Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa

In light of growing pressure on forests benefit sharing is increasingly gaining attention as a governance approach to facilitating more equitable and sustainable interactions and outcomes. While benefit sharing is one of the key components of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest D...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Forest policy and economics 2021-12, Vol.133, p.102623, Article 102623
Hauptverfasser: Soliev, Ilkhom, Theesfeld, Insa, Abert, Eileen, Schramm, Wiebke
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 102623
container_title Forest policy and economics
container_volume 133
creator Soliev, Ilkhom
Theesfeld, Insa
Abert, Eileen
Schramm, Wiebke
description In light of growing pressure on forests benefit sharing is increasingly gaining attention as a governance approach to facilitating more equitable and sustainable interactions and outcomes. While benefit sharing is one of the key components of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks) programs and policies under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the approach is also actively debated within other resource governance contexts such as biodiversity and water. The debates however remain largely independent from one another. We particularly examine how benefit sharing could contribute to transformation of conflicts. Using discourse analysis and drawing from the broader scholarship of benefit sharing and property rights theory, we propose distinguishing appropriation-oriented and provision-oriented types of benefit sharing within REDD+. For sub-Saharan Africa, we see the need for such structured institutional analysis, which may point to particular emerging and persistent resource use inequalities as a new source of conflict. We investigate four case studies of REDD+ progress in Ghana, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Uganda that reveal some systemic challenges in achieving equitable and sustainable benefit sharing. The paper demonstrates that distinguishing and structuring appropriation and provision types of benefit sharing is indeed helpful as they are likely to be indicative of different outcomes. Our case studies also reveal challenges of policy-procedural nature such as weak land tenure arrangements and absence of carbon rights framework, but also fundamental challenges of agency nature such as conflicting interests vested in agriculture and tendency of concentration of benefits in the hands of few powerful actors. •Benefit sharing is examined in relation to conflict transformation.•Appropriation and provision oriented benefit sharing types are distinguished.•REDD+ policies use mechanisms of both types of benefit sharing.•Appropriation intensifies conflict in short run, reduces inequalities in long run.•Provision diffuses conflict, creates time and means for trust building in short run.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102623
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2614642476</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S138993412100229X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2614642476</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2953-adc2930124d181b7ffb2779affeae231a62668633a8eae78c61eaba0d41c79093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UE1LAzEUXETBWv0HHgIeZWs-tsmuB6G2VQsFwY9zeM0mbZY2WZNtwX9v6nr2NI9hZngzWXZN8Ihgwu-akfGh9dsRxZQkinLKTrIBKQXNBR7j03SzssorVpDz7CLGBmMiMGGDrH3UThvbobiBYN0agauR8s5srepQF8DFlL2Dznp3jxYu2vWmiyhxv0oT_A69zWez2yOlY4fW_qCDA6c0sg7F_Sp_hxQNDk1MsAouszMD26iv_nCYfT7NP6Yv-fL1eTGdLHNFqzHLoU7IMKFFTUqyEsasqBAVGKNBU0aAU85LzhiUiRCl4kTDCnBdECUqXLFhdtPntsF_7dNnsvH79Ng2SspJwQtaCJ5URa9SwccYtJFtsDsI35JgedxWNrLfVh63lf22yfbQ23RqcLA6yKisTp1rG7TqZO3t_wE_wdGEqg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2614642476</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Soliev, Ilkhom ; Theesfeld, Insa ; Abert, Eileen ; Schramm, Wiebke</creator><creatorcontrib>Soliev, Ilkhom ; Theesfeld, Insa ; Abert, Eileen ; Schramm, Wiebke</creatorcontrib><description>In light of growing pressure on forests benefit sharing is increasingly gaining attention as a governance approach to facilitating more equitable and sustainable interactions and outcomes. While benefit sharing is one of the key components of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks) programs and policies under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the approach is also actively debated within other resource governance contexts such as biodiversity and water. The debates however remain largely independent from one another. We particularly examine how benefit sharing could contribute to transformation of conflicts. Using discourse analysis and drawing from the broader scholarship of benefit sharing and property rights theory, we propose distinguishing appropriation-oriented and provision-oriented types of benefit sharing within REDD+. For sub-Saharan Africa, we see the need for such structured institutional analysis, which may point to particular emerging and persistent resource use inequalities as a new source of conflict. We investigate four case studies of REDD+ progress in Ghana, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Uganda that reveal some systemic challenges in achieving equitable and sustainable benefit sharing. The paper demonstrates that distinguishing and structuring appropriation and provision types of benefit sharing is indeed helpful as they are likely to be indicative of different outcomes. Our case studies also reveal challenges of policy-procedural nature such as weak land tenure arrangements and absence of carbon rights framework, but also fundamental challenges of agency nature such as conflicting interests vested in agriculture and tendency of concentration of benefits in the hands of few powerful actors. •Benefit sharing is examined in relation to conflict transformation.•Appropriation and provision oriented benefit sharing types are distinguished.•REDD+ policies use mechanisms of both types of benefit sharing.•Appropriation intensifies conflict in short run, reduces inequalities in long run.•Provision diffuses conflict, creates time and means for trust building in short run.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1389-9341</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7050</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102623</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Appropriation ; Biodiversity ; Carbon ; Carbon sink ; Case studies ; Climate change ; Conflict ; Conflict resolution ; Deforestation ; Discourse analysis ; Emissions ; Emissions control ; Forest degradation ; Forest management ; Forests ; Framing ; Governance ; Land tenure ; Property rights ; Provision ; Stocks</subject><ispartof>Forest policy and economics, 2021-12, Vol.133, p.102623, Article 102623</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Dec 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2953-adc2930124d181b7ffb2779affeae231a62668633a8eae78c61eaba0d41c79093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2953-adc2930124d181b7ffb2779affeae231a62668633a8eae78c61eaba0d41c79093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102623$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27865,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Soliev, Ilkhom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Theesfeld, Insa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abert, Eileen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schramm, Wiebke</creatorcontrib><title>Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa</title><title>Forest policy and economics</title><description>In light of growing pressure on forests benefit sharing is increasingly gaining attention as a governance approach to facilitating more equitable and sustainable interactions and outcomes. While benefit sharing is one of the key components of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks) programs and policies under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the approach is also actively debated within other resource governance contexts such as biodiversity and water. The debates however remain largely independent from one another. We particularly examine how benefit sharing could contribute to transformation of conflicts. Using discourse analysis and drawing from the broader scholarship of benefit sharing and property rights theory, we propose distinguishing appropriation-oriented and provision-oriented types of benefit sharing within REDD+. For sub-Saharan Africa, we see the need for such structured institutional analysis, which may point to particular emerging and persistent resource use inequalities as a new source of conflict. We investigate four case studies of REDD+ progress in Ghana, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Uganda that reveal some systemic challenges in achieving equitable and sustainable benefit sharing. The paper demonstrates that distinguishing and structuring appropriation and provision types of benefit sharing is indeed helpful as they are likely to be indicative of different outcomes. Our case studies also reveal challenges of policy-procedural nature such as weak land tenure arrangements and absence of carbon rights framework, but also fundamental challenges of agency nature such as conflicting interests vested in agriculture and tendency of concentration of benefits in the hands of few powerful actors. •Benefit sharing is examined in relation to conflict transformation.•Appropriation and provision oriented benefit sharing types are distinguished.•REDD+ policies use mechanisms of both types of benefit sharing.•Appropriation intensifies conflict in short run, reduces inequalities in long run.•Provision diffuses conflict, creates time and means for trust building in short run.</description><subject>Appropriation</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Carbon sink</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Conflict resolution</subject><subject>Deforestation</subject><subject>Discourse analysis</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Emissions control</subject><subject>Forest degradation</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Framing</subject><subject>Governance</subject><subject>Land tenure</subject><subject>Property rights</subject><subject>Provision</subject><subject>Stocks</subject><issn>1389-9341</issn><issn>1872-7050</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UE1LAzEUXETBWv0HHgIeZWs-tsmuB6G2VQsFwY9zeM0mbZY2WZNtwX9v6nr2NI9hZngzWXZN8Ihgwu-akfGh9dsRxZQkinLKTrIBKQXNBR7j03SzssorVpDz7CLGBmMiMGGDrH3UThvbobiBYN0agauR8s5srepQF8DFlL2Dznp3jxYu2vWmiyhxv0oT_A69zWez2yOlY4fW_qCDA6c0sg7F_Sp_hxQNDk1MsAouszMD26iv_nCYfT7NP6Yv-fL1eTGdLHNFqzHLoU7IMKFFTUqyEsasqBAVGKNBU0aAU85LzhiUiRCl4kTDCnBdECUqXLFhdtPntsF_7dNnsvH79Ng2SspJwQtaCJ5URa9SwccYtJFtsDsI35JgedxWNrLfVh63lf22yfbQ23RqcLA6yKisTp1rG7TqZO3t_wE_wdGEqg</recordid><startdate>202112</startdate><enddate>202112</enddate><creator>Soliev, Ilkhom</creator><creator>Theesfeld, Insa</creator><creator>Abert, Eileen</creator><creator>Schramm, Wiebke</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202112</creationdate><title>Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa</title><author>Soliev, Ilkhom ; Theesfeld, Insa ; Abert, Eileen ; Schramm, Wiebke</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2953-adc2930124d181b7ffb2779affeae231a62668633a8eae78c61eaba0d41c79093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Appropriation</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Carbon sink</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Conflict resolution</topic><topic>Deforestation</topic><topic>Discourse analysis</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Emissions control</topic><topic>Forest degradation</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Framing</topic><topic>Governance</topic><topic>Land tenure</topic><topic>Property rights</topic><topic>Provision</topic><topic>Stocks</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Soliev, Ilkhom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Theesfeld, Insa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abert, Eileen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schramm, Wiebke</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Forest policy and economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Soliev, Ilkhom</au><au>Theesfeld, Insa</au><au>Abert, Eileen</au><au>Schramm, Wiebke</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa</atitle><jtitle>Forest policy and economics</jtitle><date>2021-12</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>133</volume><spage>102623</spage><pages>102623-</pages><artnum>102623</artnum><issn>1389-9341</issn><eissn>1872-7050</eissn><abstract>In light of growing pressure on forests benefit sharing is increasingly gaining attention as a governance approach to facilitating more equitable and sustainable interactions and outcomes. While benefit sharing is one of the key components of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks) programs and policies under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the approach is also actively debated within other resource governance contexts such as biodiversity and water. The debates however remain largely independent from one another. We particularly examine how benefit sharing could contribute to transformation of conflicts. Using discourse analysis and drawing from the broader scholarship of benefit sharing and property rights theory, we propose distinguishing appropriation-oriented and provision-oriented types of benefit sharing within REDD+. For sub-Saharan Africa, we see the need for such structured institutional analysis, which may point to particular emerging and persistent resource use inequalities as a new source of conflict. We investigate four case studies of REDD+ progress in Ghana, Tanzania, Cameroon, and Uganda that reveal some systemic challenges in achieving equitable and sustainable benefit sharing. The paper demonstrates that distinguishing and structuring appropriation and provision types of benefit sharing is indeed helpful as they are likely to be indicative of different outcomes. Our case studies also reveal challenges of policy-procedural nature such as weak land tenure arrangements and absence of carbon rights framework, but also fundamental challenges of agency nature such as conflicting interests vested in agriculture and tendency of concentration of benefits in the hands of few powerful actors. •Benefit sharing is examined in relation to conflict transformation.•Appropriation and provision oriented benefit sharing types are distinguished.•REDD+ policies use mechanisms of both types of benefit sharing.•Appropriation intensifies conflict in short run, reduces inequalities in long run.•Provision diffuses conflict, creates time and means for trust building in short run.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102623</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1389-9341
ispartof Forest policy and economics, 2021-12, Vol.133, p.102623, Article 102623
issn 1389-9341
1872-7050
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2614642476
source PAIS Index; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Appropriation
Biodiversity
Carbon
Carbon sink
Case studies
Climate change
Conflict
Conflict resolution
Deforestation
Discourse analysis
Emissions
Emissions control
Forest degradation
Forest management
Forests
Framing
Governance
Land tenure
Property rights
Provision
Stocks
title Benefit sharing and conflict transformation: Insights for and from REDD+ forest governance in sub-Saharan Africa
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T03%3A49%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Benefit%20sharing%20and%20conflict%20transformation:%20Insights%20for%20and%20from%20REDD+%20forest%20governance%20in%20sub-Saharan%20Africa&rft.jtitle=Forest%20policy%20and%20economics&rft.au=Soliev,%20Ilkhom&rft.date=2021-12&rft.volume=133&rft.spage=102623&rft.pages=102623-&rft.artnum=102623&rft.issn=1389-9341&rft.eissn=1872-7050&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102623&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2614642476%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2614642476&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S138993412100229X&rfr_iscdi=true