IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v56y2015icp27-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community forest management and REDD+

Author

Listed:
  • Newton, Peter
  • Schaap, Brian
  • Fournier, Michelle
  • Cornwall, Meghan
  • Rosenbach, Derrick W.
  • DeBoer, Joel
  • Whittemore, Jessica
  • Stock, Ryan
  • Yoders, Mark
  • Brodnig, Gernot
  • Agrawal, Arun

Abstract

The urgent need to limit anthropogenic carbon emissions has led to the global initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). One option to facilitate the design and implementation of REDD+ is to build on the experiences of community forest management (CFM). Despite tensions between the central objectives of REDD+ and CFM, the two policy interventions share the objective of managing forests sustainably. REDD+ projects can build on and benefit from the environmental, social, human, and institutional capital associated with existing community forest governance. Using a comparative case approach with studies from Nepal and Tanzania, we illustrate interactions between REDD+ and CFM. In Nepal, most REDD+ pilot projects have been located in community forest sites, especially in high-carbon forests. In Tanzania, REDD+ funding is being used to expand the area of forest under Participatory Forest Management. Our study also highlights how community forestry institutions may need to be modified to satisfy key REDD+ criteria. Greater institutional coordination, equitable benefit sharing mechanisms, and higher community capacity for monitoring, reporting, and verification are key areas needing change. There are significant risks, but the vast experience and significant successes of CFM can improve prospects for achieving REDD+ objectives in other less-industrialized, forested countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Newton, Peter & Schaap, Brian & Fournier, Michelle & Cornwall, Meghan & Rosenbach, Derrick W. & DeBoer, Joel & Whittemore, Jessica & Stock, Ryan & Yoders, Mark & Brodnig, Gernot & Agrawal, Arun, 2015. "Community forest management and REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 27-37.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:27-37
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411500057X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Varughese, George & Ostrom, Elinor, 2001. "The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 747-765, May.
    2. Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson & Heidi J. Albers & Charles Meshack & Razack B. Lokina, 2013. "Implementing REDD through community‐based forest management: Lessons from Tanzania," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 0(3), pages 141-152, August.
    3. Elizabeth J. Z. Robinson & Heidi J. Albers & Charles Meshack & Razack B. Lokina, 2013. "Implementing REDD through community‐based forest management: Lessons from Tanzania," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(3), pages 141-152, August.
    4. Karky, Bhaskar Singh & Skutsch, Margaret, 2010. "The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 666-672, January.
    5. Ribot, Jesse C. & Agrawal, Arun & Larson, Anne M., 2006. "Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1864-1886, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak & Lawal Mohammed Marafa, 2016. "Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Gilani, Haris R. & Yoshida, Tomoko & Innes, John L., 2017. "A Collaborative Forest Management user group's perceptions and expectations on REDD+ in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 27-33.
    4. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Khatri, Dil B. & Marquardt, Kristina & Pain, Adam & Ojha, Hemant, 2018. "Shifting regimes of management and uses of forests: What might REDD+ implementation mean for community forestry? Evidence from Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Lund, Jens Friis & Sungusia, Eliezeri & Mabele, Mathew Bukhi & Scheba, Andreas, 2017. "Promising Change, Delivering Continuity: REDD+ as Conservation Fad," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 124-139.
    7. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    8. Francisca Ruiz-Gozalvo & Susana Martín-Fernández & Roberto Garfias-Salinas, 2019. "Characterization of Small Forest Landowners as a Basis for Sustainable Forestry Management in the Libertador General Bernardo O’Higgins Region, Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Davis, Emily Jane & Hajjar, Reem & Charnley, Susan & Moseley, Cassandra & Wendel, Kendra & Jacobson, Meredith, 2020. "Community-based forestry on federal lands in the western United States: A synthesis and call for renewed research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    10. Ryan Stock & Sumit Vij & Asif Ishtiaque, 2021. "Powering and puzzling: climate change adaptation policies in Bangladesh and India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2314-2336, February.
    11. Pandit, Ram, 2018. "REDD+ adoption and factors affecting respondents' knowledge of REDD+ goal: Evidence from household survey of forest users from REDD+ piloting sites in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 107-115.
    12. James P. Robson & Sarah J. Wilson & Constanza Mora Sanchez & Anita Bhatt, 2020. "Youth and the Future of Community Forestry," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, October.
    13. Shinbrot, Xoco A. & Holmes, Ignacia & Gauthier, Madeleine & Tschakert, Petra & Wilkins, Zoë & Baragón, Lydia & Opúa, Berta & Potvin, Catherine, 2022. "Natural and financial impacts of payments for forest carbon offset: A 14 year-long case study in an indigenous community in Panama," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Skutsch, Margaret & Balderas Torres, Arturo & Carrillo Fuentes, Juan Carlos, 2017. "Policy for pro-poor distribution of REDD+ benefits in Mexico: How the legal and technical challenges are being addressed," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 58-66.
    15. Ram Avtar & Kenichi Tsusaka & Srikantha Herath, 2019. "REDD+ Implementation in Community-Based Muyong Forest Management in Ifugao, Philippines," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    2. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    3. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local citizen group dynamics in the implementation of community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    4. Corbera, Esteve & Martin, Adrian & Springate-Baginski, Oliver & Villaseñor, Adrián, 2020. "Sowing the seeds of sustainable rural livelihoods? An assessment of Participatory Forest Management through REDD+ in Tanzania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Albers, H. Jo & Lokina, Razack & Robinson, Elizabeth J.Z. & Kreinbrink, Victoria, 2019. "Rural Households’ Forest Use in Fragmented Forest Landscapes: An Example from Tanzania’s Usambara Ecosystem," EfD Discussion Paper 19-20, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    6. Maraseni, Tek Narayan & Bhattarai, Nabin & Karky, Bhaskar Singh & Cadman, Timothy & Timalsina, Niroj & Bhandari, Trishna Singh & Apan, Armando & Ma, Hwan Ok & Rawat, R.S. & Verma, Nemit & San, Su Mon , 2019. "An assessment of governance quality for community-based forest management systems in Asia: Prioritisation of governance indicators at various scales," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 750-761.
    7. Eero Palmujoki & Pekka Virtanen, 2016. "Global, National, or Market? Emerging REDD+ Governance Practices in Mozambique and Tanzania," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(1), pages 59-78, February.
    8. Felix, Mwema, 2015. "Future prospect and sustainability of wood fuel resources in Tanzania," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 856-862.
    9. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    10. Joshua Adotey & Emmanuel Acheampong & Denis Worlanyo Aheto & John Blay, 2022. "Carbon Stocks Assessment in a Disturbed and Undisturbed Mangrove Forest in Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Turpie, Jane & Letley, Gwyneth, 2021. "Would community conservation initiatives benefit from external financial oversight? A framed field experiment in Namibia’s communal conservancies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    12. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    13. Koch, Susanne, 2017. "International influence on forest governance in Tanzania: Analysing the role of aid experts in the REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 181-190.
    14. Bhubaneswor Dhakal & Hugh Bigsby & Ross Cullen, 2012. "Socioeconomic Impacts of Public Forest Policies on Heterogeneous Agricultural Households," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 73-95, September.
    15. Sullivan, Abigail, 2022. "Bridging the divide between rural and urban community-based forestry: A bibliometric review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Lund, Jens Friis & Sungusia, Eliezeri & Mabele, Mathew Bukhi & Scheba, Andreas, 2017. "Promising Change, Delivering Continuity: REDD+ as Conservation Fad," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 124-139.
    17. Julia Brown, 2014. "Evaluating Participatory Initiatives in South Africa," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(2), pages 21582440145, April.
    18. Ling, Gabriel Hoh Teck & Suhud, Nur Amiera binti Md & Leng, Pau Chung & Yeo, Lee Bak & Cheng, Chin Tiong & Ahmad, Mohd Hamdan Haji & Matusin, AK Mohd Rafiq AK, 2021. "Factors Influencing Asia-Pacific Countries’ Success Level in Curbing COVID-19: A Review Using a Social–Ecological System (SES) Framework," SocArXiv b9f2w, Center for Open Science.
    19. Schultz, Bill, 2020. "Resource management and joint-planning in fragmented societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    20. repec:nam:befdwp:5 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Suhardiman, Diana & Karki, Emma, 2019. "Spatial politics and local alliances shaping Nepal hydropower," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 525-536.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:27-37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.