Abstract:In the discourses on who should benefit from national REDD+ implementation, rights-based approaches are prominent across various countries. Options on how to create viable property rights arrangements are currently being debated by scholars, policy makers and practitioners alike. Many REDD+ advocates argue that assigning carbon rights represents a solution to insecure individual and community property rights. But carbon rights, i.e., the OPEN ACCESSForests 2015, 6 1032 bundle of legal rights to carbon sequestered in biomass, present their own set of theoretical and practical challenges. We assess the status and approaches chosen in emerging carbon-rights legislations in five REDD+ countries based on a literature review and country expert knowledge: Peru, Brazil, Cameroon, Vietnam and Indonesia. We find that most countries assessed have not yet made final decisions as to the type of benefit sharing mechanisms they intend to implement and that there is a lack of clarity about who owns rights to carbon as a property and who is entitled to receive benefits. However, there is a trend of linking carbon rights to land rights. As such, the technical and also political challenges that land tenure clarification has faced over the past decades will still need to be addressed in the context of carbon rights.

Although REDD+ was conceived as a national approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, many of the early advances have been at the subnational level. It is critical to link these subnational efforts to emerging national REDD+ frameworks, including with respect to finance and benefit distribution, setting reference levels, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), land policy and safeguards. We use evidence from interviews with proponents from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives in six countries to characterize the multilevel governance challenges for REDD+. We analyse the differences in perceived challenges between subnational jurisdictional programs 910 Ashwin Ravikumar et al.and project-based initiatives, and then analyse proponents' perceptions of the relationship between government policies at multiple levels and these REDD+ initiatives. We find important multilevel governance challenges related to vertical coordination and information sharing and horizontal and inter-sectoral tensions, as well as concerns over accountability, equity and justice. Though the shift to a nested, jurisdictional or national REDD+ is sometimes approached as a technical design issue, this must be accompanied by an understanding of the interests and power relations among actors at different levels. We outline challenges and suggest priority areas for future research and policy, as countries move towards a national REDD+ system.

Although REDD+ was conceived as a national approach to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, many of the early advances have been at the subnational level. It is critical to link these subnational efforts to emerging national REDD+ frameworks, including with respect to finance and benefit distribution, setting reference levels, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), land policy and safeguards. We use evidence from interviews with proponents from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives in six countries to characterize the multilevel governance challenges for REDD+. We analyse the differences in perceived challenges between subnational jurisdictional programs 910 Ashwin Ravikumar et al. and project-based initiatives, and then analyse proponents' perceptions of the relationship between government policies at multiple levels and these REDD+ initiatives. We find important multilevel governance challenges related to vertical coordination and information sharing and horizontal and inter-sectoral tensions, as well as concerns over accountability, equity and justice. Though the shift to a nested, jurisdictional or national REDD+ is sometimes approached as a technical design issue, this must be accompanied by an understanding of the interests and power relations among actors at different levels. We outline challenges and suggest priority areas for future research and policy, as countries move towards a national REDD+ system.

Multistakeholder forums (MSFs) are applied in territorial planning with the goal of bringing together diverse actors in decision‐making, allowing the participation and empowerment of indigenous and local communities, protecting their territories, and promoting community‐based conservation efforts. However, important questions remain. How are territorial planning MSFs shaped by context and power? Can they represent communities' diversity, respect their ancestral rights, and bring real change? This article explores how context and power affect the capacities and challenges of territorial planning MSFs to include, represent, empower, and benefit communities. Examining actors' perceptions, we comparatively analyze two cases, in two Brazilian states with contrasting contexts. We conclude that territorial planning MSFs are highly political spaces influenced by complexities in context, power relations, and communities' diversity. They may include, represent, and empower communities and help recognize and conserve their territories, but not necessarily. Especially in difficult settings, communities face more challenges than other actors to be represented and participate at MSFs, and territorial planning may empower or “invisibilize” communities. Other mechanisms (e.g., social action) can be key for communities instead of, or in synergy with, MSFs.

No abstract

The use of multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) in territorial planning has gained global popularity. These MSFs aim to bring diverse actors together to collaboratively and equitably develop a plan that assigns optimal land uses to a territory. However, as promoting particular land uses and benefits for some actors often comes at a cost to others, territorial planning MSFs may reproduce or even exacerbate, rather than mitigate, conflicts and asymmetries. We comparatively analyze collaboration, power relations and sustainability goals in the Ecological-Economic Zoning commissions of Acre and Mato Grosso, Brazil, which fall under the same federal mandate but operate in contrasting contexts. We show how territorial planning MSFs have better chances of meeting their goals when they are understood as political processes: in this case, when they emerge from and are nourished by powerful local social-environmental movements and alliances, rather than being technocratic initiatives opposed by powerful local production-business alliances.

No abstract

No abstract