A Corruption Risk Assessment for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Nigeria

ING AND INDEXING For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit http://on-climate.com/journal. RESEARCH NETWORK MEMBERSHIP Authors in The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses are members of the Climate Change Research Network or a thematically related Research Network. Members receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit http://on-climate.com/about/become-a-member. SUBSCRIPTIONS The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain access to content from the current year and the entire backlist. Contact us at support@cgnetworks.org. ORDERING Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at http://cgscholar.com/bookstore. HYBRID OPEN ACCESS The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their articles open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider audience, broadening the dissemination of their research. To find out more, please visit http://on-climate.com/journal/hybrid-open-access. DISCLAIMER The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made in this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses Volume 10, Issue 1, 2017, http://on-climate.com © Common Ground Research Networks, Olushola Fadairo, Richard Calland, Yacob Mulugetta, Janice Olawoye, Some Rights Reserved, (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Permissions: support@cgnetworks.org ISSN: 1835-7156 (Print) http://doi.org/10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v10i01/1-21 (Article) A Corruption Risk Assessment for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Nigeria Olushola Fadairo, University of Ibadan, Nigeria Richard Calland, University of Cape Town, South Africa Yacob Mulugetta, University College London, UK Janice Olawoye, University of Ibadan, Nigeria Abstract: This study asked if the concerns about corruption in climate change in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and, therefore, fiduciary standards, is justified or not. The study employed an explorative approach using the Nigeria REDD+ process as a case study. Using semistructured questionnaire and in-depth interviews with key informants, data were collected from 201 households from REDD+ project sites and twenty-one forestry officials from local forestry commission on the perceived extent of transparency in REDD+ implementation in the study area; how REDD+ local officials perceive the fiduciary standards and other governance standards by international climate funds; and effectiveness of anticorruption measures within the REDD+ projects. The confidence reposed in the project’s local implementing agency was generally poor. Allocation of carbon rights was the most critically perceived to be fraught with poor transparency in REDD+ processes. Only five out of eight governance measures that could help improve transparency in REDD+ processes were available locally two of which were rated as just fairly functional. This study agreed that the multilateral climate funds are justified in respect of the set fiduciary standards for climate finance flows. This study asked if the concerns about corruption in climate change in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and, therefore, fiduciary standards, is justified or not. The study employed an explorative approach using the Nigeria REDD+ process as a case study. Using semistructured questionnaire and in-depth interviews with key informants, data were collected from 201 households from REDD+ project sites and twenty-one forestry officials from local forestry commission on the perceived extent of transparency in REDD+ implementation in the study area; how REDD+ local officials perceive the fiduciary standards and other governance standards by international climate funds; and effectiveness of anticorruption measures within the REDD+ projects. The confidence reposed in the project’s local implementing agency was generally poor. Allocation of carbon rights was the most critically perceived to be fraught with poor transparency in REDD+ processes. Only five out of eight governance measures that could help improve transparency in REDD+ processes were available locally two of which were rated as just fairly functional. This study agreed that the multilateral climate funds are justified in respect of the set fiduciary standards for climate finance flows.