Social safeguards and co-benefits in REDD+: a review of the adjacent possible

By A. Chhatre, Shikha Lakhanpal, A. Larson, F. Nelson, H. Ojha, J. Rao. 2012

187 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d47af100668e036a5d741c5c5233a58555028ec

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. R. Muradian
2. E. Corbera
3. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
4. U. Pascual
5. E. Garmendia
6. Martin Herold
7. E. Turnhout
8. Markus Lederer

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. E. Gómez‐Baggethun
2. E. Corbera
3. E. Garmendia
4. Martin Herold
5. E. Turnhout
6. Markus Lederer
7. U. Pascual
8. R. Muradian

Citations in the corpus

• Envisioning REDD+ in a post‐Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice (2017, background): “These are referred to collectively as co-benefits or REDD+ safeguards.(11,12,59) There is an important but subtle difference between these two notions: while the idea of safeguards (anchored in the UNFCCC guidance on REDD+) focuses on the prevention of harm, a push for co-benefits from REDD+ require”
• Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. (2012, background): “Many scholars have emphasized the importance of clarifying and strengthening the land and carbon tenure rights of local communities as central to successful REDD+ [38– 41,31,42].”
• Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services (2014, background): “These prospective negative equity effects have prompted a strong precautionary response and mobilization of forest-dependent and indigenous communities to call for social safeguards via active policy engagement and protests (Chhatre et al. 2012) (figure 3).”