and manage (e.g., Purnomo, et al. [97], Fosci [98], Fletcher and Breitling [99], Isenhour [100], and Boer [101]). Thus, REDD+ as an application of neoliberalism in forest conservation still relies on neoliberal incentives [99]. As REDD+ is incentive-driven, following the neoliberal logic, and often requires private contracts between landholders and investors rather than regulatory approaches, these are more effective and efficient than those policies that require governmental oversight [102].
The literature on the effects of incentives on the performance of REDD+ projects remains in its infancy. Busch, et al. [103] proposed an improved voluntary incentive structure for REDD+ projects by comparing the emission reductions under the mandatory incentive structure with the basic voluntary incentive structure. Boer [104] used the governmentality theory to explore the rationality of various incentives, arguing that REDD+ incentives are often combined with neoliberalism in climate agenda, that is, using the market instruments to achieve the commodification of forest carbon. However, who should get the incentive is still in debate. Palmer [105] believes that the investors could obtain REDD+ incentives in the form of tradable carbon credits without needing to transfer these rights on to individuals with forest resources. Sheng, Cao, Han, and Miao [31] argue that incentives for investors can benefit all landholders by comparing four incentive modes. On the contrary, Loaiza, et al. [106] argue that indigenous communities should receive more incentives, and the existing incentives are inadequate to encourage them to participate in REDD+ projects. Similarly, Salas, et al. [107] also tend towards providing more incentives to landholders by using self-enforcing contracts. Sheng and Qiu [108] identified a range of factors that influence incentives in REDD+ from the perspective of governmentality. Guadalupe, et al. [109] identified the primary drivers and agents of deforestation in high-forest and low-deforestation regions. Pandit [110] revealed the factors affecting respondent’s knowledge of REDD+ goal in Nepal. Albers, et al. [111] employed the lens of economic incentives to explore the underappreciated costs in REDD. However, the previous studies tend to ignore the role of uncertainty when analyzing incentives [25]. This paper extends the above analysis by considering both uncertainty and incentive within a theoretical framework, examining the REDD+ incentives as a techne of government that attempts to render forest conservation governable and administrable. The REDD+ incentives are regarded as a techne of government that is, “means, mechanisms, procedures, instruments, tactics, techniques, technologies, and vocabularies” that are used by governments to conduct individual conducts for combating environmental degradation [112]. The REDD+ incentives rely on mobilizing the techne of the government to achieve the spatial rationalization of emission reductions, especially concerning the REDD+ incentives, to consider the effects of uncertainty.

3. Methods

3.1. Incentive and Profit Functions

Incentive as a type of policy instrument, like a tax and other market-oriented tools, can internalize the social costs of REDD+ projects in accord with social benefits and private benefits [113]. Therefore, the possible incentive should be considered when analyzing stakeholders’ profit functions.
Before analyzing the effects of uncertainty and incentive on the performance of REDD+ projects, a scenario without an incentive should be considered first, namely the Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario. The game players are REDD+ investors and landholders, and the landholders can gain benefits from REDD+ projects which are dependent on the emission reductions (q) and compensation payments per unit emission (r). Of course, this also means that the landholders should give up logging income and benefits from land use change (LUC) at the same time, namely opportunity costs (co). The investors can obtain “forest carbon credits” by developing REDD+ projects. These credits can be sold in the market, so investors can gain benefits which are related to emission reductions (q) and the international market prices of carbon credits (p). The primary sources of the cost per forest carbon credit are compensation payments per unit emission (r) and transaction costs (ct). The transaction costs usually occupy a significant proportion of the total costs of the REDD+ projects [114].
Landholders are the compensation payment leaders, who can decide whether to participate in the REDD+ projects and determine the number of emission reductions. When opportunity costs are lower than the available benefits, landholders will supply emission reductions. Landholders as the compensation payment leaders in the Stackelberg model [31], therefore, will first decide the compensation payments (r) to maximize their benefits, while investors as the compensation payment followers can only determine the emission reductions (q) according to compensation payments (r).
Policymakers are assumed to provide a specific incentive (s) for stakeholders to reduce the transaction costs in REDD+ projects. Thus, the incentive will be no higher than the unit transaction cost per emission reductions (i.e., sct). To get a definite conclusion, determining who should get the incentive, needs further analysis. The game players are assumed to be risk-neutral stakeholders, and there is completely symmetrical information in the model. The amount of carbon credits is the emission reductions (q), and the prices of carbon credits are p. We start with a Stackelberg model to keep the analysis simple and obtain sharper insights. According to Ferrer and Swaminathan [115], the demand function of carbon credits can be assumed as a linear and decreasing function of the prices of carbon credits p (i.e., q = mp); where m > 0 is the size of the potential market for carbon credits.

3.2. Measuring Uncertainty

It is especially crucial that accurate monitoring and measurement of emission reductions are directly related to the actual benefits obtained by stakeholders from REDD+ projects. Through studying the uncertainties of REDD programs in Garner, Cameroon, Indonesia, Colombia, and Suriname, Plugge, Baldauf, and Köhl [6] find that the income from REDD programs depends on the magnitude of errors, while the impacts of transaction costs and the price of carbon are relatively small. Therefore, a reliable MRV system for carbon emissions is critical to ensure the effective implementation of the REDD+ project in the post-Kyoto era.
There is a higher uncertainty in the quantification process of carbon storage, and such errors would produce a far-reaching impact on the final financing incentive mechanism of REDD+ projects. Grassi, Monni, Federici, Achard, and Mollicone [11] argued that uncertainty and incompleteness should be taken into account in the quantification of emission reductions, and put forward corresponding conservative principles to solve the potential incompleteness and high uncertainty of estimation in REDD+ projects. Tanabe and Wagner [116] proposed that reliable minimum estimation (RME) should be adopted in assessing changes in soil carbon storage. There are significant differences between RME and a lower confidence interval: the confidence interval only takes into account the sampling errors, while the RME is aimed at the overall uncertainty, including sampling errors and other errors, such as prediction errors, measurement errors, and classification errors [117]. The RME can be used to measure the changes of carbon storage in REDD+ projects such that the RME is the difference between the lower error interval during the base period and the upper error interval during the reporting period. The confidence interval only considers sampling errors, so the magnitude of emission reductions obtained by RME is less than that calculated by the confidence interval. The monitoring error is assumed as e (0 ≤ e ≤ 1). The emission reductions provided by landholders are q, while the compensation payments paid for landholders are dependent on the RME value q (1 − e), due to the uncertainty. However, the actual emission reduction obtained by investors is q. The uncertainty ultimately leads to differences in incentives available to investors and landholders. Thus, the uncertainty is likely to change the income levels of the two players, and ultimately affects the performance of REDD+ projects. These effects are discussed in the following.
When uncertainty exists, the effects of incentive on stakeholders’ profits, and the profit difference between incentive objects, are also considered in this section.

3.3. Stakeholder Decision-Making Model in the Scenario without Incentive (BAU Scenario)

The profit functions of investors and landholders of REDD+ projects in the scenario without incentive (BAU scenario) are represented in the following equations respectively:
max   π I B A U = q p q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c t     = q ( m q ) q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c t ,
max   π L B A U = q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c o ,
s . t .       0 e 1 .
Here πIBAU and πLBAU are the profits of investors and landholders respectively in the BAU scenario. To examine the effects of error (e) and incentive (s) on the performance of REDD+ projects, we assume that market size (m), error (e), incentive (s), opportunity cost (co), and transaction cost (ct) are exogenous variables, and only carbon emission reductions (q) and compensation payment (r) are endogenous variables. According to Equations (1) and (2), the profit function of investors (πIBAU) is the concave function of carbon emission reductions (q), i.e., ∂2πIBAU/∂q2 < 0. It can ensure the adequacy of the first-order conditions and the uniqueness of the optimal solution. The landholders are compensation payment leaders in the Stackelberg model, so backward induction is used to solve the model. The investors’ best response function for landholders’ compensation payments can be obtained as follows by letting ∂πIBAU/∂q = 0:
q = m ( 1 e ) r ( 1 e ) c t 2 .
Now, investors can decide the required emission reductions to maximize their profits according to the best response function. By inserting Equation (3) to Equation (2), and letting ∂πLBAU/∂r = 0, the optimal solution for the model can be obtained as follows:
{ r = m + ( 1 e ) ( c o c t ) 2 ( 1 e ) q = m ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t ) 4 .
By inserting Equation (4) to Equations (1) and (2), the equilibrium profits of investors and landholders in the BAU scenario are as follows:
π I B A U = [ m ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t ) ] 2 16 ,
π L B A U = [ m ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t ) ] 2 8 .
By comparing Equations (5) and (6), we find that investors’ profits are half that of landholders’ in the BAU scenario. The main reason is that landholders as compensation payment leaders have the first-mover advantages so that they can obtain more profits than investors.

3.4. Stakeholder Decision-Making Model in Incentive Scenarios

3.4.1. Incentive Scenario for Landholders (s1 Scenario)

Policymakers are assumed to provide an appropriate incentive (s1) for landholders to reduce the transaction costs of REDD+ projects. The policymakers will provide an incentive for landholders according to the size of emission reductions, and the incentive should be less than or equal to the transaction cost (i.e., s1ct). Due to the uncertainty, the incentives are determined by the RME value of emission reductions q (1 − e). Consequently, investor and landholder profit functions are:
max   π I S 1 = q ( m q ) q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c t ,
max   π L S 1 = q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c o + q ( 1 - e ) s 1 ,
s . t .       0 e 1 .
According to the first order conditions of profit maximization (∂πIS1/∂q = 0), investors’ best response function is:
q = m ( 1 e ) r ( 1 e ) c t 2 .
By inserting Equation (9) to Equation (8), and letting ∂πLS1/∂r = 0, the optimal solution for the model can be obtained as follows:
{ r = m + ( 1 e ) ( c o c t s 1 ) 2 ( 1 e ) q = m ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t s 1 ) 4 .
The equilibrium profits of investors and landholders can be obtained respectively through the same method in the incentive scenario for landholders (s1 scenario):
π I S 1 = [ m ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t s 1 ) ] 2 16 ,
π L S 1 = [ m ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t s 1 ) ] 2 8 .

3.4.2. Incentive Scenario for Investors (s2 Scenario)

In this scenario, to reduce the transaction costs of REDD+ projects, policymakers will provide an incentive (s2) to investors instead of landholders. The incentive should be less than or equal to the transaction cost (i.e., s2ct). Investors and landholders’ profit functions are as follows:
max   π I S 2 = q ( m q ) q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c t + q s 2 ,
max   π L S 2 = q ( 1 e ) r q ( 1 e ) c o ,
s . t .       0 e 1 .
The total incentives depend only on emission reductions q. Let ∂πIS2/∂q = 0, then investors’ best response function can be obtained:
q = m + s 2 ( 1 e ) r ( 1 e ) c t 2 .
Letting ∂πLS2/∂r = 0, the optimal solution is:
{ r = m + s 2 + ( 1 e ) ( c o c t ) 2 ( 1 e ) q = m + s 2 ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t ) 4 .
Finally, in the incentive scenario for investors (s2 scenario) the equilibrium profits of investors and landholders are:
π I S 2 = [ m + s 2 ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t ) ] 2 16 ,
π L S 2 = [ m + s 2 ( 1 e ) ( c o + c t ) ] 2 8 .

4. Results

4.1. Numerical Specification

To further examine the impacts of uncertainty and incentive on the performance of REDD+ projects, numerical simulation is used to verify the conclusions obtained by theoretical models. Boucher [118] reviewed 29 papers on empirical studies on the opportunity costs in REDD+ projects, and found that the average opportunity cost was 2.51 USD/tCO2. Therefore, in this paper, the opportunity cost (co) is set to 2.5 USD/tCO2. The generalized transaction can reach 1 USD/tCO2, which contains transaction costs of 0.38 USD/tCO2 [119], implementation costs of 0.58 USD/tCO2 [120] and administration costs of 0.04 USD/tCO2 [26]. Thus, 1 USD/tCO2 is selected as the transaction cost (ct).
First, we examine the effects of uncertainty on the performance of REDD+ projects, defining the error (e) as in the range of 0 ≤ e ≤ 10%. Meanwhile, because the primary purpose of the incentive is to reduce the transaction cost, the incentives s1 and s2 are set to the average value of 0.5 USD/tCO2. The market size (m) is set to 10. The other values are also used to test these parameters, and results show that the simulation results have strong robustness for parameter variations in the trends of emission reductions.
Second, we examine the impacts of incentive on the performance of REDD+ projects. Because the transaction cost (ct) is set to 1 USD/tCO2, the incentive (s1 and s2) ranges are between 0 USD/tCO2 and 1 USD/tCO2. The remaining parameters are set as follows: e = 5%, m = 10 to ensure the profit functions of both players are meaningful. The simulation results also have strong robustness for parameter variations in the trends of emission reductions after similar tests.

4.2. Numerical Simulation

By using the premise of invariable incentive, the effects of uncertainty on the performance of REDD+ projects are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, and Table 1.
According to Figure 1, the measured value of the emission reductions increased as errors increased. To maintain the previous profits, investors and landholders need to increase the emission reductions to make up for the underestimated amount caused by errors. Therefore, greater errors result finally in increased r measured value of emission reductions. It is worth noting that the emission reductions in the s2 scenario are greater than that in the s1 scenario, and this difference is more significant with an increase in errors. The emission reductions rise from 1.75 tCO2 (e = 0) to 1.83 tCO2 (e = 10%) in the s1 scenario, while the increase in emission reductions goes from 1.75 tCO2 (e = 0) to 1.84 tCO2 (e = 10%) in the s2 scenario. A conclusion, therefore, can be drawn that the effects of incentive for investors are better than those for landholders. Meanwhile, the greater the errors, the more significant the effects will be.
Due to the information asymmetry in the opportunity costs of emission reductions, investors are not aware of the real opportunity costs of landholders [121]. Thus, the landholders become the price leader and can first set the compensation payments for the emission reductions to maximize their profits [31]. According to Figure 2, it can be seen that the compensation payments also rise with the increase in errors. The reason may be that the underestimated emission reductions will become greater with rising errors. However, the actual emission reductions from the landholders are unchanged. Consequently, the landholders will ask for higher compensation payments to cover the costs of underestimated emission reductions. It is worth noting that the compensation payments in the s1 scenario are lower than that in the BAU scenario, while the compensation payments in the s2 scenario are higher than that in the BAU scenario. It suggests that incentive for landholders will reduce compensation payments, while incentive for investors will increase compensation payments.
The influence of errors on the profits of REDD+ stakeholders is shown in Table 1. It can be seen that the profits of landholders and investors will have a corresponding increase when errors arise. Rising errors not only increase the actual emission reductions, but also lead to the compensation payments rising. Even though the emission reductions may be underestimated due to errors, stakeholder profits can still increase. However, the increased magnitude is different in different scenarios. When errors increase from 0 to 10%, stakeholder profits are increased by 8.76% and 10.25% in the s1 and s2 scenarios respectively. It suggests that incentives for investors are more likely to promote an increase in stakeholder profits.
The following Figure 3 and Figure 4 and Table 2 show the effects of incentive on the performance of REDD+ projects when the monitoring error is constant.
According to Figure 3, the emission reductions rise with increased incentive in the two incentive scenarios when the error is unchanged. Through further comparison of the two kinds of incentive modes, it can be found that incentive for investors will cause emission reductions to increase more significantly. When the incentive rises from 0 USD to 1 USD, the emission reductions rise from 1.67 tCO2 to 1.91 tCO2 in the s1 scenario, while increasing from 1.67 tCO2 to 1.92 tCO2 in the s2 scenario. It once again shows that the effects of incentive for investors are better than that of incentive for landholders. Moreover, the difference between the two scenarios is more significant with rising incentive.
Furthermore, the effects of the two incentive modes on compensation payments move in the opposite direction, as shown in Figure 4. The incentive for landholders will sharply decrease the compensation payments, and the more incentives are provided, the lower the compensation payments. On the other hand, the incentive for investors can significantly increase the compensation payments.
The impacts of incentive on the profits of REDD+ stakeholders are shown in Table 2. Comparing stakeholder profits in the three scenarios, we find that incentive can significantly increase the profits of investors and landholders, but the effects of incentive for investors would be better. The stakeholder profits are increased by 30.49% and 32.21% in the s1 and s2 scenarios respectively, when incentives are increased from 0 USD to 1 USD. It is again proven that the effects of incentive for investors have better effects than the effects of incentive for landholders.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Scenarios with Endogenous Errors

In the previous analysis, the market size (m), error (e), incentive (s), opportunity cost (co), and transaction cost (ct) are assumed to be exogenous variables, and carbon emission reductions (q) and compensation payment per carbon emission reductions (r) are assumed to be endogenous variables. Because landholders are the compensation payment leaders in the Stackelberg models, the equilibrium compensation payments and emission reductions can be obtained by solving the models. To examine the impact factors of errors, we assume that m, r, s, co, and ct are exogenous variables, while q and e are endogenous variables. Similarly, landholders as the leaders can choose the appropriate error levels for maximizing their profits, while investors will determine the equilibrium emission reductions according to the given errors. The investors’ best response function for landholders’ monitoring errors can be obtained through the same method in the scenario without incentive (BAU scenario):
q = m ( 1 e ) r ( 1 e ) c t 2 .
Now investors can decide the required emission reductions that will maximize their profits according to the best response function. Consequently, the equilibrium solution is as follows:
{ e = 1 m 2 ( r + c t ) q = m 4 .
The corresponding profits of investors and landholders in the BAU scenario are as follows:
π I B A U = m 2 16 ,
π L B A U = m 2 ( r - c o ) 8 ( r + c t ) .
Similarly, we can analyze the s1 scenario. The investors’ best response function is:
q = m ( 1 e ) r ( 1 e ) c t 2 .
The equilibrium errors (e) and emission reductions (q) in the s1 scenario can be obtained by using the same method:
{ e = 1 m 2 ( r + c t ) q = m 4 .
The profits of investors and landholders in the s1 scenario are:
π I B A U = m 2 16 ,
π L B A U = m 2 ( r     c o + s 1 ) 8 ( r + c t ) .
Accordingly, the investors’ best response function in the s2 scenario is as follows:
q = m + s 2 ( 1 e ) r ( 1 e ) c t 2 .
Now, the equilibrium e and q in the s2 scenario are:
{ e = 1 m + s 2 2 ( r + c t ) q = m + s 2 4 .
The corresponding profits of investors and landholders in the s2 scenario are as follows:
π I B A U = ( m + s 2 ) 2 16 ,
π L B A U = ( m + s 2 ) 2 ( r     c o ) 8 ( r + c t ) ,

5.2. Scenario Comparison

When the uncertainty factor of REDD+ projects is no longer exogenous, the impact factors of errors can be further examined. According to Equation (24), the equilibrium error (e) in the BAU scenario is determined by three variables: error (e) is inversely proportional to the market size (m), and proportional to the compensation payment (r) and the transaction cost (ct). It means that the scale effect will gradually reduce the marginal transaction costs of REDD+ projects, and the MRV system will be perfect for the expansion of market size. Consequently, the errors become smaller than before. Similarly, an increase in compensation payment (r) and transaction cost (ct) may result in the reduction of market size (m), eventually causing error (e) to increase. The most interesting phenomenon is that the equilibrium carbon emission reductions (q) have nothing to do with any variables except for the market size (m). This indicates that the equilibrium carbon emission reductions will increase with the expansion of market size. Now the incentive scenarios are discussed through a scenario comparison, with specific results shown in Table 3.
According to the comparison in Table 3, it can be found that the equilibrium error and carbon emission reductions in the incentive scenario for landholders (s1 scenario) are the same as those in the BAU scenario. It suggests that incentive for landholders cannot decrease the error or increase carbon emission reductions. Compared with the BAU scenario, the error will decline, and the carbon emission reductions will increase with the increase in the incentive for investors (s2). It suggests that incentive for investors can improve the performance of REDD+ projects.
The following examines the profit changes of investors and landholders. According to Equations (21) and (22), investor profits are only related to the market size, while landholder profits are decided by market size (m), compensation payment (r), opportunity cost (co), and transaction cost (ct) in the BAU scenario. The stakeholder profits in the three scenarios are compared in Table 4.
When policymakers provide an incentive for landholders, landholder profits will increase with the increase in incentive (s1), while investor profits will not change. However, the incentive for investors will make profits for both landholders and investors increase. Also, the added value of profits will be higher than the incentive (s2), due to the quadratic term in Equations (29) and (30). The results are similar to the findings of Sheng, Cao, Han, and Miao [31]. However, the effects of uncertainty on the emission reductions and stakeholders’ benefits have not been captured in the latter. In fact, the above results confirmed that a rise in uncertainty indeed leads to an increase in the emission reductions and stakeholders’ benefits. Thus, it is important to integrate incentives to take uncertainty into account in designing an REDD+ scheme.

6. Conclusions

Sustainable development has become a critical issue in the political agenda across different countries [122,123,124,125]. It is a new measure of the international community’s resolve to mitigate climate change in that the REDD+ scheme provides an incentive to developing countries to eliminate the historical tendency to deforest as part of the development process. The universal existence of uncertainty in REDD+ projects, however, may have impacts on stakeholder benefits. Therefore, the MRV system for carbon emission reductions is key to the successful implementation of REDD+ projects. Of course, the establishment of the MRV system is not without financial cost, and high transaction costs are not conducive to the implementation of REDD+ projects. Thus, providing an incentive for transaction costs is a valuable policy tool to promote the effective implementation of REDD+ projects. The factors of uncertainty in REDD+ projects were further discussed in this paper, using Stackelberg models and simulation research to examine the effects of uncertainty and incentive on performance and stakeholder benefits. Finally, we compared the equilibrium errors, emission reductions, and stakeholder benefits in different scenarios. The results show that:
  • When the incentive is constant, the emission reductions and compensation payments as endogenous variables will increase as errors increase. Eventually, the profits of various stakeholders will also simultaneously increase.
  • When errors are unchanged, the emission reductions and stakeholder profits will increase with rising incentive. Meanwhile, the effects of incentive for investors will be better than those for landholders, and the difference is more significant with increased incentive and errors.
  • When the emission reductions and errors are endogenous variables, the monitoring error is inversely proportional to the market size, and proportional to the compensation payment and transaction cost. Also, the equilibrium emission reductions are related only to market size.
  • The incentive for landholders cannot improve the performance of REDD+ projects, but only increase landholder profits. However, the incentive for investors can reduce error, increase emission reductions, and improve the welfare of all stakeholders.
The above results have some implications for policy-making: (i) to improve the performance of REDD+ projects, policymakers could consider using the provision of incentive for investors in REDD+ projects to reduce carbon emissions; (ii) the market size of REDD+ projects should be expanded as much as possible, thereby reducing the marginal transaction costs; reduction in monitoring errors is conducive to the establishment of a reliable MRV system; (iii) it is worth noting that the transaction costs of REDD+ projects should be reduced as much as possible. Previous analysis has proven that a decrease in transaction costs can contribute to the market expansion of REDD+ projects, eventually decreasing monitoring errors.
Since incentive for the stakeholders, in case of high uncertainties, could result in wasted financial resources and abuses of the payment scheme itself, it is necessary to provide incentives based on performance to developing countries to establish effective and credible MRV systems. Thus, the performance-based international payment incentives (such as the widely discussed Carbon Fund of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)) have the potential to reduce uncertainties and provide more effective incentives for developing countries to boost their MRV systems in the future when assessing REDD+ performance [126].
REDD+ projects can not only bring benefits for investors and landholders, but also improve the environmental and ecological welfare of the whole society. External interests, however, have not been fully reflected in the price of “carbon credits.” Thus, future research needs to pay more attention to ensure that distribution is as fair as possible and not allow these incentives to be captured disproportionately by the most powerful stakeholders.

Author Contributions

J.S. designed the research for this article; W.Z. analyzed the data; the critical revision was provided by A.d.S.; final approval for publication was given by all authors.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71774088, 71303123), the Social Science Foundation in Jiangsu Province (17GLD014), the Six Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province (2017-JNHB-058), Open Project from Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy (18QHA013), Philosophy and social science in colleges and universities in Jiangsu Province outstanding innovation team (2015ZSTD006), Jiangsu Provincial 333 Project (BRA2017396) and the Qing Lan Project.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71774088, 71303123), the Social Science Foundation in Jiangsu Province (17GLD014), the Six Talent Peaks Project in Jiangsu Province (2017-JNHB-058), Open Project from Institute of Climate Change and Public Policy (18QHA013)), Philosophy and social science in colleges and universities in Jiangsu Province outstanding innovation team (2015ZSTD006), Jiangsu Provincial 333 Project (BRA2017396), and the Qing Lan Project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bonan, G.B. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 2008, 320, 1444–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Roma: Roma, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sala, O.E.; Chapin, F.S., 3rd; Armesto, J.J.; Berlow, E.; Bloomfield, J.; Dirzo, R.; Huber-Sanwald, E.; Huenneke, L.F.; Jackson, R.B.; Kinzig, A.; et al. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 2000, 287, 1770–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. UNFCCC. Report of the Conference of the Parties, on Its Thirteenth Session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007; UNFCCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  5. UNFCCC. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Twenty-First Session, Held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015; UNFCCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Plugge, D.; Baldauf, T.; Köhl, M. The global climate change mitigation strategy redd: Monitoring costs and uncertainties jeopardize economic benefits. Clim. Chang. 2013, 119, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lusiana, B.; van Noordwijk, M.; Johana, F.; Galudra, G.; Suyanto, S.; Cadisch, G. Implications of uncertainty and scale in carbon emission estimates on locally appropriate designs to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+). Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2014, 19, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Skutsch, M.; Vickers, B.; Georgiadou, Y.; McCall, M. Alternative models for carbon payments to communities under REDD+: A comparison using the polis model of actor inducements. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Walker, W.; Baccini, A.; Schwartzman, S.; Ríos, S.; Oliveira-Miranda, M.A.; Augusto, C.; Ruiz, M.R.; Arrasco, C.S.; Ricardo, B.; Smith, R. Forest carbon in amazonia: The unrecognized contribution of indigenous territories and protected natural areas. Carbon Manag. 2014, 5, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chhatre, A.; Lakhanpal, S.; Larson, A.M.; Nelson, F.; Ojha, H.; Rao, J. Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: A review of the adjacent possible. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grassi, G.; Monni, S.; Federici, S.; Achard, F.; Mollicone, D. Applying the conservativeness principle to REDD to deal with the uncertainties of the estimates. Environ. Res. Lett. 2008, 3, 035005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Fearnside, P.M. Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: An issue that divides the environmental movement. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 167–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Persson, U.M.; Azar, C. Tropical deforestation in a future international climate policy regime—Lessons from the brazilian amazon. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2007, 12, 1277–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Grassi, G.; Federici, S.; Achard, F. Implementing conservativeness in REDD+ is realistic and useful to address the most uncertain estimates. Clim. Chang. 2013, 119, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Achard, F.; DeFries, R.; Eva, H.; Hansen, M.; Mayaux, P.; Stibig, H. Pan-tropical monitoring of deforestation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2007, 2, 045022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Grainger, A.; Obersteiner, M. A framework for structuring the global forest monitoring landscape in the redd plus era. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. DeFries, R.S.; Houghton, R.A.; Hansen, M.C.; Field, C.B.; Skole, D.; Townshend, J. Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 14256–14261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Gibbs, H.K.; Brown, S.; Niles, J.O.; Foley, J.A. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making redd a reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2007, 2, 045023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Houghton, R. Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2005, 11, 945–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pelletier, J.; Kirby, K.R.; Potvin, C. Significance of carbon stock uncertainties on emission reductions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 24, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Earles, J.M.; Yeh, S.; Skog, K.E. Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pelletier, J.; Martin, D.; Potvin, C. REDD+ emissions estimation and reporting: Dealing with uncertainty. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 034009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Houghton, R.A. How well do we know the flux of CO2 from land-use change? Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2010, 62, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ramankutty, N.; Gibbs, H.K.; Achard, F.; Defries, R.; Foley, J.A.; Houghton, R. Challenges to estimating carbon emissions from tropical deforestation. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pelletier, J.; Busch, J.; Potvin, C. Addressing uncertainty upstream or downstream of accounting for emissions reductions from deforestation and forest degradation. Clim. Chang. 2015, 130, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gregersen, H.; El Lakany, H.; Karsenty, A.; White, A. Does the Opportunity Cost Approach Indicate the Real Cost of REDD+? Rights and Realities of Paying for REDD+; Rights and Resources Initiative, CIRAD: Washington, DC, UAS, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karky, B.S.; Skutsch, M. The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 666–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ghazoul, J.; Butler, R.A.; Mateo-Vega, J.; Koh, L.P. Redd: A reckoning of environment and development implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Groom, B.; Palmer, C. Cost-effective provision of environmental services: The role of relaxing market constraints. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2010, 15, 219–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Borrego, A.; Skutsch, M. Estimating the opportunity costs of activities that cause degradation in tropical dry forest: Implications for redd. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 101, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sheng, J.; Cao, J.; Han, X.; Miao, Z. Incentive modes and reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation: Who can benefit most? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 129, 395–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mahanty, S.; Suich, H.; Tacconi, L. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: Lessons from seven pes schemes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Phelps, J.; Guerrero, M.C.; Dalabajan, D.A.; Young, B.; Webb, E.L. What makes a ‘REDD’ country? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cronkleton, P.; Bray, D.B.; Medina, G. Community forest management and the emergence of multi-scale governance institutions: Lessons for redd plus development from Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. Forests 2011, 2, 451–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Irawan, S.; Tacconi, L.; Ring, I. Stakeholders’ incentives for land-use change and REDD plus: The case of indonesia. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 87, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pelletier, J.; Ramankutty, N.; Potvin, C. Diagnosing the uncertainty and detectability of emission reductions for REDD+ under current capabilities: An example for panama. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 024005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Plugge, D.; Köhl, M. Estimating carbon emissions from forest degradation: Implications of uncertainties and area sizes for a REDD+ MRV system. Can. J. For. Res. 2012, 42, 1996–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Dhakal, S.; Dolman, H.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gurney, K.R.; Held, A.; Jackson, R.B.; Le Quere, C.; Malone, E.L.; et al. Interactions of the carbon cycle, human activity, and the climate system: A research portfolio. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Irawan, S.; Tacconi, L.; Ring, I. Designing intergovernmental fiscal transfers for conservation: The case of REDD+ revenue distribution to local governments in indonesia. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fischer, R.; Hargita, Y.; Günter, S. Insights from the ground level? A content analysis review of multi-national REDD+ studies since 2010. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 66, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dixon, R.; Challies, E. Making REDD+ pay: Shifting rationales and tactics of private finance and the governance of avoided deforestation in indonesia. Asia Pac. Viewp. 2015, 56, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Well, M.; Carrapatoso, A. Redd+ finance: Policy making in the context of fragmented institutions. Clim. Policy 2016, 17, 687–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McFarland, B.J. International finance for redd plus within the context of conservation financing instruments. J. Sustain. For. 2015, 34, 534–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Minang, P.A.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Duguma, L.A.; Alemagi, D.; Do, T.H.; Bernard, F.; Agung, P.; Robiglio, V.; Catacutan, D.; Suyanto, S. REDD+ readiness progress across countries: Time for reconsideration. Clim. Policy 2014, 14, 685–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Korhonen-Kurki, K.; Sehring, J.; Brockhaus, M.; Di Gregorio, M. Enabling factors for establishing REDD+ in a context of weak governance. Clim. Policy 2014, 14, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rosendal, G.K.; Andresen, S. Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1908–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Joseph, S.; Herold, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Verchot, L.V. Redd plus readiness: Early insights on monitoring, reporting and verification systems of project developers. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013, 8, 034038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Romijn, E.; Herold, M.; Kooistra, L.; Murdiyarso, D.; Verchot, L. Assessing capacities of non-annex i countries for national forest monitoring in the context of REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19–20, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sharma, S.K.; Deml, K.; Dangal, S.; Rana, E.; Madigan, S. REDD+ framework with integrated measurement, reporting and verification system for community based forest management systems (CBFMS) in Nepal. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Salvini, G.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V.; Kissinger, G.; Brockhaus, M.; Skutsch, M. How countries link REDD+ interventions to drivers in their readiness plans: Implications for monitoring systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 074004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Giessen, L.; Buttoud, G. Defining and assessing forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Larson, A.M.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Duchelle, A.; Babon, A.; Dokken, T.; Pham, T.T.; Resosudarmo, I.; Selaya, G.; Awono, A. Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 678–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Duchelle, A.E.; Cromberg, M.; Gebara, M.F.; Guerra, R.; Melo, T.; Larson, A.; Cronkleton, P.; Börner, J.; Sills, E.; Wunder, S. Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: Lessons from REDD+ initiatives in the brazilian amazon. World Dev. 2014, 55, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lawlor, K.; Madeira, E.M.; Blockhus, J.; Ganz, D.J. Community participation and benefits in REDD+: A review of initial outcomes and lessons. Forests 2013, 4, 296–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Awono, A.; Somorin, O.A.; Atyi, R.E.; Levang, P. Tenure and participation in local redd plus projects: Insights from southern cameroon. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 35, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shrestha, S.; Shrestha, U.B. Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household’s participation in forest governance and management in Nepal’s community forests? For. Policy Econ. 2017, 80, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Poudyal, M.; Ramamonjisoa, B.S.; Hockley, N.; Rakotonarivo, O.S.; Gibbons, J.M.; Mandimbiniaina, R.; Rasoamanana, A.; Jones, J.P. Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the ‘right’people? Lessons from madagascar. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 37, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gebara, M.F. Importance of local participation in achieving equity in benefit-sharing mechanisms for REDD+: A case study from the juma sustainable development reserve. Int. J. Commons 2013, 7, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Luttrell, C.; Loft, L.; Gebara, M.F.; Kweka, D.; Brockhaus, M.; Angelsen, A.; Sunderlin, W.D. Who should benefit from redd plus ? Rationales and realities. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Thompson, I.D.; Okabe, K.; Parrotta, J.A.; Brockerhoff, E.; Jactel, H.; Forrester, D.I.; Taki, H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: Lessons from nature to improve management of planted forests for redd-plus. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 2613–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bustamante, M.M.; Roitman, I.; Aide, T.M.; Alencar, A.; Anderson, L.O.; Aragao, L.; Asner, G.P.; Barlow, J.; Berenguer, E.; Chambers, J.; et al. Toward an integrated monitoring framework to assess the effects of tropical forest degradation and recovery on carbon stocks and biodiversity. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Murray, J.P.; Grenyer, R.; Wunder, S.; Raes, N.; Jones, J.P. Spatial patterns of carbon, biodiversity, deforestation threat, and REDD+ projects in indonesia. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 1434–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kothke, M.; Schroppel, B.; Elsasser, P. National redd plus reference levels deduced from the global deforestation curve. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 43, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sheng, J.; Miao, Z.; Ozturk, U.A. A methodology to estimate national REDD+ reference levels using the zero-sum-gains dea approach. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 504–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Romijn, E.; Ainembabazi, J.H.; Wijaya, A.; Herold, M.; Angelsen, A.; Verchot, L.; Murdiyarso, D. Exploring different forest definitions and their impact on developing REDD+ reference emission levels: A case study for indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 33, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tegegne, Y.T.; Lindner, M.; Fobissie, K.; Kanninen, M. Evolution of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in the congo basin forests: Exploring possible policy options to address forest loss. Land Use Policy 2016, 51, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Weatherley-Singh, J.; Gupta, A. Drivers of deforestation and REDD+ benefit-sharing: A meta-analysis of the (missing) link. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wehkamp, J.; Aquino, A.; Fuss, S.; Reed, E.W. Analyzing the perception of deforestation drivers by african policy makers in light of possible REDD+ policy responses. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 59, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Herold, M.; Skutsch, M. Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD plus programmes: Two proposals. Environ. Res. Lett. 2011, 6, 014002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Joseph, S.; Murthy, M.S.R.; Thomas, A.P. The progress on remote sensing technology in identifying tropical forest degradation: A synthesis of the present knowledge and future perspectives. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 64, 731–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Goetz, S.; Dubayah, R. Advances in remote sensing technology and implications for measuring and monitoring forest carbon stocks and change. Carbon Manag. 2011, 2, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. De Sy, V.; Herold, M.; Achard, F.; Asner, G.P.; Held, A.; Kellndorfer, J.; Verbesselt, J. Synergies of multiple remote sensing data sources for REDD+ monitoring. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 696–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bottcher, H.; Eisbrenner, K.; Fritz, S.; Kindermann, G.; Kraxner, F.; McCallum, I.; Obersteiner, M. An assessment of monitoring requirements and costs of ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation’. Carbon Balance Manag. 2009, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Pratihast, A.K.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V.; Murdiyarso, D.; Skutsch, M. Linking community-based and national REDD+ monitoring: A review of the potential. Carbon Manag. 2013, 4, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sunderlin, W.D.; Ekaputri, A.D.; Sills, E.O.; Duchelle, A.E.; Kweka, D.; Diprose, R.; Doggart, N.; Ball, S.; Lima, R.; Enright, A. The Challenge of Establishing REDD+ on the Ground: Insights from 23 Subnational Initiatives in Six Countries; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2014; Volume 104. [Google Scholar]
  76. Bucki, M.; Cuypers, D.; Mayaux, P.; Achard, F.; Estreguil, C.; Grassi, G. Assessing redd plus performance of countries with low monitoring capacities: The matrix approach. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 014031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Busch, J.; Strassburg, B.; Cattaneo, A.; Lubowski, R.; Bruner, A.; Rice, R.; Creed, A.; Ashton, R.; Boltz, F. Comparing climate and cost impacts of reference levels for reducing emissions from deforestation. Environ. Res. Lett. 2009, 4, 044006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Kabiri, N. Public participation, land use and climate change governance in thailand. Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Petherick, A. Refreshing redd. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 440–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Barron, D.; McDermott, C. Private funder perspectives on local social and environmental impacts in ‘reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation+’. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2015, 17, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kossoy, A.; Guigon, P. State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2012; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  82. Jeong, H. The EU’s REDD+ policy developments and the lessons from the policy implementation in west papua and papua, indonesia. Asian J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 2018, 3, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. World Bank; Ecofys. Carbon Pricing Watch 2017; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  84. McGregor, A.; Challies, E.; Howson, P.; Astuti, R.; Dixon, R.; Haalboom, B.; Gavin, M.; Tacconi, L.; Afiff, S. Beyond carbon, more than forest? REDD+ governmentality in indonesia. Environ. Plan. A 2015, 47, 138–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pandey, S.S.; Cockfield, G.; Maraseni, T.N. Assessing the roles of community forestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation: A case study from Nepal. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 360, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. McDermott, C.L.; Coad, L.; Helfgott, A.; Schroeder, H. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 21, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Krause, T.; Collen, W.; Nicholas, K.A. Evaluating safeguards in a conservation incentive program: participation, consent, and benefit sharing in indigenous communities of the ecuadorian amazon. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Corbera, E.; Martin, A.; Springate-Baginski, O.; Villaseñor, A. Sowing the seeds of sustainable rural livelihoods? An assessment of participatory forest management through REDD+ in tanzania. Land Use Policy 2017, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Savaresi, A. REDD+ and human rights: Addressing synergies between international regimes. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wright, G. Indigenous people and customary land ownership under domestic REDD+ frameworks: A case study of indonesia. Law Environ. Dev. J. 2011, 7, 117. [Google Scholar]
  91. Muradian, R.; Arsel, M.; Pellegrini, L.; Adaman, F.; Aguilar, B.; Agarwal, B.; Corbera, E.; Ezzine de Blas, D.; Farley, J.; Froger, G. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Pascual, U.; Phelps, J.; Garmendia, E.; Brown, K.; Corbera, E.; Martin, A.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Muradian, R. Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 2014, 64, 1027–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Van Hecken, G.; Bastiaensen, J.; Huybrechs, F. What’s in a name? Epistemic perspectives and payments for ecosystem services policies in nicaragua. Geoforum 2015, 63, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Fletcher, R.; Buscher, B. The pes conceit: Revisiting the relationship between payments for environmental services and neoliberal conservation. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wunder, S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts; Centre for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  96. Merlet, P.; Van Hecken, G.; Rodriguez-Fabilena, R. Playing before paying? A pes simulation game for assessing power inequalities and motivations in the governance of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Purnomo, H.; Suyamto, D.; Irawati, R.H. Harnessing the climate commons: An agent-based modelling approach to making reducing emission from deforestation and degradation (REDD)+ work. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013, 18, 471–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fosci, M. The economic case for prioritizing governance over financial incentives in REDD+. Clim. Policy 2013, 13, 170–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Fletcher, R.; Breitling, J. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in costa rica. Geoforum 2012, 43, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Isenhour, C. Trading fat for forests: On palm oil, tropical forest conservation, and rational consumption. Conserv. Soc. 2014, 12, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Boer, H.J. The role of government in operationalising markets for REDD+ in indonesia. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 86, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Henkel, M. Mainstreaming payments for ecosystem services in the global water discourse. Environ. Policy Gov. 2017, 27, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Busch, J.; Lubowski, R.N.; Godoy, F.; Steininger, M.; Yusuf, A.A.; Austin, K.; Hewson, J.; Juhn, D.; Farid, M.; Boltz, F. Structuring economic incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation within indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 1062–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Boer, H. Welfare environmentality and REDD+ incentives in Indonesia. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2017, 19, 795–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Palmer, C. Property rights and liability for deforestation under REDD+: Implications for ‘permanence’ in policy design. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Loaiza, T.; Nehren, U.; Gerold, G. REDD+ and incentives: An analysis of income generation in forest-dependent communities of the yasuní biosphere reserve, ecuador. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 62, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Salas, P.C.; Roe, B.E.; Sohngen, B. Additionality when redd contracts must be self-enforcing. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2016, 69, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sheng, J.; Qiu, H. Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Guadalupe, V.; Sotta, E.D.; Santos, V.F.; Gonçalves Aguiar, L.J.; Vieira, M.; de Oliveira, C.P.; Nascimento Siqueira, J.V. REDD+ implementation in a high forest low deforestation area: Constraints on monitoring forest carbon emissions. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Pandit, R. REDD+ adoption and factors affecting respondents’ knowledge of REDD+ goal: Evidence from household survey of forest users from REDD+ piloting sites in Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 91, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Albers, H.J.; Lee, K.D.; Robinson, E.J.Z. Economics of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Incentives to change forest use behavior. In Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene; Dellasala, D.A., Goldstein, M.I., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  112. Dean, M. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  113. Nasi, R.; Putz, F.; Pacheco, P.; Wunder, S.; Anta, S. Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical latin america: The case for REDD+. Forests 2011, 2, 200–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Sommerville, M.M.; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Jones, J.P.G. The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in payment for environmental service interventions. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2832–2841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ferrer, G.; Swaminathan, J.M. Managing new and remanufactured products. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Tanabe, K.; Wagner, F. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan, 2003; Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.htm (accessed on 23 March 2018).
  117. Kohl, M.; Baldauf, T.; Plugge, D.; Krug, J. Reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (redd): A climate change mitigation strategy on a critical track. Carbon Balance Manag. 2009, 4, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Boucher, D.H. Out of the Woods: A Realistic Role for Tropical Forests in Curbing Global Warming; Union of Concerned Scientists: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  119. Antinori, C.; Sathaye, J. Assessing Transaction Costs of Project-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  120. Nepstad, D.C.; Soares-Filho, B.; Merry, F.; Moutinho, P.; Rodrigues, H.O.; Bowman, M.; Schwartzman, S.; Almeida, O.; Rivero, S. The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon; Woods Hole Research Center: Falmouth, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  121. Delacote, P.; Palmer, C.; Bakkegaard, R.K.; Thorsen, B.J. Unveiling information on opportunity costs in REDD: Who obtains the surplus when policy objectives differ? Resour. Energy Econ. 2014, 36, 508–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Yu, X.; Yu, X.; Lu, Y. Evaluation of an agricultural meteorological disaster based on multiple criterion decision making and evolutionary algorithm. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Cheng, Z.; Li, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, H. Total-factor carbon emission efficiency of china’s provincial industrial sector and its dynamic evolution. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhang, M.; Chen, Y.; Wu, X. Resident preferences for augmented rainstorm disasters management strategies: The case of nanjing in china. Environ. Hazards 2018, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wu, X.; Zhou, L.; Guo, J.; Liu, H. Impacts of typhoons on local labor markets based on gmm: An empirical study of guangdong province, china. Weather Clim. Soc. 2017, 9, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. FCPF. Emerging Questions on ER-PD Development—Improving Uncertainty of RLS. In Proceedings of the Carbon Fund Seventeenth Meeting (CF17), Paris, France, 29 January–1 February 2018; Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Effects of uncertainty on emission reductions.
Figure 1. Effects of uncertainty on emission reductions.
Ijerph 15 01544 g001
Figure 2. Effects of uncertainty on compensation payments.
Figure 2. Effects of uncertainty on compensation payments.
Ijerph 15 01544 g002
Figure 3. Effects of incentive on emission reductions.
Figure 3. Effects of incentive on emission reductions.
Ijerph 15 01544 g003
Figure 4. Effects of incentive on compensation payments.
Figure 4. Effects of incentive on compensation payments.
Ijerph 15 01544 g004
Table 1. Effects of uncertainty on stakeholder profits in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) projects (USD). BAU = Business-As-Usual.
Table 1. Effects of uncertainty on stakeholder profits in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) projects (USD). BAU = Business-As-Usual.
StakeholdersScenariosError (%)
01%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%
InvestorsBAU2.642.672.702.732.762.782.812.842.872.902.93
s13.063.093.123.143.173.203.223.253.283.303.33
s23.063.093.123.163.193.223.253.283.313.343.38
LandholdersBAU5.285.345.405.455.515.575.635.695.755.815.87
s16.136.186.236.286.346.396.446.506.556.616.66
s26.136.196.256.316.376.446.506.566.626.696.75
Table 2. Effects of incentive on stakeholder profits in REDD+ projects (USD).
Table 2. Effects of incentive on stakeholder profits in REDD+ projects (USD).
StakeholdersScenariosIncentive (USD/tCO2)
0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00
InvestorsBAU2.782.782.782.782.782.782.782.782.782.782.78
s12.782.862.953.033.113.203.283.373.453.543.63
s22.782.872.953.043.133.223.313.403.493.593.68
LandholdersBAU5.575.575.575.575.575.575.575.575.575.575.57
s15.575.735.896.066.226.396.566.736.917.097.27
s25.575.745.916.086.266.446.626.806.987.177.36
Table 3. Equilibrium errors and emission reductions in different scenarios.
Table 3. Equilibrium errors and emission reductions in different scenarios.
Equilibrium SolutionScenario without Incentive (BAU Scenario)Incentive Scenarios
Incentive for Landholders (s1 Scenario)Incentive for Investors (s2 Scenario)
Monitoring error e1−m/[2(r + ct)]1−m/[2(r + ct)]1− (m + s2)/[2(r + ct)]
Emission reductions qm/4m/4(m + s2)/4
Table 4. Stakeholder profits in different scenarios.
Table 4. Stakeholder profits in different scenarios.
PlayersScenario without Incentive (BAU Scenario)Incentive Scenarios
Incentive for Landholders
(s1 Scenario)
Incentive for Investors
(s2 Scenario)
Investorsm2/16m2/16(m + s2)2/16
Landholdersm2(rco)/[8(r + ct)]m2(rco + s1)/[8(r + ct)](m + s2)2(rco)/[8(r + ct)]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sheng, J.; Zhou, W.; De Sherbinin, A. Uncertainty in Estimates, Incentives, and Emission Reductions in REDD+ Projects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1544. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph15071544

AMA Style

Sheng J, Zhou W, De Sherbinin A. Uncertainty in Estimates, Incentives, and Emission Reductions in REDD+ Projects. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(7):1544. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph15071544

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sheng, Jichuan, Weihai Zhou, and Alex De Sherbinin. 2018. "Uncertainty in Estimates, Incentives, and Emission Reductions in REDD+ Projects" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 7: 1544. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph15071544

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop