Conflict between Indigenous land claims and registered title: case studies from Canada and Kenya

Muthama, Dennis Mbugua; Tompkins, Erin; Barry, Michael

doi:10.1139/geomat-2018-0019

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although many countries have formulated laws on Indigenous Peoples' rights, land and tree tenure insecurity remain contentious due to the lack of or weak supervision, which increases local elites' control over land and resources (Borelli et al 2019). As a result, numerous land disputes remain unsolved and increase uncertainty about land restitution and relevant jurisdictions for developing infrastructure projects (Bains 2015, Muthama et al 2019, Pasternak 2022.…”

Section: Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)—a review

Karki,

Lieu,

Xylia

et al. 2023

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs) are critical for achieving the Paris Agreement’s aim of avoiding dangerous climate change by limiting the rise in average global surface temperatures. We developed a detailed two-level classification and analysis of barriers to the adoption and scaling up of LMTs. The review suggests that afforestation/reforestation and forest management are LMTs with wide application and high potential across all continents. BECCS (bio-energy with carbon capture and storage) and biochar have a higher potential in higher-income countries in the short term due to the availability of technology, funding, and existing low-cost biomass value chains. Although most LMTs can be cost-effective across multiple world regions, limited knowledge concerning their implementation and a lack of financing appear to be the main barriers to large-scale deployment. Without considering gender and the rights of marginalised and indigenous communities, the large-scale deployment of LMTs can further aggravate the existing inequalities. Therefore, the social and institutional implications of LMTs also need to be better understood to improve public acceptance and reduce negative impacts. A system approach is necessary to balance the ambitious land-based mitigation targets with the socioeconomic and broader environmental goals.

show abstract

Section: Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)—a review

Karki,

Lieu,

Xylia

et al. 2023

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This review ties in with the wider international literature on land restitution processes. While there is a substantive body of literature on post-colonial (e.g., [23][24][25][26]), post-conflict (e.g., [27][28][29]), and post-socialist (e.g., [30][31][32] land restitution processes, Cambodia is one of the few countries where multiple studies have been conducted to examine contested land restitution processes following the 21st century global land rush. This warrants a closer examination of this sizeable body of literature to identify common themes across the various case studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested Land Restitution Processes in Cambodia

Ngin

Neef

2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cambodia has experienced rapid economic growth due partly to excessive natural resource extraction. Land conflicts have been pervasive between local communities and companies that invest in land and other natural resources. Despite substantial research into land conflict resolution, knowledge about how land is returned to wronged parties and what happens to the returned land is fragmented. This review aims to provide a holistic understanding of land restitution in Cambodia by examining different types of land conflict, actors involved, and restitution processes. It provides both a macro perspective on land restitution and conflict-specific perspectives regarding how actors engage in different processes that produce various outcomes for disputants. We find both complications and ambivalence of the actors involved, particularly concerning their roles and influences in resolution processes. Specifically, we find contentious and ambivalent roles that non-governmental organisations (NGOs), donor agencies, and government authorities played in mixed results of resolution mechanisms in the cases that have yielded outcomes in terms of land restitution. Our review also suggests that the neoliberal policy that favours commoditisation of resources and the authoritarian patronage state disguised in a hybrid democracy allowed some grassroots resistance, civil society space, and responses from other concerned economic and political actors in the resolution processes. However, the state controlled and manipulated their engagement to benefit and maintain its economic and political bases, and it never allowed any transformative approach that could tackle the root causes of the problems. This understanding of complexities in land restitution is crucial to achieving land tenure security, particularly for local communities.

show abstract

Conflict between Indigenous land claims and registered title: case studies from Canada and Kenya

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)—a review

Potentials and barriers to land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs)—a review

Contested Land Restitution Processes in Cambodia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About