730 J. B. Andrews et al.
of interest amongst non-participating communities. This means that in places already suffering high offtake from ex- ternal sources, local people are likely to have high demand for the services that conservation programmes such as REDD+ can offer. Such interest is of course critical to the provision of free and prior informed consent, integral to acquiring Community Forest Management Agreement status.
Conclusion
We propose that generalizations about REDD+ are coun- terproductive. Instead, and by way of recommendations regarding implementation, we advocate identifying eco- nomic, ecological and institutional settings in which REDD+ may be able to deliver its promises. As a team working on Pemba, we believe that many of the currently popular critiques of REDD+ focus on conditions that are not generalizable. Firstly, the threat to communitymanage- ment does not always lie in countering multinational cor- porate interests in forests: forest-dependent communities can share some goals with advocates of REDD+ with respect to excluding outsiders. Secondly, REDD+ initiatives, when built onto pre-existing decentralized, community-based forestry institutions, will not inevitably fall prey to the pre- datory whims of centralized government: there are over- looked complementarities between centralized top-down governance and local community management, with each specializing in producing different institutional goods. Finally, there may be unanticipated benefits from the occurrence of leakage that can be harnessed to expand site-specific REDD+ interventions. We do not downplay the challenges facing incipient
REDD+ projects, nor suggest that conditional payments are a panacea for success or that REDD+ in Pemba is, orwill ever be, a success. Butwe do contend that dismissals of REDD+ as a doomed conservation fad fail to appreciate the diversity of programmes and actors, and the great amount of institutional learning that has taken place in this process.
Acknowledgements We thank the 2nd Vice President’s Office and the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources for permission to conduct research in Zanzibar, Daniel Karp, Neil Burgess and anony- mous reviewers for comments, Jon Salerno for accessing the shape files from the National Bureau of Statistics (Dar es Salaam), Aniruddha Ghosh and Kate Tiedeman for technical advice with regards to Google Earth Engine mapping, and Erica Meta Smith of Terra Global Capital for comments. Funding for this project was made possible by a Seed Grant for International Activities from University of California Davis Global Affairs.
Author contributions Writing: MBM, JBA, TC; processing of data for Fig. 1, writing Supplementary Material 2: AC; other inputs, ideas, background and field support: BBH, HSK, AM, ASN.
Conflicts of interest Jumuiya ya Uhifadhi wa Misitu ya Jamii Zanzibar is the implementing NGO, but all authors are motivated to
improve the chances of REDD+ being implemented on Zanzibar for the reasons argued herein.
Ethical standards This research was conducted with permission of the Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar. Ethical clearance was granted by University of California Davis Institutional Review Board ID991486 to MBM for ‘Community-Based Forest Conservation under REDD in Pemba, Zanzibar’, and the research otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
ANDERSSON, K.P., SMITH, S.M., ALSTON, L.J., DUCHELLE, A.E., MWANGI, E., LARSON, A.M. et al. (2018) Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy, 72, 510–522.
ANDREWS,J.&BORGERHOFF MULDER,M. (2018) Cultural group selection and the design of REDD+: insights from Pemba. Sustainability Science, 13, 93–107.
ANGELSEN,A.(2008) Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications. CIFOR, Borgor, Indonesia.
ANGELSEN,A.(2017) REDD+ as result-based aid: general lessons and bilateral agreements of Norway. Review of Development Economics, 21, 2371–264.
ATMADJA,S. & VERCHOT,L.(2012) A review of the state of research, policies and strategies in addressing leakage from reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17, 311–336.
BARR, C.M. & SAYER, J.A. (2012) The political economy of reforestation and forest restoration in Asia–Pacific: critical issues for REDD+. Biological Conservation, 154, 9–19.
BARTHOLDSON, O., ABDALLAH, J.M., MARQUARDT,K.& SALOMONSSON,L.(2019) Is REDD+ more of an institutional affair than a market process? The concealed social and cultural consequences of an ongoing REDD+ project in Kolo Hills, Tanzania. Forests, 10, 618.
BENJAMINSEN,G.(2014) Between resistance and consent: project— village relationships when introducing REDD+ in Zanzibar. Forum for Development Studies, 41, 377–398.
BLOMLEY, T., EDWARDS, K., KINGAZI, S., LUKUMBUZYA, K.,MÄKELÄ, M. & VESA,L. (2016) REDD+ Hits the Ground: Lessons Learned From Tanzania’s REDD+ Pilot Projects. IIED, London, UK.
BLOMLEY, T., EDWARDS, K., KINGAZI, S., LUKUMBUZYA, K.,MÄKELÄ, M.& VESA,L.(2017) When community forestry meets REDD+: has REDD+ helped address implementation barriers to participatory forest management in Tanzania? Journal of Eastern African Studies, 11, 549–570.
BROCKHAUS, M., OBIDZINSKI, K., DERMAWAN, A., LAUMONIER,Y.& LUTTRELL,C.(2012) An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 30–37.
BROOKS, J.S.,WAYLEN, K.A.&BORGERHOFF MULDER,M.(2012)How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 21265–21270.
BROWN, I.M. (2013) Redeeming REDD: Policies, Incentives and Social Feasibility. Earthscan, Oxford, UK.
BRZOSKIEWICZ,R.(2018) Tanzania Spice Industry Outlook to 2018— Driven by Local Association Endeavors and Organic Farming.
satprnews.com/2018/01/24/tanzania-spice-industry-outlook-to- 2018-driven-by-local-association-endeavors-and-organic-farming [accessed 23 February 2018].
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
