IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v15y2015i3p95-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest Policy, Institutions, and REDD+ in India, Tanzania, and Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Prakash Kashwan

Abstract

This article investigates forest policies and institutions surrounding REDD+ in three heavily forested countries: India, Tanzania, and Mexico. The comparative analysis leads to three key insights. First, each of the case study countries has multiple land tenure statutes that result in different distributions of the costs and benefits of forest protection for key stakeholders. Second, land tenure regimes that offer local communities the most secure forest rights are not necessarily those associated with benefit-sharing mechanisms outlined in national REDD+ policy proposals. Third, a credible commitment by government to share REDD+ benefits with forest-dependent people is contingent on the interests of key actors involved in the policy process. Political and administrative structures that limit the power and authority of forest government bodies lead to more responsive and accountable policy outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Prakash Kashwan, 2015. "Forest Policy, Institutions, and REDD+ in India, Tanzania, and Mexico," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(3), pages 95-117, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:15:y:2015:i:3:p:95-117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/GLEP_a_00313
    File Function: link to full text PDF
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Andrews,Matt, 2013. "The Limits of Institutional Reform in Development," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107016330, September.
    2. Kundan Kumar & John M. Kerr, 2012. "Democratic Assertions: The Making of India's Recognition of Forest Rights Act," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(3), pages 751-771, May.
    3. Kathleen Lawlor & Erika Weinthal & Lydia Olander, 2010. "Institutions and Policies to Protect Rural Livelihoods in REDD+ Regimes," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, November.
    4. Emma Doherty & Heike Schroeder, 2011. "Forest Tenure and Multi-level Governance in Avoiding Deforestation under REDD+," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 11(4), pages 66-88, 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. Nicholas K. Tagliarino, 2017. "The Status of National Legal Frameworks for Valuing Compensation for Expropriated Land: An Analysis of Whether National Laws in 50 Countries/Regions across Asia, Africa, and Latin America Comply with ," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-29, June.
    2. Gupta, Priyanshu & Bhattacharya, Rajesh, 2024. "‘Go-No-Go’: Anticommons and Inter-ministerial conflict in India’s Forest and Mineral Governance," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    3. Todd A. Eisenstadt & Karleen Jones West, 2017. "Indigenous Belief Systems, Science, and Resource Extraction: Climate Change Attitudes in Ecuador," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(1), pages 40-58, February.
    4. Ickowitz, Amy & Sills, Erin & de Sassi, Claudio, 2017. "Estimating Smallholder Opportunity Costs of REDD+: A Pantropical Analysis from Households to Carbon and Back," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 15-26.
    5. Isabella Alcañiz & RicardoA. Gutierrez, 2020. "Between the Global Commodity Boom and Subnational State Capacities:Payment for Environmental Services to Fight Deforestation inArgentina," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 38-59, February.
    6. Damania, Richard & Joshi, Anupam & Russ, Jason, 2020. "India’s forests – Stepping stone or millstone for the poor?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    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.

    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. Joanna Buckley & Neil McCulloch & Nick Travis, 2017. "Donor-supported approaches to improving extractives governance: Lessons from Nigeria and Ghana," WIDER Working Paper Series 033, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Catherine Long, 2017. "Delegated Service Authority: Institutional Evolution of PEPFAR Health-Based Program Implementing Units in Tanzania," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 303-312, September.
    3. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    4. Andrews, Matt & Pritchett, Lant & Woolcock, Michael, 2013. "Escaping Capability Traps Through Problem Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 234-244.
    5. Roy T. Meyers, 2017. "Is the U.S. Congress an Insurmountable Obstacle to Any “Far-Sighted Conception of Budgeting”?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 5-24, December.
    6. Ilia Murtazashvili & Jennifer Murtazashvili, 2015. "Anarchy, self-governance, and legal titling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 287-305, March.
    7. Isabella Alcañiz & RicardoA. Gutierrez, 2020. "Between the Global Commodity Boom and Subnational State Capacities:Payment for Environmental Services to Fight Deforestation inArgentina," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(1), pages 38-59, February.
    8. Wehkamp, Johanna & Aquino, André & Fuss, Sabine & Reed, Erik W., 2015. "Analyzing the perception of deforestation drivers by African policy makers in light of possible REDD+ policy responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-18.
    9. Benjamin Chemouni, 2017. "The politics of core public sector reform in Rwanda," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-088-17, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    10. Mr. Richard I Allen & Yasemin Hurcan & Peter Murphy & Mr. Maximilien Queyranne & Mr. Sami Yläoutinen, 2015. "The Evolving Functions and Organization of Finance Ministries," IMF Working Papers 2015/232, International Monetary Fund.
    11. Matt Andrews, 2018. "Overcoming the limits of institutional reform in Uganda," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 36(S1), pages 159-182, March.
    12. Yuen Yuen Ang, 2017. "Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), pages 282-298, September.
    13. Lassou, Philippe Jacques Codjo & Hopper, Trevor, 2016. "Government accounting reform in an ex-French African colony: The political economy of neocolonialism," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 39-57.
    14. Bidhan Kanti Das, 2019. "Denial of Rights Continues: How Legislation for ‘Democratic Decentralisation’ of Forest Governance was Subverted in the Implementation Process of the Forest Rights Act in India," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(4), pages 957-983, September.
    15. Matt Andrews & Lant Pritchett & Michael Woolcock, 2016. "Scaling PDIA through Broad Agency, and Your Role," CID Working Papers 315, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    16. Yanguas, Pablo & Hulme, David, 2015. "Barriers to Political Analysis in Aid Bureaucracies: From Principle to Practice in DFID and the World Bank," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 209-219.
    17. Matt Andrews, 2013. "Going Beyond Heroic-Leaders in Development," CID Working Papers 261, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    18. Matt Andrews, 2013. "Do International Organizations Really Shape Government Solutions in Developing Countries?," CID Working Papers 264, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    19. Matt Andrews, 2014. "Can One Retell a Mozambican Reform Story Through Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation?," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2014-094, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    20. Daniel Appiah & Abdul-Gafaru Abdulai, 2017. "Competitive clientelism and the politics of core public sector reform in Ghana," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-082-17, GDI, The University of Manchester.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Forest Policy; REDD+; India; Tanzania; Mexico; comparative policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:15:y:2015:i:3:p:95-117. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.