The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
Book contents
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Part I Wicked Problems and Policies
- 2 Why Forests Matter?
- 3 Forest Certification and Forest Use
- 4 REDD+ Meets Local Realities
- 5 Have Payments for Ecosystem Services Delivered for the Rural Poor?
- 6 Tackling Gender Inequality through Forest-Related Policies and Programmes
- 7 Forestry Crimes and Our Planet
- 8 Forest Bioeconomy Development
- Part II Tools to Address Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
4 - REDD+ Meets Local Realities
from Part I - Wicked Problems and Policies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2020
Book contents
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Part I Wicked Problems and Policies
- 2 Why Forests Matter?
- 3 Forest Certification and Forest Use
- 4 REDD+ Meets Local Realities
- 5 Have Payments for Ecosystem Services Delivered for the Rural Poor?
- 6 Tackling Gender Inequality through Forest-Related Policies and Programmes
- 7 Forestry Crimes and Our Planet
- 8 Forest Bioeconomy Development
- Part II Tools to Address Wicked Problems
- Index
- References
Summary
REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) was introduced as a key policy measure to mitigate global climate change in tropical forests. REDD+ is framed as an incentive-driven payment for ecosystem services (PES) programmes for carbon sequestration and storage. REDD+ is also performance-based and demands substantial institutional change. Implementing REDD+ implies engaging and confronting several interests, creating complex and wicked problems for policy-makers. This chapter analyzes REDD+ in Kilosa, Tanzania; the ‘Bolsa Floresta’ project in the State of Amazonas, Brazil; and in the Bikoro, Equateur Province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Forests are important to livelihoods in each of these contexts, but they vary in power structure and history. These variations aside, the three cases offer an opportunity to learn about the challenges REDD+ has encountered ‘on the ground’.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Wicked Problem of Forest PolicyA Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes, pp. 108 - 138Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Angelsen, A. and McNeill, D.. 2012. The evolution of REDD+. Pages 42–49 in Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D. and Verchot, L. V., editors. Analyzing REDD+. Challenges and Choices. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Debroux, L., Topa, G., Kaimowitz, D., et al. 2007. Forests in Post-Conflict Democratic Republic of Congo: Analysis of a Priority Agenda. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Eliasch, J. 2008 . Climate Change: Financing Global Forests. The Eliasch Review. London, UK: Earthscan Publishers.Google Scholar
FAO. 2009. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 Brazil. Country Report. Available at: www.fao.org/forestry/20288-0f6ee8584eea8bff0d20ad5cebcb071cf.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAO. 2016. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 Rome. How are the World’s Forests Changing? 2nd edition. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAS. 2012. Planificação Participative para REDD+: A Experiência de Aplicação do Programa Bolsa Floresta para Moçambique. Manaus: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável.Google Scholar
FAS. 2013. Apresentaçao Investimentos RDS Rio Negro. Manaus: Fundação Amazonas Sustentável.Google Scholar
GDRC. 2012. National REDD+ Framework Strategy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ministry of Environment Conservation of Nature and Tourism. Kinshasa: Democratic Republic of Congo UNREDD Programme.Google Scholar
GDRC. 2016. Ministerial Order 025 Regarding Specific Provisions for the Management and Exploitation of Local Community Forest Concessions. Kinshasa: GDRC.Google Scholar
Governo do Estado do Amazonas. 2007. Lei Ordinária 3135 de 05 de Junho 2007, Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá Outras Providências. Manaus: Governo do Estado do Amazonas.Google Scholar
Iliffe, J. 1979. A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
INPE. 2016. PRODES Estimates for Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Available at: www.inpe.br/noticias/noticia.php?Cod_Noticia=4344Google Scholar
KDC (Kilosa District Council). 2010. Kilosa District Profile. Kilosa: KDC (Kilosa District Council).Google Scholar
Kilihama, F. B. 2014. Evolution and status of participatory forest management in Tanzania and future direction. Tanzania Journal of Forestry and Nature Conservation 83(1):5–26.Google Scholar
Lund, J. F., Sungusia, E., Mabele, M. B. and Scheba, A.. 2017. Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Development 89:124–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, P. H., Millikan, B. and Gebara, M. F.. 2011. The Context of REDD+ in Brazil: Drivers, Agents and Institutions. Occasional Paper 55. 2nd edition. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. Available at: www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-55.pdfGoogle Scholar
MECNT. 2010. DRC Readiness Plan for REDD (2010-2012), R-PP Final Version. Kinshasa: Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism.Google Scholar
MJUMITA. 2014. MJUMITA Community Forest Project (Lindi). Project Design Document (PDD) for the full Validation Using the Climate, Community, Biodiversity (CCB) Project Design Standard. Available at: www.climate-standards.org/2014/05/08/mjumita-community-forest-project-lindi/Google Scholar
Mohammad, A.J. and Inoue, M.. 2017. REDD+: global multilevel forest governance for building a climate resilient society. Pages 231–249 in Ninan, K. N. and Inoue, M., editors. Building a Climate Resilient Economy and Society. Challenges and Opportunities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Movik, S., Birikorang, G., Enright, A., et al. 2012. Socio-Economic Conditions in REDD+ Pilot Areas: A Synthesis of Five Baseline Surveys. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
Naugthon-Treves, L. and Wendland, K.. 2014. Land tenure and tropical forest management. World Development 55:1–6.Google Scholar
Rantala, S. and Di Gregorio, M.. 2014. Multistakeholder environmental governance in action: REDD+ discourse coalitions in Tanzania. Ecology and Society 19(2): Article 66.Google Scholar
RF-UK. 2016. Community Forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Towards Equitable and Sustainable Forest Management. Policy brief. London: Rainforest Foundation UK.Google Scholar
Samndong, R. A. 2015. Institutional choice and fragmented citizenship in forestry and development interventions in Bikoro Territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forum for Development Studies 43(2):1–29.Google Scholar
Samndong, R. and Vatn, A.. 2018. Competing tenures: Implications for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forests 9(11): Article 662.Google Scholar
Samndong, R. A., Bush, G., Vatn, A. and Chapman, M.. 2018. Institutional analysis of causes of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur province: Implication for REDD+ in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy 76:664–674.Google Scholar
SDS. 2009. Amazonas Initiative on Climate Change, Forest Conservation and Sustainable Development. Manaus, Brazil: Government of the State of Amazonas, Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
Stern, N., with Peters, S., Bakhshi, V., Bowen, A., et al. 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W. D. and Atmadja, S.. 2009. Is REDD+ an idea whose time has come, or gone? Pages 45–53 in Angelsen, A., with Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., editors. Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Bogor: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., et al. 2014. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development 55: 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TFCG. 2009. Making REDD and the Carbon Market Work for Communities and Forest Conservation in Tanzania. Project proposal presented to the Royal Norwegian Embassy, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.Google Scholar
TFCG and MJUMITA. 2012. Building a Village Company to Improve Community Based Forest Management in the Context of REDD. Available at: www.tfcg.org/makingReddWork.htmlGoogle Scholar
UNFCCC. 2011. The Cancun agreements: outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperation under the Convention. Decision 1/CP.16. In Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. FCC/CP/2010/7 Add.1. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
URT (United Republic of Tanzania). 1999. The Land Act No. 4. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development.Google Scholar
URT. 2002. Forest Act. Dar es Salaam: Forestry and Beekeeping Division, Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.Google Scholar
URT. 2010. National Strategy for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.Google Scholar
URT. 2013. National Strategy for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Dar es Salaam: Vice President’s Office.Google Scholar
Vatn, A. 2015. Environmental Governance, Institutions, Policies and Actions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Vatn, A., Kajembe, G. C., Leiva-Montoya, R., et al. 2013. Instituting REDD+. An Analysis of the Processes and Outcomes of Instituting REDD+ in Two Pilot Areas – RDS Rio Negro (Brazil) and Kilosa (Tanzania). London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).Google Scholar
Vatn, A., Kajembe, G., Mosi, E., Nantongo, M. and Silayo, D. S. 2017. What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics 83:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viana, V. M. 2010. Sustainable Development in Practice. Lessons Learned from Amazonas. London: IIED. Available at: http://fas-amazonas.org/versao/2012/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Viana_Lessons-learned-from-Amazonas.pdfGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.