Distinguishing potential and effective additionality to revisit the location bias of REDD+ project

Philippe Delacote, Gwenolé Le Velly and Gabriela Simonet
Additional contact information
Gabriela Simonet: CIFOR - Center for International Forestry Research - CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR], CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement

Working Papers from HAL

Abstract: Since the beginning of the REDD+ mechanism, hundreds of projects have emerged around the globe. Much attention has been given to REDD+ projects in the literature, but the con- ditions under which they are likely to be effective are still not well known. In particular, the location bias concept states that projects are more likely to be implemented in remote areas, where development pressure is low, and hence questions their additionality. In this article, we revisit this concept, trying to assess the process of REDD+ projects implementation and its influence on project additionality. First, a simple theoretical model shows that project implementation is influenced by the type of project proponent, which appears to be a good proxy for its objectives, whether oriented toward environmental impacts, development impacts, or external funding. Our results suggest that (1) the project proponents objective and local institutions may lead the project proponent to select a community with low development potential, and (2) the selection of a low-development potential, which is frequently presented as a location bias, does not necessarily preclude additionality. Those predictions are empirically tested on a sample of six REDD+ projects in Brazil. We propose an empirical analysis of the location choices and estimate additionality in the first years of implementation using impact evaluation techniques. The results confirm the predictions of the model.

Keywords: REDD+; Deforestation; Additionality; Conservation policy; Spatial analysis; Impact evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020-11-09
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-env and nep-ppm
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01954923v2
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-01954923v2/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01954923

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().