IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v3y2014i3p1037-1058d39525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating Social Safeguards for REDD+: Lessons Learned from Benefit Sharing Mechanisms in Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak

    (Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China)

  • Tran Nam Tu

    (Center for Scientific and Technology Incubations and Transfers, Hue University, Hue City, Vietnam
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Lawal Mohammed Marafa

    (Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Currently, many studies on benefit sharing mechanisms (BSM) and the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme (REDD+) focus on poverty alleviation and livelihood development. However, relatively few studies incorporate an integrated livelihood framework. This study employs the sustainable livelihoods framework to assess the impact of BSM in Vietnam. The lessons learned could be used in creating social safeguards for REDD+. The communities in Central Vietnam involved in BSM were impacted by the programme on various dimensions. These dimensions, expressed in different types of capital, are interconnected and contribute to a person’s well-being. While the communities have restricted access to their natural forests, they benefited in terms of income diversification, knowledge improvement and network expansion. On the other hand, they faced food insecurity, they were more vulnerable to natural hazards, and their human, social and cultural capital faced risk of deterioration.

Suggested Citation

  • Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak & Tran Nam Tu & Lawal Mohammed Marafa, 2014. "Creating Social Safeguards for REDD+: Lessons Learned from Benefit Sharing Mechanisms in Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-22, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:1037-1058:d:39525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/3/3/1037/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/3/3/1037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 279-297, June.
    2. Matthew Leggett & Heather Lovell, 2012. "Community perceptions of REDD+: a case study from Papua New Guinea," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 115-134, January.
    3. Chambers, R. & Conway, G. R., 1991. "Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century," IWMI Books, Reports H032821, International Water Management Institute.
    4. Hayes, Tanya & Persha, Lauren, 2010. "Nesting local forestry initiatives: Revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 545-553, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mucahid Mustafa Bayrak & Lawal Mohammed Marafa, 2016. "Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Haas, Johannes Christian & Loft, Lasse & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2019. "How fair can incentive-based conservation get? The interdependence of distributional and contextual equity in Vietnam's payments for Forest Environmental Services Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 205-214.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gilani, Haris R. & Yoshida, Tomoko & Innes, John L., 2017. "A Collaborative Forest Management user group's perceptions and expectations on REDD+ in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 27-33.
    2. Anne Jerneck, 2015. "Understanding Poverty," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(4), pages 21582440156, November.
    3. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    4. Surya Gyawali & Sudarshan Raj Tiwari & Sushil Bahadur Bajracharya & Hans Narve Skotte, 2020. "Promoting sustainable livelihoods: An approach to postdisaster reconstruction," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 626-633, July.
    5. Benjamin Bathfield & Pierre Gasselin & Rémy Vandame & Santiago López-Ridaura & Luís García Barrios, 2010. "Adaptation de la gestion technique des producteurs de café et de miel face aux variations de prix au Guatemala : concepts et méthodes," Post-Print hal-00783500, HAL.
    6. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    7. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Saeed, Abdul-Razak & McDermott, Constance & Boyd, Emily, 2018. "Examining equity in Ghana's national REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    9. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    10. Garrett, R.D. & Grabs, J. & Cammelli, F. & Gollnow, F. & Levy, S.A., 2022. "Should payments for environmental services be used to implement zero-deforestation supply chain policies? The case of soy in the Brazilian Cerrado," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    11. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Shyamsundar, Priya & Ahlroth, Sofia & Kristjanson, Patricia & Onder, Stefanie, 2020. "Supporting pathways to prosperity in forest landscapes – A PRIME framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    13. Diane Kapgen & Laurence Roudart, 2023. "A Multidisciplinary Approach to Assess Smallholder Farmers' Adoption of New Technologies in Development Interventions," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(4), pages 974-995, August.
    14. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    15. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    16. William Clelland, 2021. "Visions, promises and understandings of development around Kenya’s Masinga reservoir," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(6), pages 990-1007, November.
    17. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    18. Ngoma, Hambulo & Hailu, Amare Teklay & Kabwe, Stephen & Angelsen, Arild, 2020. "Pay, talk or ‘whip’ to conserve forests: Framed field experiments in Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Lecegui, Antonio & Olaizola, Ana María & López-i-Gelats, Feliu & Varela, Elsa, 2022. "Implementing the livelihood resilience framework: An indicator-based model for assessing mountain pastoral farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    20. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:1037-1058:d:39525. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.