UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Barriers to equity in REDD+: Deficiencies in national interpretation processes constrain adaptation to context

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.009

Auteurs

Neil M. Dawson · Michael Mason · David Mujasi Mwayafu · Hari Dhungana · Poshendra Satyal · Janet Fisher · Mark Zeitoun · Heike Schroeder

Année déclarée

2018

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:17:28.426006+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:17:28.426006+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

London School of Economics and Political Science · Norwich Research Park · University of East Anglia · University of Edinburgh

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

A national interpretation process involving diverse actors and interests is required to transform global environmental initiatives into policies appropriate to the national or subnational context. These processes of localising norms are critical spaces to formulate equitable pathways to environmental conservation, yet have received limited attention from policy makers and researchers. We explored national policy processes for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) in Uganda and Nepal from the perspectives of ‘intermediaries’, state and civil society actors at subnational and national scale who promote the interests of various stakeholder groups. Through think-tank meetings and semi-structured interviews with a range of intermediaries, we uncovered that REDD+ implementation processes in both countries are dominated by international actors, applying a demanding administrative agenda and restricting space for deliberation. Consequently, social aspects of policy were compartmentalised, reduced to technical exercises and local equity concerns inadequately addressed in national REDD+ policies. For example, social safeguards approaches were perceived to lack substantive guidelines to promote equity. Limited national political space to criticise government policy and lack of attention to relevant evidence further restricted ability to address entrenched injustices such as status inequalities faced by marginalised groups. Although civil society organisations choose to maintain official involvement with REDD+, many expressed a possibility they would oppose REDD+ in future, or serious doubts about its design and expected outcomes. Concerns centred on lack of recognition of indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ values, identities, practices and institutions such as customary tenure systems, alongside possible detrimental impacts to decentralised forest governance regimes, well established in Nepal and emerging in Uganda. We suggest features to be enshrined in REDD+ policy for adapting national interpretation processes to become more effective spaces for empowering diverse intermediaries to negotiate and influence localisation of international norms, ultimately to promote more equitable pathways to reduced deforestation and degradation.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2807846828

DOI

10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.009

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

Doctrine

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Entités naturelles mentionnées

Forêt

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1 · Document 2

• DOI · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.009
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2807846828

Relations bibliographiques documentées

Références et liens déclarés par les sources ; ils ne constituent pas une preuve juridique ni une qualification UGLC. Affichage limité à 20 références sortantes.

• openalex:w1208424556 · CITES
• openalex:w1531974919 · CITES
• openalex:w1597421676 · CITES
• openalex:w1734754515 · CITES
• openalex:w1904473669 · CITES
• openalex:w1971038194 · CITES
• openalex:w1980426893 · CITES
• openalex:w1988894183 · CITES
• openalex:w1990000295 · CITES
• openalex:w2003460297 · CITES
• openalex:w2010938524 · CITES
• openalex:w2023983108 · CITES
• openalex:w2036551813 · CITES
• openalex:w2037165956 · CITES
• openalex:w2039511585 · CITES
• openalex:w2041952108 · CITES
• openalex:w2042615677 · CITES
• openalex:w2051864396 · CITES
• openalex:w2055360529 · CITES
• openalex:w2056179996 · CITES

4 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Publication académique détectée

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.