IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcejxx/v13y2020i2p223-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

At a crossroads: consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002-2017

Author

Listed:
  • Chloe Ginsburg
  • Stephanie Keene

Abstract

Insecure, contested, and unjust forest tenure arrangements undermine forest investment and protection, fuel conflict, and jeopardize Indigenous Peoples’, local communities’, and indigenous and community women’s rights, livelihoods, and development prospects. While legally recognized community forests tend to have lower rates of deforestation, store more carbon and benefit more people than forests managed by either public or private entities, evidence shows over two-thirds of forests remain controlled by governments – a significant portion of which is contested by indigenous and local communities who traditionally own, manage, and depend on these forests. It is therefore all the more critical that governments support and advance communities’ forest tenure rights. Using longitudinal tenure data and analysis of global forest ownership trends developed by the Rights and Resources Initiative, this article details the distribution of statutory forest rights across 58 countries covering nearly 92% of global forests over the fifteen-year period from 2002–2017.

Suggested Citation

  • Chloe Ginsburg & Stephanie Keene, 2020. "At a crossroads: consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002-2017," China Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 223-248, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcejxx:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:223-248
    DOI: 10.1080/17538963.2020.1755129
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17538963.2020.1755129
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17538963.2020.1755129?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rcejxx:v:13:y:2020:i:2:p:223-248. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcej .

    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.