Considering land tenure in REDD+ participatory measurement, reporting, and verification: A case study from Indonesia

Felker, Mary Elizabeth; Bong, Indah Waty; Depuy, Walker H; Jihadah, Lina

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167943

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clear land tenure and land-use rights. Unclear property rights and tenure insecurity undermine the incentives to improve forest and agricultural productivity, lead to food insecurity, undermine REDD+ objectives, discourage adoption of farm conservation practices, discourage tree planting and forest management, and exacerbate conflict between different land users (Antwi-Agyei et al 2015;Felker et al 2017;Sunderlin et al 2018;Borras and Franco 2018;Riggs et al 2018;Kansanga and Luginaah 2019). Some positive signs exist as over 500 million hectares of forests have been converted to community management with clear property rights in the past two decades (Rights and Resources Initiative 2018), but adoption of forest and agricultural mitigation practices will be limited in large remaining areas with unclear property rights (Gupta et al 2016).…”

Section: Risk and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)

2023

Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chapter 7 Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) CH 4 MtCH 4 yr -1 157.0 ± 47.1 c 207.5 ± 62.2 364.4 ± 109.3 -iGtCO 2 -eq yr -1 4.2 ± 1.3 g 5.9 ± 1.8 10.2 ± 3.0 41%N 2 O MtN 2 O yr -1 6.6 ± 4.0 c 2.8 ± 1.7 9.4 ± 5.6GtCO 2 -eq yr -1 1.8 ± 1.1 g 0.8 ± 0.5 2.6 ± 1.5 69% Total jGtCO 2 -eq yr -111.9 ± 4.4 (CO 2 component based on book-keeping models, managed soils and pasture) 44 ± 3.4 55.9 ± 6.1 21% a Estimates are given until 2019 as this is the latest date when data are available for all gases, consistent with Chapter 2, this report. Positive fluxes are emission from land to the atmosphere. Negative fluxes are removals. b Net anthropogenic flux of CO 2 are due to land-use change such as deforestation and afforestation and land management, including wood harvest and regrowth, peatland drainage and fires, cropland and grassland management. Average of three bookkeeping models (Hansis et al. 2015; Houghton and Nassikas 2017; Gasser et al. 2020), complemented by data on peatland drainage and fires from FAOSTAT (Prosperi et al. 2020) and GFED4s (van der Werf et al. 2017). Bookkeeping based CO 2 -LULUCF emissions (5.7±4.0) are consistent with AR6 WGI and Chapter 2 of this report. The value of 5.9(±4.1) includes CO 2 emissions from urea application to managed soils and pasture. Comparisons with other estimates are discussed in 7.2.2. Based on NGHGIs and FAOSTAT, the range is 0 to 0.8 GtCO 2 yr -1 . c CH 4 and N 2 O emission estimates and assessed uncertainty of 30 and 60% respectively, are based on Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) data (Crippa et al. 2021) in accordance with Chapter 2, this report (Sections 2.2.1.3 and 2.2.1.4). Both FAOSTAT (Tubiello 2019; USEPA 2019; FAO 2021a) and the USA EPA (USEPA 2019) also provide data on agricultural non-CO 2 emissions, however, mean global CH 4 and N 2 O values considering the three databases are within the uncertainty bounds of EDGAR. EDGAR only considers agricultural and not overall AFOLU non-CO 2 emissions. Agriculture is estimated to account for approximately 89 and 96% of total AFOLU CH 4 and N 2 O emissions respectively. See Section 7.2.3 for further discussion.d Total non-AFOLU emissions are the sum of total CO 2 -eq emissions values for energy, industrial sources, waste and other emissions with data from the Global Carbon Project for CO 2 , including international aviation and shipping, and from the PRIMAP database for CH 4 and N 2 O averaged over 2007-2014, as that was the period for which data were available. e The modelled CO 2 estimates include natural processes in vegetation and soils and how they respond to both natural climate variability and to human-induced environmental changes, for example, the response of vegetation and soils to environmental changes such as increasing atmospheric CO 2 concentration, nitrogen deposition, and climate change (indirect anthropogenic effects) on both managed and unmanaged lands. The estimate shown represents the average from 17 Dynamic Global Vegetation Models with 1SD uncertainty (Friedlingstei...

show abstract

Section: Risk and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)

2023

Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, to attain a true "landscape" status, the KNP project would have to aim for nested scales that include and integrates all actors and their livelihoods and spaces. However, the use of a nested scales landscape approach in forest governance and REDD+ that does not address ownership claims and tenure entitlements (see Section 6.3) can lead to conflicts around REDD+ implementation [50]. In this light, adopting a "landscape" approach that is focused not only on trees and on forests but encompasses social, economic, environmental, and policy systems would align the KNP project with the holistic, integrated approach of the REDD+ program [51].…”

Section: Characterizing the Knp Project And The Redd+ Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural Community Agency in Cameroon: Interactions with Forest Policies and the REDD+ Climate Change Regime

Flanery

Mbatu

Johns

et al. 2022

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community forestry around the world has demonstrated its potential for implementing the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) climate change program. Secure tenure rights and access to rule-making are known as contributing to successful community forestry outcomes. Still, the effects of different aspects of rural ‘community agency’ are not well established. We investigate forest governance and conflicts and the relationships between aspects of rural community agency under the REDD+ climate change program in two forest communities—the villages of Fabe and Mosongiseli—near the southern portion of the Korup National Park in Cameroon. Using data from a survey instrument and interviews, we analyze, using “agency theory”, the concept of rural community agency according to dimensions of attitudes, understandings, and empowerment in the two communities in relation to forest governance and conflicts under REDD+. Our findings indicate a variety of power relations (e.g., on the communities’ use and management rights of their lands) and existential threats of conflicts within the communities (e.g., violation of the communities’ free, prior, and informed consent). The results also show that both communities share many of the patterns of diversity and integration to a similar extent. Although there is no definitive distinction between the two communities, the findings suggest that some differences exist in their degree of integration. Understanding and describing the nature of the power relations and threats of conflicts comprises an important component to begin an appreciation for the communities’ user group characteristics as these relate to the REDD+ program when implemented. The implication of this study is that threats of conflicts may increase when the villagers’ perception of the potential costs of losing their lands to REDD+ is formed by their experiences with current restrictions on the use and management rights of their lands.

show abstract

“…Unlike simple tenure mosaics, in the complex mosaic, claims and rights overlap, different kinds of rights may be unbundled and allocated to different actors and governance mechanisms, some land may remain open access, and property rights institutions generally play a less prominent role in the governance system than they do in many other contexts. Complex tenure mosaics with overlapping, multi-level allocation of rights have been described in tropical forest settings by Felker et al (2017).…”

Section: Complex Mosaic Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open property and complex mosaics: Variants in tenure regimes across pastoralist social-ecological systems

Robinson

2019

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it has repeatedly been observed that pastoralist resource governance systems tend not to conform to the assumptions and principles of mainstream scholarship on property rights and governance of commons, coherent theoretical reasons why this is the case are less common. One exception is the concept of open property regimes. This view holds that the quintessential features of dryland pastoralist systems-limited and highly variable rainfall, low resource density, mobility, and institutions and norms that emphasize flexibility and access-can result in pastoralist herders dynamically distributing and redistributing themselves across a territory without the assumed benefit of clear boundaries or of collective decision-making and rules. However, the open property regimes explanation describes some pastoralist systems better than others. This paper argues that some pastoralist systems are neither conventional commons nor open property regimes. Instead they tend to reflect another model, referred to here as a complex mosaic regime, in which there is gradation of strength and clarity of exclusionary property rights over different resources, in which property rights are often unbundled and allocated to different actors and governance mechanisms, and in which a prominent role is played by social processes and governance mechanisms other than property rights institutions. Social and biophysical characteristics that may be more conducive to complex mosaic regimes than to open property systems, particularly if all of those characteristics are found together, include a severe and chronic shortage of one or more critical resources, spatial heterogeneity of resources, scalar heterogeneity of interests, and a herd mobility pattern that involves occasional convergence on highly valued key resource areas. In elaborating the complex mosaic regime model, this paper addresses a blind spot in scholarship on property rights and commons, deepening the understanding of why pastoralist systems tend not to conform to mainstream theory, as well as helping to explain some of the differences among pastoralist systems. Understanding the Open property and complex mosaics 805 internal logic of alternative resource governance regime models and the socialecological conditions that make one model more viable than another can help to guide national policies and the strategies of conservation and development actors.

show abstract

Considering land tenure in REDD+ participatory measurement, reporting, and verification: A case study from Indonesia

Cited by 9 publications

References 44 publications

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)

Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)

Rural Community Agency in Cameroon: Interactions with Forest Policies and the REDD+ Climate Change Regime

Open property and complex mosaics: Variants in tenure regimes across pastoralist social-ecological systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About