726 J. B. Andrews et al.
REDD+ projects, and their scale, community involvement, certification standards and dependence on market-based mechanisms (Simonet et al., 2014). Put another way, the degree to which site-specific designfeatures align with broader economic/social/cultural institutions, such as free markets, rule of law and public opinion will determine the success and appropriateness of different REDD+ designs. Consequently, debates regarding whether it is worth per-
sisting with REDD+ as a global strategy, and in what form, should shift towards determining the specific contexts in which the instrument could be effective.We advocate such a transition because general debates concerning neo-liberalism and environmental commodification, although important, do not provide definitive guidance for immediate global chal- lenges. To this end we (a collaboration of partners involved
with REDD+ either directly as government and non- governmental implementing agencies, or indirectly as aca- demics) review the situation surrounding a REDD+ project in Zanzibar, Tanzania. We identify and discuss salient fea- tures of the project as implemented on the island of Pemba that, to the extent to which they are generalizable, demon- strate how, and under what specific conditions, REDD+ could be a valuable mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, we draw attention to the source of the threats (corporate and/or community), the importance of pre-existing management institutions, often overlooked complementarities between centralizedanddecentralizedman- agement, and counterintuitive consequences of leakage.
REDD+ in Zanzibar
In 2009 Tanzania was identified as an appropriate country for piloting REDD+ because of its extensive dry tropical for- est cover and rapid rates of deforestation. With the princi- pal support of the Norwegian government, Tanzania estab- lished eight site-specific REDD+ pilot projects, for which USD 93 million was pledged (Burgess et al., 2010). These initiatives aimed to revitalize a history of local community- based forest management, to secure land rights, to invest in local capacity for measurement, reporting and verification, and to engage the private sector (Burgess et al., 2010;Katani et al., 2016;Lundetal., 2017). One of these projects is Zanzibar’s Hifadhi ya Misitu
ya Asili programme, implemented under CARE Interna- tional. Zanzibar consists of two main islands (Unguja and Pemba, the latter known as the Green Isle; Supplementary Material 1). Pemba and Unguja are characterized by a mix of mangrove forest (7% on both islands combined but 13% on Pemba), coral rag forest (37% and 12%), high forest (4% and 2%), and agroforestry (32% and 44%) (Revolution- ary Government of Zanzibar, 2008; Terra Global Capital, 2014). As a result of a long history of agroforestry, the
original native forest is limited; the remainder contains a mixture of native forest with agroforestry species (introduced fruit, nut and spice trees). The annual rate of deforestation across both islands is 1.1% (Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar, 2014), driven primarily by population pressure (growing at 3.2% per annum; Siex, 2011) and poverty (on Pemba 90% of the population relies exclusively on charcoal and firewood for cooking). Fuelwood and charcoal account for 37% of the drivers of deforestation, shifting cultivation and fuelwood lots for a further 26%, and timber (for house and boat construction) for 5%; activities are con- ducted primarily by local community members, less so by local entrepreneurs (Terra Global Capital, 2014). Thus, de- forestation on Pemba is primarily a function of household rather than business or government interests, unlike many other threatened forests globally (Hosonuma et al., 2012). Only 14% of all biomass consumption is accounted for by institutions and business (which are primarily local baker- ies; Terra Global Capital, 2014). Rates of deforestation are expected to increase with population growth, renewed pres- sure for clove production (as global prices increase), and illegal offtake associated with construction for a burgeoning tourist sector on the southern island (Unguja) and govern- ment/military installations in the archipelago (Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar, 2008). The Hifadhi ya Misitu ya Asili programme was designed
to slow deforestation through poverty reduction, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through developing and strength- ening the capacity of communities tomanage existing forests (Caplow et al., 2014). It involved a collaboration between a local facilitating umbrella NGO (Jumuiya ya Uhifadhi wa Misitu ya Jamii Zanzibar), CARE International, the govern- ment’s Department of Forestry and Non-Renewable Nat- ural Resources, and a San Francisco-based technical advisor (Terra Global Capital). The principal activities conducted by Hifadhi yaMisitu ya Asili entailed: (1) facilitating registra- tion of Community Forest Management Agreements at the shehia (ward) level (thereby securing land tenure), (2)zoning high protection forested areas within each shehia, (3)sup- porting ShehiaConservationCommittees through education, planting, restoration and the patrol and fining of illegal forest harvesting, and (4) administering trial motivation payments on the basis of shehia performance. Eighteen shehia were invited by CARE, in conjunction with the Department of Forestry, to participate in the programme. Selection criteria included a high per cent of forest cover, rapid rates of defor- estation (amean of 3.3%per annumduring 2001–2010 for the 18 shehia initially selected), and free and informed consent. In August 2015 all 18 shehia had their Community Forest Management Agreements formally registered (Plate 1). At this point CARE International withdrew, and the project ended (Royal Norwegian Embassy, 2015), although the ap- plication for validation and verification of carbon issuance had not yet cleared the auditing process, a delay resulting
Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 725–731 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001376
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 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
