the place of community forest management in the redd+ landscape

Clicks: 227
ID: 230092
2016
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #96 of 149 articles by views in tecnologia del agua

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 149 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Community forest management (CFM) is identified by many actors as a core strategy for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+). Others however see REDD+ as a danger to CFM. In response to these contrasting views, we carried out a systematic review of CFM case studies to look at CFM’s potential role in achieving forest carbon benefits and social co-benefits for forest communities. We evaluated the potential impacts of REDD+ on CFM. Our review showed that there is strong evidence of CFM’s role in reducing degradation and stabilizing forested landscapes; however, the review also showed less evidence about the role of CFM in reducing deforestation. For social benefits, we found that CFM contributes to livelihoods, but its effect on poverty reduction may be limited. Also, CFM may not deal adequately with the distribution of benefits within communities or user groups. These insights are important for CFM-based REDD+ intervention; measures should be adopted to overcome these gaps. Innovative incentive structures to existing CFM are discussed. The recognition of rights for forest communities is one first step identified in promoting CFM. We call for sound empirical impact evaluations that analyze CFM and CFM-based REDD+ interventions by looking at both biophysical and social outcomes.
Reference Key
pelletier2016foreststhe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Johanne Pelletier;Nancy Gélinas;Margaret Skutsch
Journal tecnologia del agua
Year 2016
DOI
10.3390/f7080170
URL
http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/7/8/170
Keywords
livelihoods

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.