Safeguarding what and for whom? The role of institutional fit in shaping REDD+ in Mexico

Abstract

ABSTRACT. This paper examines the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change mechanism Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+), and its associated multitude of global to local safeguards, as they apply to a single ejido on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. It draws on written sources and interviews to analyze the ways in which broad international norms articulated through the REDD+ safeguards, including support for human rights and sustainable livelihoods for local communities, are translated at national, regional, and local levels. Our findings indicate a wide range of perspectives on what constitutes sustainability, from strict conservation to more forest use-oriented strategies, such as community forestry and traditional Mayan shifting cultivation. These visions, in turn, shape what types of REDD+ interventions are considered a good "environmental fit," i.e., that fit the environmental problems they aim to address. Fits and misfits also occur between institutions, and play a core role in determining whose visions of sustainability prevail. We found a good fit in the case study ejido between REDD+ and the Payment for Ecosystem service (PES) scheme, which sets the parameters for what counts as "sustainable livelihoods" within a strict conservation paradigm. We likewise found a good fit between REDD+ safeguards and institutions supporting local community rights to reject REDD+ projects. However, despite the strength of procedural safeguards, the parameters of the PES scheme constrained the choice of REDD+ activities available, including the possibilities of local people to work on the farm and in the forest, and hence the scope of its distributive benefits. This highlights the important, but also problematic, roles of institutional and environmental "fit" in determining whose rights are safeguarded and what is recognized as a sustainable livelihood strategy. It also calls for more proactive efforts to expand the range of REDD+ activities in ways that safeguard livelihood diversity.

Non‐state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post‐Paris era

“…The verdict may still be out with regard to the optimal level of non-state participation in intergovernmental climate proceedings post-Paris. Questions, such as to what extent too much civil society participation might contribute to paralysis of negotiations (and a threat to national sovereignty) 37 and whether non-state actors under this system are able to influence decisions more than minimally, 86 in particular when the policy outcomes affect them directly, are still debated.…”

“…Safeguards that should be promoted and supported when undertaking REDD+ activities include the recognition of knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities as well as full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities. In practice, however, there are numerous accounts of cases where these have been paid lip service to, at best (e.g., Refs 84,86,90).…”

Costs, cobenefits, and community responses to REDD+: a case study from Nepal

“…Fair distribution of these resources could help support the government of Nepal's poverty reduction goals, meet community forestry's gender and ethnic equity guidelines and ensure broad-based support for forest protection (Poudel et al 2014). Both procedural and distributive equity may be required if institutional frameworks are to be supportive of REDD+ environmental goals (McDermott and Ituarte-Lima 2016). In our analyses, we first examined indicators of procedural equity such as participation in decision making.…”

Identification of Non-economic Influencing Factors Affecting Farmer’s Participation in the Paddy Landto-Dry Land Program in Chicheng County, China

“…Only when lower needs are satisfied may higher demands be behavioral incentives; thus it would violate human instinct to ignore low levels of demands or to force a family to comply with environmental ethics in developing countries [57]. Lower demands refer to physical needs and safety requirements, such as health, property, and family security [58]. Although the main goal of PES programs is to achieve good environmental management, poverty alleviation should also be considered in the design when the lower demands of the poor are threatened [59,60], and quite a number of cases have proved PES to have positive impacts on poverty alleviation [11,27,35].…”