REDD+: A fine example of worst practice

Marcello, M., Thompson, M., & Umejesi, I. (2024). REDD+: A fine example of worst practice. Environmental Development 52 e101071. 10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101071.

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Throughout the “Age of Aid” (1944–1989) development has been seen as essentially economic in nature. Increasingly, however, it has become apparent that it is economic only in its consequences. It is something else - entitlements, democratization … social capital - that makes development possible. A different paradigm is therefore needed, and we begin by sketching that by way of the various “experiments” - nationalization, privatization and communitization - with Nepal's forests over the past half-century. Nationalization and privatization turned out to be abysmal failures; communitization a great, and continuing, success. We relate all this to the differing patterns of interaction between four fundamental forms of social solidarity - individualism (eg markets), hierarchy (eg governments and aid donors), egalitarianism (eg activist groups) and fatalism (eg carriers of the “double burden”: poverty and social exclusion) - and go on to show that only when each is (a) able to make its “voice” heard and (b) is following its dharma (acting according to its distinctive morality rather than undermining it) do we get development. REDD+, we then show, using examples of its implementation in Africa, is unremittingly hierarchical and does not satisfy these two conditions. We conclude with some suggestions for remedying these policy defects.

Item Type:	Article
Research Programs:	Population and Just Societies (POPJUS) Population and Just Societies (POPJUS) > Equity and Justice (EQU)
Depositing User:	Michaela Rossini
Date Deposited:	01 Oct 2024 13:26
Last Modified:	01 Oct 2024 13:28
URI:	https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/20012

Actions (login required)

View Item