REDD+ is an inherently multilevel process that requires attention across diverse levels and sectors of governance to bring about change on the ground. REDD+ strategies often focus on direct drivers of deforestation (and local actors). Effectively addressing the underlying causes likely requires challenging more powerful actors and development trajectories. Despite tensions over roles and responsibilities, subnational governments are engaging in important land-use debates and local decision making as new opportunities and innovations in multilevel governance emerge. Top-down solutions need to meet bottom-up realities with greater accountability, for example, by recognizing indigenous peoples and local communities as substantive rights-holders. Coordination across levels and sectors cannot always be achieved through negotiation: REDD+ and similar initiatives must go beyond technical criteria, engage with politics and support social movements to strengthen transformative coalitions.

In the absence of robust national or subnational policies for benefit sharing, land-use change initiatives in Indonesia have developed their own approaches to distributing benefits. At the local level, support and capacity building are needed to strengthen intermediary institutions in order to improve governance and increase legitimacy when deciding how to share benefits. Nonmonetary benefits such as land tenure, capacity building, infrastructure and access to natural resources have been especially important. However, in some cases there are nonmonetary burdens associated with intended benefits. The legitimacy of benefit-sharing arrangements is determined more by the actors involved than the type of land-use change associated with them. Conservation initiatives, REDD+ projects and oil palm initiatives all exhibited both high and low levels of legitimacy in their benefit-sharing arrangements. The legitimacy of benefit-sharing arrangements can be compromised by the lack of broad consultation with local actors including customary authorities, lack of community control over access to land snd limited livelihoods options for communities.

Although REDD+ was conceived as a national approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, many of the early advances have been at the subnational level. It is critical to link these subnational efforts to emerging national REDD+ frameworks, including with respect to finance and benefit distribution, setting reference levels, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), land policy and safeguards. We use evidence from interviews with proponents from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives in six countries to characterize the multilevel governance challenges for REDD+. We analyse the differences in perceived challenges between subnational jurisdictional programs and project-based initiatives, and then analyse proponents’ perceptions of the relationship between government policies at multiple levels and these REDD+ initiatives. We find important multilevel governance challenges related to vertical coordination and information sharing and horizontal and inter-sectoral tensions, as well as concerns over accountability, equity and justice. Though the shift to a nested, jurisdictional or national REDD+ is sometimes approached as a technical design issue, this must be accompanied by an understanding of the interests and power relations among actors at different levels. We outline challenges and suggest priority areas for future research and policy, as countries move towards a national REDD+ system.

​

This case offers insight into access analysis within a global natural resource value chain. Specifically, the focus is on rattan originating in Indonesia, transformed into furniture and exported to the United Kingdom. This reflective and instructive case demonstrates the challenges and opportunities in researching multi-scalar access in a global value chain. Several lessons learned are shared and practical suggestions given for the kinds of tools that can be used when conducting access analysis at multiple scales. Ultimately, this case shows that access analysis is a rich empirical method for understanding access and exclusion with a value chain and that an appreciation of complexity is required to conduct a thorough analysis. Access analysis can be insightful for investigating the differential distribution of benefits and exclusion at ...