UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Reducing REDD risks: affirmative policy on an uneven playing field

Identification

Clé publique

doi:10.18352/bmgn-lchr.322

Auteurs

Jesse Ribot · Anne Larson

Année déclarée

2012

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-09T19:15:02.386705+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-09T19:15:02.386705+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Center for International Forestry Research · Central American University · University of Illinois System · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

In spite of reforms since the end of the colonial period and more-recent discourses of participation and democracy, the forestry policy environment rarely supports the needs or aspirations of rural communities. Even when policies appear fair, the rural poor face severe biases in implementation. In addition, the poor must compete on an uneven playing field of class, ethnic and other social inequities and economic hurdles. With the development of the global forest (carbon) conservation strategy such as Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), which is ushering in accelerated forest commodification, poor people living in forests risk further marginalisation, exclusion and rights abuses. This article examines how forestry policy and implementation maintain double standards on this uneven playing field in a manner that continues to exclude the rural poor from the natural wealth around them. Poverty is not just about being left out of economic growth. It is produced by the very policies that enable some to profit – today from timber, firewood and charcoal, tomorrow from carbon. For REDD interventions to support poverty alleviation, forestry policies must be radically reworked to counterbalance widespread regressive policies and structural asymmetries. To make forestry policy emancipatory, strong social protections or safeguards are still needed that require REDD and other interventions to support and work through local democratic institutions. Otherwise these policies will continue their regressive trends.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

W2114955946

DOI

10.18352/bmgn-lchr.322

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/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.322
• OpenAlex · https://openalex.org/W2114955946

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.

• Forests for people: community rights and forest tenure reform · CITES
• openalex:w1496285141 · CITES
• openalex:w1524614571 · CITES
• openalex:w1532410514 · CITES
• openalex:w1534579380 · CITES
• openalex:w1553100866 · CITES
• openalex:w1553965041 · CITES
• openalex:w15569160 · CITES
• openalex:w1561630947 · CITES
• openalex:w1564272830 · CITES
• openalex:w1583379703 · CITES
• openalex:w159340147 · CITES
• openalex:w1674485151 · CITES
• openalex:w1703818764 · CITES
• openalex:w1943581427 · CITES
• openalex:w1946609472 · CITES
• openalex:w1966861654 · CITES
• openalex:w1986219401 · CITES
• openalex:w1986945985 · CITES
• openalex:w2004310311 · CITES

8 références entrantes au sein du corpus détecté

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

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