book1

Table 5.2 Breakdown of UNFCCC REDD+ environmental and governmental
respondents by survey, region and sector
110
Survey Region
1. November 2009
2. March 2009
Changing paradigms of aid eff ec� veness in Nepal
Sector Total number
Environmental Government
North 19 1
South 5 5
North 6 3
South 17 10
3. September 2010
North
South
8
8
9
10
35
Total North/South 63 38 101
Qualita� ve survey results
Environmental respondents:
Northern environmental NGOs provided the most comments on the
fi nancial and market-based aspects of REDD+. One Northern respondent
expressed a concern over the poten� al impacts of climate change investment
could have on other environmental ini� a� ves, since “payments for carbon
off sets or use of REDD+ otherwise in interna� onal carbon markets will
inevitably lead to devalua� on of other ecosystem services no ma� er the
level of concern expressed in guiding principles and documents”. They were
par� cularly worried that payments for carbon services would be captured
by local elites or private business en� � es. They also felt that local and
indigenous resource users were threatened by further marginaliza� on and
inequitable distribu� on of benefi ts from REDD+ if this cri� cal issue was not
addressed immediately.
Some considera� on was given to the representa� on of interests within
the ini� a� ve, leading one respondent to comment that it was not “equitable”.
They ques� oned the democra� c legi� macy of the nego� a� ons on account of
the power of “corporate lobbying and vested interests”, which had a greater
impact on decision making than other par� cipants. They felt the whole
REDD+ space was overly pre-occupied with “corporate solu� ons” to climate
change. This led one respondent to suggest that REDD+ needed to come
to grips with “engaging people from the ethical [Carbon] markets sector”.
The corporate emphasis of REDD+ led another respondent to ques� on its
“overall policy architecture” and focus on developing carbon trading in
the future, as this would, in their opinion, undermine any poten� al for it
to be eff ec� ve. It was not geared to changing behaviour, but maintaining
“business-as-usual”. This view as echoed by another respondent who was
concerned that the presence of logging interests in the nego� a� ons would
“end up promo� ng deforesta� on by subsidising logging”.
Part of the problem, according to a further individual, was that the
30
36