Although in its infancy, many organizations and individuals are already supporting this collaborative effort by adding their knowledge and resources to the site. Visitors to the site will be able to see who has contributed, and share their own material.
Resource materials already available on the website are currently organized under the ‘REDD Countries Database’ and the ‘REDD Resource Desk’.
REDD Countries Database
The REDD Countries Database is a centralized and collaborative database of the diverse and rapidly evolving range of REDD activities in tropical forest owning nations. Organized by country, it summarizes key information in multiple languages across a broad range of areas including policies, plans, laws, statistics, activities and financing. The REDD Countries Database does not attempt to assess activities or offer normative analysis but instead uses a common analytical framework to facilitate quick comparison within and between countries.
Three pilot countries - Brazil, Cameroon and Vietnam - were launched on the platform in June 2011. Guyana and Sri Lanka followed shortly after in October 2011 and Laos and Mexico in November 2011; research for seven more countries is currently underway for Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Peru, and Tanzania.
REDD Resource Desk
The Resource Desk contains information about REDD books, reports, thesis, images, videos and other sources of information on the web.
In addition, the REDD Desk provides up to date information on all REDD related events organized around the world.
 |
| REDD Desk - home page |
Great Blog!
ReplyDeleteI just want to ask your opinion if that's ok?
Do you think this approach (REDD +) will encourage or stifle the kind of community based management techniques that you posted about earlier in the blog: Community Forestry in the Amazon?
Again, great blog!
Hi Dan, Thanks! I'm glad you like the blog. REDD+ is a complex mechanism and my post only touched on its very basic aspects. Most REDD+ projects that are implemented in close proximity to communities or indigenous settlements have to prove that they do not negatively affect the community and most often community benefits are sought. In addition, project developers generally recognize that they have a higher chance for success if local people are involved in and benefit from the project - feel some ownership towards it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would be surprised if there would be no reference for community forestry or at least the right of local people in the UNFCCC REDD+ negotiating text, the new version of which should be available after COP17 has finished in a few days.
So I think that REDD+ and community forestry could work very well together, although both have a long way to go and a lot of lessons to learn. But they combine environmental and social benefits very well, ensure local support for projects, and community income if local people are involved in management (and most likely they are the cheapest workforce available). Obviously its not this simple and things can always go wrong - as happened for example with the CAMPFIRE Programme in Zimbabwe - but theoretically REDD and community forestry have great potentials.