A comparative assessment of alternative approaches to governing forest sector climate actions

Abstract

The Nationally Determined Contribution architecture of the Paris Agreement has laid the foundation for adopting jurisdictional approaches to governing climate solutions, including those in the forest sector. Meanwhile, the underwhelming aggregate progress and the questionable practices of the voluntary carbon markets call for the nesting of local projects into jurisdictional programs. The objective of this paper is to present our perspective on the comparative performances of the jurisdictional and project-based approaches. Drawing upon the recent developments in the design and execution of climate policy and the theory of political economy, we examine the distinctions between and advantages of the alternative approaches. We show that a jurisdictional approach makes it more feasible for the carbon accounting principles to be followed and the safeguards for emission reduction and removal enforced. Also, jurisdictions tend to have stronger capabilities of measurement, reporting, and verification in carrying out their commitments, and jurisdictional approaches can alleviate the entry barriers and high transaction costs. These advantages can lead to a greater likelihood for countries to accomplish their climate ambitions. In contrast, while individual projects reflect bottom-up initiatives and linkages to local interest and indigenous participation, their weaknesses, such as the limited capacity and coordination and the lack of accountability, have unraveled. However, jurisdictional approaches face their challenges as well, as they may be insufficiently transparent or flexible, or subject to corruption and political turnover. Therefore, we also deliberate how to carry out jurisdictional approaches effectively while avoiding their shortcomings to contribute to an accelerated implementation of nature-based climate solutions.