LAND COMPETITION AND LIVELIHOOD
ISSUES
There are competing demands for land use. Any policy that aims to promote ecosystem
carbon management must resolve conflicts between different land uses and take care not
to disadvantage the poor.
Policies that are to have a positive effect on carbon storage as food production or human habitation – in any one place,
and sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems (both natural and thereby leaving more land available for other uses (such as rec-
human-dominated) may aim to ensure that existing land-use reation, species conservation or carbon sequestration); another
continues – for example through enhanced protection of set- is to seek multiple uses or benefits from any one piece of land
aside areas that hold significant carbon stores, such as peat- (Green et al., 2005).
swamp forests – or they may aim to bring about large-scale
land use change, for example through changing agricultural Whichever approach is chosen, trade-offs will almost cer-
practices. Any such policies and their impacts will need to be tainly be necessary and in any individual case, particular
considered in the context of other, possibly competing needs people or groups of people will attach different priorities
for and uses of land: for food production, as living space, for to different kinds of land use. Where there are competing
maintenance of biodiversity, for recreation and to fulfil aes- possible land-uses, conflicts are likely to arise, with a strong
thetic and spiritual demands (Millennium Ecosystem Assess- likelihood that there will be different ‘winners’ and ‘losers’,
ment 2005). at least in the short and medium term. Without careful plan-
ning it is likely often to be the poor and disadvantaged who
How, then, can people optimise land use and land manage- lose out, for a variety of reasons: they are often highly de-
ment for a variety of needs? One approach is to maximise pendent on local resources, and are not in a position to buy
the efficiency of land-use for one overriding purpose – such in substitutes; they generally have less of a voice in decision-
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68