A Seat at the Table: Including the Poor in Decisions for Development and Environment

Foti, Joseph; Silva, Lelanath de

doi:10.1037/e502362012-001

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 But is difficult to determine who is legally entitled to participate, or to whom and when, exactly, FPIC applies (Takacs, 2014). REDD+ projects develop top-down, and it is difficult if not impossible for local people to participate from the project's conception, or to stop a project once it has advanced: So many disparate, powerful interests have united to make REDD+ happen, and some of these goals may work against the interest of local citizens (Anderson, 2011;Foti & de Silva, 2010;O'Faircheallaigh, 2010;Takacs, 2014;UN-REDD Programme, 2012). REDD+aiming to sequester greenhouse gases while revitalizing local human and ecological communities and recognizing the complex webs that tie distant human and nonhuman ecosystems togethershould be a showcase for environmental democracy as an underpinning of ecological democracy.…”

Section: Redd+: Even With the Best Intentions Genuine Ecological Demmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding

Takács

2019

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Redd+: Even With the Best Intentions Genuine Ecological Demmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding

Takács

2019

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These include the lack of legal rights, language barriers, poor literacy, limited access to information, Wolframite mining in DRC, photo by Julien Harneis participation risks, and cultural barriers. 10 Legal barriers may include lack of clear or formal land rights and fear of expropriation, or lack of legal identity. Costs of engagement may include transportation or travel expenses to meetings as well as foregone work or income.…”

Section: Barriers To Community Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Agreements and Mining: A New Frontier for Social Impact Investments

Dalupan¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis report is the product of a research collaboration between One Earth Future Foundation and the RTC Impact Fund. We would like to acknowledge the assistance of OEF research associate Ambika Chawla, who developed supporting country reports for Ghana, Guatemala, and Papua New Guinea.We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the project's collaborating institutions in the Philippines: the Ateneo de Manila School of Government headed by Dean Antonio G.M. La Viña and supported by Atty. Nicole Torres, and Puno and Puno LawOffices represented by Senior Partner Julito Sarmiento.Finally, we would also like to express our sincere thanks to the different participants in the Philippines from government institutions, civil society, industry, and the communities of Balatoc and Tampakan, who were involved in project consultations and who generously shared their time, expertise, and perspectives. OEF-RTC Impact Fund Multi-Sectoral Roundtable Discussion in the PhilippinesThe RTC Impact Fund is a full spectrum philanthropic grantmaker and social impact investor that supports communities seeking to harness their natural resources for equitable sustainable development.One Earth Future Foundation leads initiatives to improve systems and services that prevent armed conflict.The OEF discussion paper series provides thought-provoking perspectives on contemporary issues related to peace and security. Although we believe that the papers in this series make a valuable contribution to the public discourse, they do not necessarily reflect OEF opinion. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOne Earth Future Foundation and RTC Impact Fund developed this study to explore the role that an impact investment fund may have in the negotiation of mining-related community agreements. Key insights below were discussed, arising from a review of relevant literature in select jurisdictions, with specific focus on the Philippines, where the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous communities to mining is legally required, as are community agreements with companies. MINING AND SOCIAL CONFLICT• Developing countries are increasingly becoming mineral producers and targets for exploration. This inevitably involves large-scale land use, particularly in remote rural areas near or inhabited by local communities.• Large-scale mining disproportionately affects communities that depend upon the land and natural resources for their ways of life and livelihoods. Their interests are typically unrepresented or under-represented in development decisions, with mining revenues and other economic benefits vulnerable to elite capture and corruption. Inadequate social and environmental protections, insecure land rights, and capacity constraints are principal barriers to community engagement.• Failure to engage communities and appropriately address legal, social, environmental, and technical aspects of a mining project are sources of social tension, with issues around the control over minerals sometimes exacerbating armed conflicts. The "resource curse," chara...

show abstract

“…While the Decree has been cited as a positive step towards incorporating public participation in concession-based forestry , it has been noted in other sectors-most notably large-scale energy infrastructure projects-that public involvement was lacking in practice despite the presence of a legal framework (Nguene et al, 2012;Bitondo, 2000). An additional issue relates to the fact that the Decree does not require that consultation occurs during the early phases of project development (Foti & Silva, 2010), nor does it explicitly state that the opinions of the population at large will actually be accounted for in project plans.…”

Section: An Overview Of Concession-based Forestry In Cameroonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While several studies have been undertaken to examine public participation in community and council forest tenures (see, for example, Oyono, 2004;Oyono, 2005;Assembe Mvondo & Sangkwa, 2009;Brown & Lassoie, 2010;De Blas et al, 2011); biodiversity conservation and management initiatives (Nguinguiri, 1999;Jum & Oyono, 2005;Nchotaji, 2010), and even for benefit distribution and social development within concessions (see, for example, Bigombé Logo, 1994;Oyono et al, 2005;Oyono, 2005;Karsenty, 2007;Morrison, 2009;Foti & Silva, 2010;Cerutti et al, 2010), the implementation of participation provisions of the EIA Decree in concession-based forestry has not yet been studied (Note 2). In this paper, we examine public perceptions (Note 3) of public participation and decision-making -as outlined by the EIA Decree -in eight forest-dependent communities impacted by concession-based forestry in the Southwest Region of Cameroon.…”

Section: An Overview Of Concession-based Forestry In Cameroonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cameroon’s Environmental Impact Assessment Decree and Public Participation in Concession-Based Forestry: An Exploratory Assessment of Eight Forest-Dependent Communities

Alemagi¹,

Hajjar²,

Tchoundjeu³

et al. 2013

JSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the degree to which public participation in concession-based forestry decision-making -as outlined by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Decree (No. 2005/0577/PM)-is taking place in eight forest-dependent communities of Cameroon. Of the total respondents that took part in the survey, only 39 per cent stated that they were involved in decisions concerning concession-based forestry. Furthermore, there seems to be a generally negative perception on the part of local communities towards the government's implementation of public participation legislation in concession-based forestry decision-making. Obstacles to public decision-making process are identified and recommendations are proffered for more effective public participation.

show abstract

A Seat at the Table: Including the Poor in Decisions for Development and Environment

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding

Community Agreements and Mining: A New Frontier for Social Impact Investments

Cameroon’s Environmental Impact Assessment Decree and Public Participation in Concession-Based Forestry: An Exploratory Assessment of Eight Forest-Dependent Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About