Community Forests?
- henrybai091
- Apr 7, 2023
- 3 min read
Image Credits: Land Portal
Our world is a diverse place. It has more than 5,000 ethnic groups, over 7,000 languages, and 1000+ cultures. These different ethnic groups and cultures all have different histories, with traditions they hold dear to their hearts and ways of life that define our society today. Many of their ancient histories are defined by connections- connections to each other, connection with their spiritual selves, connection with the nature around them. Today, we see these connections in the many indigenous communities that remain and emanated in market-based solutions that have proliferated in the past couple decades.
In a past blog, I wrote about these possible market-based solutions to cut carbon emissions. After learning about that, I also read about differing forest conservation strategies. One of the things I read was a paper from Professor Prakash Kashwan from Brandeis University. It brought to light many of the distinct solutions local communities and countries are implementing to protect forests.
The Zapotec Indians in Mexico.
A local Ixtlán farmer.
Image credits: The New York Times
For decades, the forests of Oaxaca in Southern Mexico were at the mercy of state-owned enterprises; the land was exploited with no federal government intervention. However, three decades ago, this changed. Zapotec Indians, a group of indigenous people in Mexico won the right to the land and established their own town, Ixtlán. Now, the community has built their business and traditions around the protection of the trees. Many have slowly built lumber businesses, where they simultaneously produce wooden furniture and care for the woodland. To maintain this balance, they have turned to communal ownership, where a general assembly of 390 townspeople, called “comuneros”, make decisions and enforce policy. Their strict management has essentially eradicated illegal logging, which is an issue that has plagued many other forests in Mexico. However, this community is still a work in progress- the Mexican government and Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) continue to provide funding and advice.
Nevertheless, Ixtlán’s connection with the woodlands is working, forests are healing and the people are thriving.
The controversial REDD+ policy.
Nicaragua, a country beginning to work on REDD+ policy.
Image Credit: D+C
In 2008, the United Nations introduced a new strategy to cut carbon emissions, they called it REDD+, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, the “+” representing the importance of sustainable forest management as a means of carbon storage. The goal of this now little-known policy was to promote conservation by providing a financial incentive to developing nations to preserve their forests. To do this, developing nations would section off areas of protect forest land, where the amount of carbon sequestered is quantified. Based on that amount, the sub-national and national governments would be compensated by international partners and NGOs. Although this strategy may seem simple, there are several pitfalls and complexities to it that need to be addressed.
A Forest in Chile, where the government has been engaged with REDD+.
Image Credit: fao.org
A changing climate policy landscape. As climate change accelerates, developing and developed national governments are increasingly pressured to decrease carbon emissions. This raises several questions. When developed nations fund policies such as REDD+, does the carbon sequestered from the forests count towards an emissions reduction in the developed country or the developing one? As these emerging nations are also pressured to change, how will they balance their need to cut emissions with the influence of powerful nations and their desire to purchase carbon offsets?
Inconsistency. Currently, there is a lack of funding for developing countries engage in REDD+. This is the result of inconsistent government and NGO financial support. In cases where results are weak, or where there is a failure to produce results, international partners have pulled funding. Subsequently, this disincentivizes other countries to join.
Inequity. The most severe pitfall to REDD+. In many countries where REDD+ is implemented, the governments section off their land for protection, causing local and indigenous communities are displaced. Furthermore, because of the “nested approach”, where sub nation and national level governments are involved, the distribution of funds is often unequal- rarely going to the indigenous communities who have been displaced, but instead to the government. In many countries, this lack of inclusiveness during the decision-making process reinforces inequities that already prevail, such as the historical marginalization of women and forest minorities in Cameroon. For REDD+ to be adequately Implemented, there needs to be a clear devolution of rights and a governance system established.
To face climate challenges, local to international communities have put forward distinctive strategies. From the Zapotec Indians and REDD+, we learn that in order to be effective, the policy must not only consider the environmental benefits, but also the socio-economic impacts as well.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/americas/23mexico.html https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/redd/what-is-redd#:~:text=REDD%2B%20is%20a%20framework%20created,carbon%20stocks%20in%20developing%20countries.
Comments