Suchergebnisse

The government of Rwanda is promoting agricultural intensification focused on the production of a small number of targeted commodities as a central strategy to pursue the joint policy goals of economic growth, food security and livelihood development. The dominant approach to increase the productive capacity of the land, crops and animal resources has been through large-scale land consolidation, soil fertility management, and the intensive use of biotechnology and external inputs. However, evidence has shown that many Rwandan farmers, who employ various strategies and mixed farming practices based on their specific economic, social, and environmental circumstances, face difficulties adopting the singular prescribed approach to become more productive, modern commodity producers. To empirically explore diversity in smallholders' strategies and their contributions to livelihoods and compatibility with the recent intensification policies, we conducted household surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews in rural and peri-urban zones in Rwamagana district in Eastern Rwanda. Our analysis demonstrates how the dominant approach to intensification and specialisation overlooks the heterogeneity and dynamic nature of smallholder strategies. Moreover, our findings illustrate that a comprehensive understanding of farmer heterogeneity is necessary to explain the critical disjuncture between the government's vision of modern agriculture and the ability of many smallholders to engage with this agenda and may inform opportunities to adapt policies to better align productivity goals and livelihoods. In doing so, we contribute to debates about the current framing of intensification policy that promotes Green Revolution technologies and emphasise alternative pathways for more inclusive and resilient agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

The government of Rwanda is promoting agricultural intensification focused on the production of a small number of targeted commodities as a central strategy to pursue the joint policy goals of economic growth, food security and livelihood development. The dominant approach to increase the productive capacity of the land, crops and animal resources has been through large-scale land consolidation, soil fertility management, and the intensive use of biotechnology and external inputs. However, evidence has shown that many Rwandan farmers, who employ various strategies and mixed farming practices based on their specific economic, social, and environmental circumstances, face difficulties adopting the singular prescribed approach to become more productive, modern commodity producers. To empirically explore diversity in smallholders' strategies and their contributions to livelihoods and compatibility with the recent intensification policies, we conducted household surveys and in-depth qualitative interviews in rural and peri-urban zones in Rwamagana district in Eastern Rwanda. Our analysis demonstrates how the dominant approach to intensification and specialisation overlooks the heterogeneity and dynamic nature of smallholder strategies. Moreover, our findings illustrate that a comprehensive understanding of farmer heterogeneity is necessary to explain the critical disjuncture between the government's vision of modern agriculture and the ability of many smallholders to engage with this agenda and may inform opportunities to adapt policies to better align productivity goals and livelihoods. In doing so, we contribute to debates about the current framing of intensification policy that promotes Green Revolution technologies and emphasise alternative pathways for more inclusive and resilient agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

AbstractAccess and allocation is one of the five analytical themes of the science plan of the Earth System Governance (ESG) project. Concerns over access and allocation are at the core of struggles and conflicts brought about by the often ineluctable trade-offs related to biodiversity conservation and the global, national and local governance systems that aim to contribute to global biodiversity conservation. Access and benefit-sharing mechanisms, integrated conservation and development projects, payments for ecosystem services or community conservation programmes have all tried balancing environmental objectives with concerns for the allocation of natural resources and associated rights within society, and for access to basic human needs. As a contribution to this special issue on access and allocation, this paper aims to contribute to the analysis of the relevance of questions of access and allocation to ESG by providing an in-depth review of the literature on access and allocation in biodiversity conservation at different scales. We describe how the concepts of access and allocation have been used and conceptualized in the literature produced between 2008 and 2018, and we discuss the two key issues which dominate the literature (1) benefit-sharing; and (2) the role of local institutions. By drawing on the trends and evidence from the literature, we consider the lessons for the next generation of ESG scholars and draw out some key policy implications to be included in the debates on the post-2020 strategic plan for biodiversity.

With an example from Rwanda, we ask how the State's policy strategy and attempts to construct "ideal agricultural subjects" resonate with the actual changes experienced by farmers themselves. We present three different empirical examples to show that a) when opportunities from agricultural transformation initially arise, only the wealthiest can capture them, and even then the government is seen as the main beneficiary; b) some priority crop growers experience an increase in income and savings due to higher productivity and better prices, while those who do not grow priority crops face land scarcity and lack of employment opportunities; c) requirements to upscale livestock production do not align with the strategies or capacities of many smallholders. We show that only endowed farmers with sufficient land and ability to engage in priority crops or livestock production can take advantage of the opportunities presented by agricultural transformation, while smallholders with constraints to their adoption of promoted changes face vulnerability to dispossession and poverty. We relate these findings to our broader conceptual frame, and encourage further research to explore the integration, modification, resistance to and impacts of idealized policies in Rwanda and across sub-Saharan Africa.

Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have recently gone through agricultural transformations towards increased production of commercial crops, primarily for export, to promote national economic growth. Rural populations are often at the center of such transformations as intended targets of State policies, though their roles in strategies for rural development and poverty alleviation are contested. We approach these changes not as a simple opportunity for accumulation, but rather as an instance of 'rupture', through which opportunities, risks and impacts are experienced differentially by the targeted farmers. With an example from Rwanda, we ask how the State's policy strategy and attempts to construct "ideal agricultural subjects" resonate with the actual changes experienced by farmers themselves. We present three different empirical examples to show that a) when opportunities from agricultural transformation initially arise, only the wealthiest can capture them, and even then the government is seen as the main beneficiary; b) some priority crop growers experience an increase in income and savings due to higher productivity and better prices, while those who do not grow priority crops face land scarcity and lack of employment opportunities; c) requirements to upscale livestock production do not align with the strategies or capacities of many smallholders. We show that only endowed farmers with sufficient land and ability to engage in priority crops or livestock production can take advantage of the opportunities presented by agricultural transformation, while smallholders with constraints to their adoption of promoted changes face vulnerability to dispossession and poverty. We relate these findings to our broader conceptual frame, and encourage further research to explore the integration, modification, resistance to and impacts of idealized policies in Rwanda and across sub-Saharan Africa.

Policies and projects aimed at Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and the sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+), have been regarded as an opportunity to improve forest governance while supporting rural livelihoods. However, now that REDD+ policies are being increasingly implemented, a number of justice-related challenges have emerged, including how social heterogeneity should be approached to avoid deepening the unequal access to land, resources and livelihood opportunities or even violating human rights in rural contexts. Applying an environmental justice lens, this article analyses the experience of three local communities in Nepal participating in REDD+ pilot projects, focusing on how indigenous peoples, women and Dalits have participated in and been affected by such initiatives. Our research shows that the studied REDD+ pilot activities in Nepal have been, to some extent, able to recognise, empower and benefit certain social groups, indigenous women in particular, whilst Dalits (particularly Dalit women) had a different experience. REDD+ projects have had limited impact in addressing more entrenched processes of political discrimination, male dominance in decision-making, and uneven participation driven by spatial considerations or specific social targeting approaches. While the projects examined here have been partially just, and rather sensitive to existing patterns of social differentiation, the complexity of social differentiation still makes it difficult to operationalise environmental justice in REDD+ implementation. Hence, we conclude that deficits in distributive, recognition and procedural justice cannot be resolved without first addressing wider issues of social injustices throughout Nepal, historically inherited along the dimensions of class, caste, ethnicity, gender, and spatiality.

REDD+ is an international policy aimed at incentivizing forest conservation and management and improving forest governance. In this article, we interrogate how newly articulated REDD+ governance processes established to guide the formulation of Nepal's REDD+ approach address issues of participation for different social groups. Specifically, we analyse available forums of participation for different social groups, as well as the nature of their representation and degree of participation during the country's REDD+ preparedness phase. We find that spaces for participation and decision-making in REDD+ have been to date defined and dominated by government actors and influential civil society groups, whereas the influence of other actors, particularly marginalized groups such as Dalits and women's organizations, have remained limited. REDD+ has also resulted in a reduction of influence for some hitherto powerful actors (e.g. community forestry activists) and constrained their critical voice. These governance weaknesses related to misrepresentation and uneven power relations in Nepal cast doubt on the extent to which procedural justice has been promoted through REDD+ and imply that implementation may, as a consequence, lack the required social legitimacy and support. We discuss possible ways to address these shortcomings, such as granting greater prominence to neglected civil society forums within the REDD+ process, allowing for an increase in their influence on policy design, enhancing capacity and leadership of marginalized groups and institutionalizing participation through continued forest governance reform. Key policy insights: -Participation is a critical asset in public policy design. -Ensuring wide and meaningful participation can enhance policy legitimacy and thus its endorsement and potential effective implementation. - Fostering inclusive processes through dedicated forums such as multi-stakeholder groups can help overcome power dynamics. -While REDD+ is open to participation by different actors through a ...

REDD+ is an international policy aimed at incentivizing forest conservation and management and improving forest governance. In this article, we interrogate how newly articulated REDD+ governance processes established to guide the formulation of Nepal's REDD+ approach address issues of participation for different social groups. Specifically, we analyse available forums of participation for different social groups, as well as the nature of their representation and degree of participation during the country's REDD+ preparedness phase. We find that spaces for participation and decision-making in REDD+ have been to date defined and dominated by government actors and influential civil society groups, whereas the influence of other actors, particularly marginalized groups such as Dalits and women's organizations, have remained limited. REDD+ has also resulted in a reduction of influence for some hitherto powerful actors (e.g. community forestry activists) and constrained their critical voice. These governance weaknesses related to misrepresentation and uneven power relations in Nepal cast doubt on the extent to which procedural justice has been promoted through REDD+ and imply that implementation may, as a consequence, lack the required social legitimacy and support. We discuss possible ways to address these shortcomings, such as granting greater prominence to neglected civil society forums within the REDD+ process, allowing for an increase in their influence on policy design, enhancing capacity and leadership of marginalized groups and institutionalizing participation through continued forest governance reform.

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552 ; Altres ajuts: UK Department for International Development (DFID) [grant number W07.68.415], UK Department for International Development and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [Development Frontiers grant number ES/N005740/1] ; REDD+ is an international policy aimed at incentivizing forest conservation and management and improving forest governance. In this article, we interrogate how newly articulated REDD+ governance processes established to guide the formulation of Nepal's REDD+ approach address issues of participation for different social groups. Specifically, we analyse available forums of participation for different social groups, as well as the nature of their representation and degree of participation during the country's REDD+ preparedness phase. We find that spaces for participation and decision-making in REDD+ have been to date defined and dominated by government actors and influential civil society groups, whereas the influence of other actors, particularly marginalized groups such as Dalits and women's organizations,have remained limited. REDD+ has also resulted in a reduction of influence for somehitherto powerful actors (e.g. community forestry activists) and constrained their critical voice. These governance weaknesses related to misrepresentation and uneven power relations in Nepal cast doubt on the extent to which procedural justice has been promoted through REDD+ and imply that implementation may, as a consequence, lack the required social legitimacy and support. We discuss possible ways to address these shortcomings, such as granting greater prominence to neglected civil society forums within the REDD+ process, allowing for an increase in their influence on policy design, enhancing capacity and leadership of marginalized groups and institutionalizing participation through continued forest governance reform.