Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Safeguarding what and for whom? The role of institutional fit in shaping REDD plus in Mexico
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Stockholm Resilience Centre.
Number of Authors: 2
2016 (English)In: Ecology & society, ISSN 1708-3087, E-ISSN 1708-3087, Vol. 21, no 1, 9Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 21, no 1, 9
Keyword [en]
community forest, free, prior, informed consent (FPIC), governance, REDD, safeguard
National Category
Biological Sciences Social and Economic Geography
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-130011DOI: 10.5751/ES-08088-210109ISI: 000373935100013OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-130011DiVA: diva2:927109
Available from: 2016-05-11 Created: 2016-05-09 Last updated: 2016-07-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ituarte-Lima, Claudia
By organisation
Stockholm Resilience Centre
In the same journal
Ecology & society
Biological SciencesSocial and Economic Geography

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 7 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link