IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jsd123/v11y2024i6p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can REDD+ Bring Equitable Benefit to the Marginalized Communities? Insights from Bangladesh

Author

Listed:
  • Anar Koli
  • Md. Rakibul Hasan Khan

Abstract

Despite promising win-win outcomes of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program, how and to what extent it can bring real opportunities to forest communities remains debatable. Focusing on inequality and land tenure insecurity in Bangladesh, this study aims to find out whether and to what extent REDD+ can ensure equitable benefits and opportunities for the forest communities in an ethnic conflict area. Based on qualitative case studies on two types of community forest management (CFM) experiences in Bangladesh, the study finds that the distribution of various costs, benefits, and access to forest participation remain highly unequal among different groups within the communities. The existing institutional settings were not able to bring adequate opportunities for the marginal forest people to face the dominant power relation and bring equitable share for them. This study argues that without ensuring the decision-making space for marginalized groups, and without substantial changes towards the tenure complexity, the emerging REDD+ initiatives in Bangladesh can strengthen the dominant power and subsequently intensify the vulnerability of the marginalized people. A careful analysis of how weak institutions are helping to perpetuate inequality can thus help us to understand future risks of CFM–REDD+ relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Anar Koli & Md. Rakibul Hasan Khan, 2024. "Can REDD+ Bring Equitable Benefit to the Marginalized Communities? Insights from Bangladesh," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(6), pages 1-1, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jsd123:v:11:y:2024:i:6:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/download/0/0/37482/37796
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/37482
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leach, Melissa & Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 225-247, February.
    2. Brockhaus, Maria & Di Gregorio, Monica & Mardiah, Sofi, 2014. "Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 23-33.
    3. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    4. Sarah Milne & Bill Adams, 2012. "Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 133-158, January.
    5. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Naidu, Sirisha C., 2011. "Rural Livelihoods, Forest Access and Time Use: A Study of Forest Communities in Northwest India," MPRA Paper 31060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Sikor, Thomas & Nguyen, Tan Quang, 2007. "Why May Forest Devolution Not Benefit the Rural Poor? Forest Entitlements in Vietnam's Central Highlands," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 2010-2025, November.
    3. Bottazzi, Patrick & Cattaneo, Andrea & Rocha, David Crespo & Rist, Stephan, 2013. "Assessing sustainable forest management under REDD+: A community-based labour perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 94-103.
    4. María Mar Delgado-Serrano & Roberto Escalante Semerena, 2018. "Gender and Cross-Scale Differences in the Perception of Social-Ecological Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Hein, Jonas, 2013. "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), Transnational Conservation and Access to Land in Jambi, Indonesia," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 2, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    6. Ishihara, Hiroe & Pascual, Unai, 2009. "Social capital in community level environmental governance: A critique," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1549-1562, March.
    7. Tim Forsyth, 2015. "Ecological Functions and Functionings: Towards a Senian Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 225-246, March.
    8. Satyal, Poshendra, 2018. "Civil society participation in REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Case study analysis from Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia and the Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 83-96.
    9. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    10. Jean Lee & Adrian Martin & Patti Kristjanson & Eva Wollenberg, 2015. "Implications on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: a gendered analysis of access, decision making, and outcomes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(10), pages 2080-2096, October.
    11. Ng, Julia Su Chen & Chervier, Colas & Ancrenaz, Marc & Naito, Daisuke & Karsenty, Alain, 2022. "Recent forest and land-use policy changes in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo: Are they truly transformational?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    12. Naidu, Sirisha C., 2009. "Heterogeneity and Collective Management: Evidence from Common Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 676-686, March.
    13. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-125.
    14. Van Hecken, Gert & Merlet, Pierre & Lindtner, Mara & Bastiaensen, Johan, 2019. "Can Financial Incentives Change Farmers' Motivations? An Agrarian System Approach to Development Pathways at the Nicaraguan Agricultural Frontier," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 519-529.
    15. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Chu, Long & Quentin Grafton, R. & Keenan, Rodney, 2019. "Increasing Conservation Efficiency While Maintaining Distributive Goals With the Payment for Environmental Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 202-210.
    17. Dave, Radhika & Tompkins, Emma L. & Schreckenberg, Kate, 2017. "Forest ecosystem services derived by smallholder farmers in northwestern Madagascar: Storm hazard mitigation and participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 72-82.
    18. Promita Mukherjee & Biswajit Ray & Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, 2017. "Status differences in collective action and forest benefits: evidence from joint forest management in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 1831-1854, October.
    19. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    20. Ishihara, Hiroe & Pascual, Unai & Hodge, Ian, 2017. "Dancing With Storks: The Role of Power Relations in Payments for Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 45-54.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:jsd123:v:11:y:2024:i:6:p:1. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.