IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v36y2018i8p1437-1457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inter-sectoral and multilevel coordination alone do not reduce deforestation and advance environmental justice: Why bold contestation works when collaboration fails

Author

Listed:
  • Ashwin Ravikumar
  • Anne M Larson
  • Rodd Myers
  • Tim Trench

Abstract

Policy makers, academics, and conservationists often posit that poor coordination between different land use sectors, and between levels of governance, as an underlying challenge for reducing deforestation and forest degradation. This paper analyzes this argument using data from interviews with over 500 respondents from government, nongovernmental organizations, private companies, local and indigenous communities, activists, and individuals involved in 35 diverse land use initiatives in three countries: Peru, Indonesia, and Mexico. We find that while there is strong evidence of widespread coordination failures between sectors and levels, more fundamental political issues preclude effective coordination. We argue that political coalitions act to oppose environmental objectives and to impede their opponents from participating in land use governance. Moreover, we find that where coordination between actors does occur, it does not necessarily produce environmentally sustainable and socially just land use outcomes. Where we do find successful initiatives to reduce deforestation and benefit local people, effective coordination between well-informed actors is often present, but it does not occur spontaneously, and is instead driven by political organizing over time by activists, local people, nongovernmental organizations, and international donors. We suggest that the global environmental community must recognize explicitly these political dimensions of land use governance in order to successfully collaborate with local people to reduce deforestation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ashwin Ravikumar & Anne M Larson & Rodd Myers & Tim Trench, 2018. "Inter-sectoral and multilevel coordination alone do not reduce deforestation and advance environmental justice: Why bold contestation works when collaboration fails," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(8), pages 1437-1457, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:8:p:1437-1457
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654418794025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654418794025
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654418794025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bastos Lima, Mairon G. & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Braña-Varela, Josefina & Gupta, Aarti, 2017. "A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: Lessons from Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Bennett, Aoife & Ravikumar, Ashwin & Paltán, Homero, 2018. "The Political Ecology of Oil Palm Company-Community partnerships in the Peruvian Amazon: Deforestation consequences of the privatization of rural development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 29-41.
    3. Palmer, Charles, 2011. "Property rights and liability for deforestation under REDD+: Implications for 'permanence' in policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 571-576, February.
    4. Ravikumar, Ashwin & Andersson, Krister & Larson, Anne M., 2013. "Decentralization and forest-related conflicts in Latin America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 80-86.
    5. Bebbington, Anthony & Abramovay, Ricardo & Chiriboga, Manuel, 2008. "Social Movements and the Dynamics of Rural Territorial Development in Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 2874-2887, December.
    6. Krister Andersson & Elinor Ostrom, 2008. "Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(1), pages 71-93, March.
    7. Brockhaus, Maria & Di Gregorio, Monica & Mardiah, Sofi, 2014. "Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 23-33.
    8. Barnes, Clare & van Laerhoven, Frank & Driessen, Peter P.J., 2016. "Advocating for Change? How a Civil Society-led Coalition Influences the Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 162-175.
    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. P. Gallo & E. Albrecht, 2019. "Brazil and the Paris Agreement: REDD+ as an instrument of Brazil’s Nationally Determined Contribution compliance," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 123-144, February.

    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. Xu, Tuoyuan & Zhang, Xiaoxiao & Agrawal, Arun & Liu, Jinlong, 2020. "Decentralizing while centralizing: An explanation of China's collective forestry reform since the 1980s," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    3. Bitoiu Teodora & Radulescu Crina, 2015. "Craving For Balanced Public Decision-Making On Market Failure Pertaining To The Interventionist Economic Policies Strainer," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 157-164, July.
    4. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Rodrigues De Freitas, Rodrigo & Simão Seixas, Cristiana & Regina Da Cal Seixas, Sônia, 2020. "Understanding the past to plan for the future: The small-scale fisheries at Ilha Grande Bay, Brazil," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    9. Kuralbayeva, Karlygash, 2021. "Forest carbon offsets over a smart ledger," SocArXiv hxtkg, Center for Open Science.
    10. Sills, Erin & Pfaff, Alexander & Andrade, Luiza & Kirkpatrick, Justin & Dickson, Rebecca, 2020. "Investing in local capacity to respond to a federal environmental mandate: Forest & economic impacts of the Green Municipality Program in the Brazilian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    11. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2017. "Trade and Environmental Quality in African Countries: Do Institutions Matter?," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, January.
    12. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter & Boezeman, Daan, 2015. "The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-45.
    13. Bayer, Patrick & Marcoux, Christopher & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2013. "Leveraging private capital for climate mitigation: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 14-24.
    14. Wehkamp, Johanna & Aquino, André & Fuss, Sabine & Reed, Erik W., 2015. "Analyzing the perception of deforestation drivers by African policy makers in light of possible REDD+ policy responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-18.
    15. Rana, Pushpendra & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2017. "Beyond committees: Hybrid forest governance for equity and sustainability," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 40-50.
    16. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    17. Di Corato, Luca & Dosi, Cesare & Moretto, Michele, 2015. "Multidimensional auctions for long-term procurement contracts under the threat of early exit: the case of conservation auctions," Working Paper Series 2015:6, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    18. Andersson, Krister, 2013. "Local Governance of Forests and the Role of External Organizations: Some Ties Matter More Than Others," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 226-237.
    19. Córdoba, Diana & Juen, Leandro & Selfa, Theresa & Peredo, Ana Maria & Montag, Luciano Fogaça de Assis & Sombra, Daniel & Santos, Marcos Persio Dantas, 2019. "Understanding local perceptions of the impacts of large-scale oil palm plantations on ecosystem services in the Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    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:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:8:p:1437-1457. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.