Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x http://hdl.handle.net/1843/51877 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0708-0264 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1133-4837 |
Resumo: | Results-based funding (RBF) is a governance concept that is rapidly becoming the mainstream paradigm for international collaborations in the environmental sector. While portrayed as a compromise solution between market-based mechanisms and unconditional donations, the implementation of RBF is revealing new conflicts and contradictions of its own. This paper explores the application of RBF for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) by describing the discursive conflicts between recipient (i.e., Brazil) and donor (i.e., Norway and Germany) countries of the Amazon Fund about what constitutes "results" or "performance". Although all parties agree that the financial transfers to RBF should be based on past emission reductions in relation to a historical baseline, they hold clashing interpretations about temporal (i.e., past or future) and epistemological (i.e., how to measure) aspects of the results these payments are intended for. Firstly, while Brazil emphasizes that it deserves a reward of USD 21 billion for results achieved between 2006 and 2016, donor countries have indicated an interest in paying only for most recent results as a way to incentivize further reductions. Secondly, while all parties believe that Amazon Fund should support policies to reduce deforestation, donor countries have revealed concerns that the performance of the Amazon Fund projects in generating further reductions has not been measured in a rigorous manner. This suggests that donor countries may consider making changes to current RBF mechanisms or getting involved in new forms of finance. |
id |
UFMG_3c92bbb17030d9f4b58fc3325a33ec13 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/51877 |
network_acronym_str |
UFMG |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
2023-04-12T20:43:59Z2023-04-12T20:43:59Z20181503-4433445https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x1573-1480http://hdl.handle.net/1843/51877https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0708-0264https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1133-4837Results-based funding (RBF) is a governance concept that is rapidly becoming the mainstream paradigm for international collaborations in the environmental sector. While portrayed as a compromise solution between market-based mechanisms and unconditional donations, the implementation of RBF is revealing new conflicts and contradictions of its own. This paper explores the application of RBF for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) by describing the discursive conflicts between recipient (i.e., Brazil) and donor (i.e., Norway and Germany) countries of the Amazon Fund about what constitutes "results" or "performance". Although all parties agree that the financial transfers to RBF should be based on past emission reductions in relation to a historical baseline, they hold clashing interpretations about temporal (i.e., past or future) and epistemological (i.e., how to measure) aspects of the results these payments are intended for. Firstly, while Brazil emphasizes that it deserves a reward of USD 21 billion for results achieved between 2006 and 2016, donor countries have indicated an interest in paying only for most recent results as a way to incentivize further reductions. Secondly, while all parties believe that Amazon Fund should support policies to reduce deforestation, donor countries have revealed concerns that the performance of the Amazon Fund projects in generating further reductions has not been measured in a rigorous manner. This suggests that donor countries may consider making changes to current RBF mechanisms or getting involved in new forms of finance.Financiamento baseado em resultados (RBF) é um conceito de governança que está rapidamente se tornando o paradigma principal para colaborações internacionais no setor ambiental. Embora retratado como uma solução de compromisso entre mecanismos de mercado e doações incondicionais, a implementação do RBF está revelando novos conflitos e contradições próprias. Este papel explora a aplicação do RBF para Redução de Emissões por Desmatamento e Degradação (REDD+) ao descrever os conflitos discursivos entre destinatários (i.e., Brasil) e países doadores (ou seja, Noruega e Alemanha) do Fundo Amazônia sobre o que constitui “resultados” ou “performance”. Embora todas as partes concordem que as transferências financeiras para RBF devem ser baseadas em reduções de emissões passadas em relação a uma linha de base histórica, eles sustentam interpretações conflituantes sobre o tempo (isto é, passado ou futuro) e epistemológico (isto é, como medida) dos resultados a que se destinam estes pagamentos. Em primeiro lugar, enquanto o Brasil enfatiza que merece uma recompensa de US$ 21 bilhões pelos resultados alcançados entre 2006 e 2016, países doadores manifestaram interesse em pagar apenas pelos resultados mais recentes, como forma de incentivar novas reduções. Em segundo lugar, embora todas as partes acreditem que o Fundo Amazônia deva apoiar políticas para reduzir o desmatamento, os países doadores revelaram preocupações de que o desempenho dos projetos do Fundo Amazônia na geração de novas reduções não tem sido medido de forma rigorosa. Isso sugere que os países doadores podem considerar fazer mudanças nos mecanismos atuais de RBF ou envolvimento em novas formas de financiamento.CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFAPEMIG - Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisOutra AgênciaengUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisUFMGBrasilENG - DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA PRODUÇÃOClimatic changeFlorestas - conservaçãoDesmatamento - controleFundo de investimentos da AmazôniaREDD+Amazon FundResults-based fundingFinancial transfersClashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon FundInterpretações conflitantes dos resultados do redd+ no Fundo Amazôniainfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x#Abs1Richard Van Der HoffRaoni Guerra Lucas RajãoPieter Leroyapplication/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMGLICENSELicense.txtLicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82042https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/51877/1/License.txtfa505098d172de0bc8864fc1287ffe22MD51ORIGINALClashing interpretations of REDD+ results in the Amazon.pdfClashing interpretations of REDD+ results in the Amazon.pdfapplication/pdf14275024https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/51877/2/Clashing%20interpretations%20of%20REDD%2b%20results%20in%20the%20Amazon.pdfb33c918edb2e97e0a273ab884383584fMD521843/518772023-04-12 17:43:59.255oai:repositorio.ufmg.br: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Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oaiopendoar:2023-04-12T20:43:59Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
dc.title.alternative.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Interpretações conflitantes dos resultados do redd+ no Fundo Amazônia |
title |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
spellingShingle |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund Richard Van Der Hoff REDD+ Amazon Fund Results-based funding Financial transfers Florestas - conservação Desmatamento - controle Fundo de investimentos da Amazônia |
title_short |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
title_full |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
title_fullStr |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
title_full_unstemmed |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
title_sort |
Clashing interpretations of redd+ results in the Amazon Fund |
author |
Richard Van Der Hoff |
author_facet |
Richard Van Der Hoff Raoni Guerra Lucas Rajão Pieter Leroy |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Raoni Guerra Lucas Rajão Pieter Leroy |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Richard Van Der Hoff Raoni Guerra Lucas Rajão Pieter Leroy |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
REDD+ Amazon Fund Results-based funding Financial transfers |
topic |
REDD+ Amazon Fund Results-based funding Financial transfers Florestas - conservação Desmatamento - controle Fundo de investimentos da Amazônia |
dc.subject.other.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Florestas - conservação Desmatamento - controle Fundo de investimentos da Amazônia |
description |
Results-based funding (RBF) is a governance concept that is rapidly becoming the mainstream paradigm for international collaborations in the environmental sector. While portrayed as a compromise solution between market-based mechanisms and unconditional donations, the implementation of RBF is revealing new conflicts and contradictions of its own. This paper explores the application of RBF for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) by describing the discursive conflicts between recipient (i.e., Brazil) and donor (i.e., Norway and Germany) countries of the Amazon Fund about what constitutes "results" or "performance". Although all parties agree that the financial transfers to RBF should be based on past emission reductions in relation to a historical baseline, they hold clashing interpretations about temporal (i.e., past or future) and epistemological (i.e., how to measure) aspects of the results these payments are intended for. Firstly, while Brazil emphasizes that it deserves a reward of USD 21 billion for results achieved between 2006 and 2016, donor countries have indicated an interest in paying only for most recent results as a way to incentivize further reductions. Secondly, while all parties believe that Amazon Fund should support policies to reduce deforestation, donor countries have revealed concerns that the performance of the Amazon Fund projects in generating further reductions has not been measured in a rigorous manner. This suggests that donor countries may consider making changes to current RBF mechanisms or getting involved in new forms of finance. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2018 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2023-04-12T20:43:59Z |
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2023-04-12T20:43:59Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/1843/51877 |
dc.identifier.doi.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
1573-1480 |
dc.identifier.orcid.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0708-0264 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1133-4837 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x http://hdl.handle.net/1843/51877 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0708-0264 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1133-4837 |
identifier_str_mv |
1573-1480 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Climatic change |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais |
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv |
UFMG |
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv |
Brasil |
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv |
ENG - DEPARTAMENTO DE ENGENHARIA PRODUÇÃO |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMG instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) instacron:UFMG |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
instacron_str |
UFMG |
institution |
UFMG |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/51877/1/License.txt https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/51877/2/Clashing%20interpretations%20of%20REDD%2b%20results%20in%20the%20Amazon.pdf |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
fa505098d172de0bc8864fc1287ffe22 b33c918edb2e97e0a273ab884383584f |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1803589293336166400 |