Are REDD+ community forest projects following the principles for collective action, as proposed by Ostrom?
(2017) In International Journal of the Commons 11(1). p.572-596- Abstract
Forested countries in the global south that have agreed to engage in REDD+, a policy mechanism for addressing climate change, are receiving support to improve laws, policies, systems and structures. As a mechanism initiated at the global level and seeking to use forests to address a global commons crisis (atmospheric carbon concentration), understanding how REDD+ translates into implementation at the local level is essential. Therefore, using a systematic review approach, we examined 15 studies of REDD+ in the context of public and/or community managed forests, drawn from a comprehensive application of inclusion criteria to identify relevant published peer-reviewed empirical research. The common property resources literature was used to... (More)
Forested countries in the global south that have agreed to engage in REDD+, a policy mechanism for addressing climate change, are receiving support to improve laws, policies, systems and structures. As a mechanism initiated at the global level and seeking to use forests to address a global commons crisis (atmospheric carbon concentration), understanding how REDD+ translates into implementation at the local level is essential. Therefore, using a systematic review approach, we examined 15 studies of REDD+ in the context of public and/or community managed forests, drawn from a comprehensive application of inclusion criteria to identify relevant published peer-reviewed empirical research. The common property resources literature was used to highlight the role of local institutions in REDD+ and to distil how REDD+ community forest projects conform to Ostrom’s collective action principles. The review revealed limited sharing of information and decision-making authority with communities; a general absence of FPIC; and a lack of defined benefit sharing and conflict resolution arrangements in many of the REDD+ projects.
(Less)
- author
- Saeed, Abdul Razak ; McDermott, Constance and Boyd, Emily LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2017
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Climate change, Collective action, Forest, Local communities, REDD+, Systematic review
- in
- International Journal of the Commons
- volume
- 11
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 25 pages
- publisher
- International Association for the Study of the Commons
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85017594455
- wos:000400043600020
- ISSN
- 1875-0281
- DOI
- 10.18352/ijc.700
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 0b24f541-ad11-40d1-b5a4-1ee742548e35
- date added to LUP
- 2017-05-10 08:30:27
- date last changed
- 2025-01-07 12:51:51
@article{0b24f541-ad11-40d1-b5a4-1ee742548e35, abstract = {{<p>Forested countries in the global south that have agreed to engage in REDD+, a policy mechanism for addressing climate change, are receiving support to improve laws, policies, systems and structures. As a mechanism initiated at the global level and seeking to use forests to address a global commons crisis (atmospheric carbon concentration), understanding how REDD+ translates into implementation at the local level is essential. Therefore, using a systematic review approach, we examined 15 studies of REDD+ in the context of public and/or community managed forests, drawn from a comprehensive application of inclusion criteria to identify relevant published peer-reviewed empirical research. The common property resources literature was used to highlight the role of local institutions in REDD+ and to distil how REDD+ community forest projects conform to Ostrom’s collective action principles. The review revealed limited sharing of information and decision-making authority with communities; a general absence of FPIC; and a lack of defined benefit sharing and conflict resolution arrangements in many of the REDD+ projects.</p>}}, author = {{Saeed, Abdul Razak and McDermott, Constance and Boyd, Emily}}, issn = {{1875-0281}}, keywords = {{Climate change; Collective action; Forest; Local communities; REDD+; Systematic review}}, language = {{eng}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{572--596}}, publisher = {{International Association for the Study of the Commons}}, series = {{International Journal of the Commons}}, title = {{Are REDD+ community forest projects following the principles for collective action, as proposed by Ostrom?}}, url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.18352/ijc.700}}, doi = {{10.18352/ijc.700}}, volume = {{11}}, year = {{2017}}, }