Suchergebnisse

The government of Rwanda is promoting agricultural intensification focused on the production of a small number of targeted commodities as a central strategy to pursue the joint policy goals of economic growth, food security and livelihood development. The dominant approach to increase the productive capacity of the land, crops and animal resources has been through large-scale land consolidation, soil fertility management, and the intensive use of biotechnology and external inputs. However, evidence has shown that many Rwandan farmers, who employ various strategies and mixed farming practices based on their specific economic, social, and environmental circumstances, face difficulties adopting the singular prescribed approach to become more productive, modern commodity producers. To empirically explore diversity in smallholders' strategies and their contributions to livelihoods and compatibility with the recent intensification policies, we conducted household surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews in rural and peri-urban zones in Rwamagana district in Eastern Rwanda. Our analysis demonstrates how the dominant approach to intensification and specialisation overlooks the heterogeneity and dynamic nature of smallholder strategies. Moreover, our findings illustrate that a comprehensive understanding of farmer heterogeneity is necessary to explain the critical disjuncture between the government's vision of modern agriculture and the ability of many smallholders to engage with this agenda and may inform opportunities to adapt policies to better align productivity goals and livelihoods. In doing so, we contribute to debates about the current framing of intensification policy that promotes Green Revolution technologies and emphasise alternative pathways for more inclusive and resilient agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

The government of Rwanda is promoting agricultural intensification focused on the production of a small number of targeted commodities as a central strategy to pursue the joint policy goals of economic growth, food security and livelihood development. The dominant approach to increase the productive capacity of the land, crops and animal resources has been through large-scale land consolidation, soil fertility management, and the intensive use of biotechnology and external inputs. However, evidence has shown that many Rwandan farmers, who employ various strategies and mixed farming practices based on their specific economic, social, and environmental circumstances, face difficulties adopting the singular prescribed approach to become more productive, modern commodity producers. To empirically explore diversity in smallholders' strategies and their contributions to livelihoods and compatibility with the recent intensification policies, we conducted household surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews in rural and peri-urban zones in Rwamagana district in Eastern Rwanda. Our analysis demonstrates how the dominant approach to intensification and specialisation overlooks the heterogeneity and dynamic nature of smallholder strategies. Moreover, our findings illustrate that a comprehensive understanding of farmer heterogeneity is necessary to explain the critical disjuncture between the government's vision of modern agriculture and the ability of many smallholders to engage with this agenda and may inform opportunities to adapt policies to better align productivity goals and livelihoods. In doing so, we contribute to debates about the current framing of intensification policy that promotes Green Revolution technologies and emphasise alternative pathways for more inclusive and resilient agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

This paper explores the dissonance between conceptions of justice among forest-adjacent communities and their representation in global forest policies, a persistent barrier to delivering just sustainability. We empirically track justice claims of rural villagers upwards through specific intermediaries or 'justice brokers': civil society, state, or private sector actors operating at local to international levels, who navigate different institutions to advance various social and ecological interests. We draw on interviews with 16 intermediaries in each of Nepal and Uganda and find that recognition of local values and practices such as customary tenure systems are key justice concerns of forest-adjacent communities in each country. However, intermediaries perceive a low likelihood of advancing those claims through national or international climate and forest policy debates, such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), in large part because deliberations on justice are subordinated to concerns such as carbon accounting and arrangements for distributing monetary benefits. This suggests these policy processes must be modified to offer potential for transformational pathways. Intermediaries who pursued recognition justice issues developed innovative tactics in alternative forums. These 'norm entrepreneurs' adopted a suite of complementary strategies to attain influence, including: (1) formation of associations at the grassroots level; (2) media and advocacy campaigns through national coalitions to reach powerful international donors, and; (3) drawing on international support networks for advice, training and to influence national government. In both Uganda and Nepal these strategies were evidenced to enhance recognition for local values and practices.

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.

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.

The chapter examines the evolution of REDD+ governance and identifies policy options to increase synergies among REDD+, the sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. REDD+ emerged at the international level as a point of convergence across the 'institutional complexes' of forests, climate and biodiversity. This convergence attracted the engagement of a wide range of institutions in REDD+ activities, which together have drawn on three primary sources of authority to influence REDD+ rule-making: government sovereignty, contingent finance and voluntary carbon markets. Intergovernmental processes, which represent the primary articulation of governmental authority at the global level, have generated few binding commitments to the sustainable management of forests or biodiversity due to conflicting country interests. These efforts instead have favoured normative guidance, monitoring and reporting, and legality verification initiatives that reinforce sovereign authority. Bilateral and multi-lateral finance initiatives have exerted 'fund-based' authority through the application of operational safeguards protecting indigenous and local communities and biodiversity, but limited funding and low capacity of REDD+ countries to absorb those funds have constrained their influence. Finally, non-state actors have developed voluntary certification schemes for forest and carbon as a 'fast track' approach to elaborating more substantive international standards for environmentally- and socially-responsible forest practices. While the small size and voluntary nature of markets for forest carbon have greatly constrained the impact of these approaches, this could change if a significant regulatory market for REDD+ develops. Furthermore, the governance of REDD+, forest management and biodiversity is pluralistic, involving multiple institutions and actors. Efforts to promote REDD+ safeguarding at the international level exist in tension with national sovereignty and local autonomy. This complexity is taken into consideration in the suite of policy options provided in this chapter, which suggest the need to draw on a range of institutions and approaches and to consider how together they influence the balance of power and incentives across actors and scales.

Substantial efforts and investments are being made to increase the scale and improve the effectiveness of marine conservation globally. Though it is mandated by international law and central to conservation policy, less attention has been given to how to operationalize social equity in and through the pursuit of marine conservation. In this article, we aim to bring greater attention to this topic through reviewing how social equity can be better integrated in marine conservation policy and practice. Advancing social equity in marine conservation requires directing attention to: recognition through acknowledgment and respect for diverse peoples and perspectives; fair distribution of impacts through maximizing benefits and minimizing burdens; procedures through fostering participation in decision-making and good governance; management through championing and supporting local involvement and leadership; the environment through ensuring the efficacy of conservation actions and adequacy of management to ensure benefits to nature and people; and the structural barriers to and institutional roots of inequity in conservation. We then discuss the role of various conservation organizations in advancing social equity in marine conservation and identify the capacities these organizations need to build. We urge the marine conservation community, including governments, non-governmental organizations and donors, to commit to the pursuit of socially equitable conservation.