The Wicked Problem of Forest PolicyA Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
Book contents
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Part IWicked Problems and Policies
- Part IITools to Address Wicked Problems
- 9The Wicked Problems of Indonesia’s Forests Require Effective Institutions to Resolve Difficult Trade-Offs
- 10Power to the Forest People
- 11How Are Land-Use Multi-stakeholder Fora Affected by Their Contexts?
- 12Sustainable Landscape Investment
- 13Community Forestry in Liberia
- 14Are Some Forestry Problems Too Wicked?
- Index
- References
11 - How Are Land-Use Multi-stakeholder Fora Affected by Their Contexts?
Perspectives from Two Regions of the Peruvian Amazon
from Part II - Tools to Address Wicked Problems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 July 2020
Book contents
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
- Part IWicked Problems and Policies
- Part IITools to Address Wicked Problems
- 9The Wicked Problems of Indonesia’s Forests Require Effective Institutions to Resolve Difficult Trade-Offs
- 10Power to the Forest People
- 11How Are Land-Use Multi-stakeholder Fora Affected by Their Contexts?
- 12Sustainable Landscape Investment
- 13Community Forestry in Liberia
- 14Are Some Forestry Problems Too Wicked?
- Index
- References
Summary
Multi-stakeholder mechanisms have been touted as a more democratic and equitable alternative to forest and land use decision-making. It has been argued that these processes do not address power relations and thus maintain the status quo. In this chapter, we examine eight Multi-stakeholder fora in the Peruvian Amazon, half of which have been set up in the Madre de Dios region, and the other half in the San Martin region, both in the Peruvian Amazon. These regions represent two different poles of development paradigms in Peru. While the chapter does not provide a definitive answer around whether multi-stakeholder processes can address power inequalities, three preliminary ideal types are used to analyze these mechanisms, drawn from a realist synthesis review of the literature: decision-making, management and influence. This chapter illuminates how multi-stakeholder fora are affected by their contexts, as well as their process and outcomes.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Wicked Problem of Forest PolicyA Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes, pp. 301 - 327Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Barnes, G. and Child, B., editors. 2014. Adaptive Cross-Scalar Governance of Natural Resources. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bebbington, A. and Hinojosa Valencia, L.. 2011. Conclusiones: minería, neoliberalización y reterritorialización en el desarrollo rural. Pages 311–343 in Bebbington, A., editor. Minería, Movimientos Sociales y Respuestas Campesinas. Una Ecología Política de Transformaciones Territoriales. Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. 2006. Transforming power: from zero sum to win-win? IDS Bulletin 37(6):1–12.Google Scholar
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. A., editors. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., editors. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A. 2003. Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development 31(8):1325–1342.Google Scholar
Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., et al. 2015. The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme.Google Scholar
Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E. D. G., Holden, J., et al. 2006. Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57:259–275.Google Scholar
Fishman, A., Oliveira, E. and Gamble, L.. 2017. Tackling Deforestation through a Jurisdictional Approach: Lessons from the Field. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.Google Scholar
Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Scheyvens, H. and Cadman, T.. 2016. Does REDD plus ensure sectoral coordination and stakeholder participation? A comparative analysis of REDD plus national governance structures in countries of Asia-Pacific Region. Forests 7(9): Article 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, S. and Mohan, G.. 2005a. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Hickey, S. and Mohan, G.. 2005b. Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change 36(2):237–262.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. 2010. Indigenous protest in Peru: the “orchard dog” bites back. Social Movement Studies 9(1):85–90.Google Scholar
Kowler, L. F., Ravinkumar, A., Larson, A. M., Rodriguez-Ward, D. and Burga, C.. 2016. Analyzing Multilevel Governance in Peru: Lessons for REDD+ from the Study of Land-Use Change and Benefit Sharing in Madre de Dios, Ucayali and San Martin. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Kusters, K. 2015. Climate-Smart Landscapes and the Landscape Approach: An Exploration of the Concepts and Their Practical Implications. Wageningen: Tropenbos International.Google Scholar
Minang, P. A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O. E., et al., editors. 2015. Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi: ICRAF.Google Scholar
Monterroso, I., Cronkleton, P., Pinedo, D. and Larson, A.. 2017. Reinvindicacion de Derechos Colectivos: Reformas de Tenencia de Tierras y Bosques en el Peru (1960–2016). Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Pedroni, L., Dutschke, M., Streck, C. and Estrada, M.. 2009. Creating incentives for avoiding further deforestation: the nested approach. Climate Policy 9:207–220.Google Scholar
Reed, M. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417–2431.Google Scholar
Reed, M., Dougill, A. J. and Baker, T.. 2008. Participatory indicator development: what can ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications 18:1253–1269.Google Scholar
Robbins, P. 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Ward, D., Larson, A. M. and Gordillo-Ruesta, H. A.. 2018. Top-down, bottom-up and sideways: the multilayered complexities of multi-level actors shaping forest governance and REDD+ arrangements in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environmental Management 62(1):98–116.Google Scholar
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P. 2011. Kametsa Asaiki: The Pursuit of the ‘Good Life’ in an Ashaninka Village. PhD thesis, University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P. 2016. The angry earth: wellbeing, place, and extractive development in the Amazon. Journal for Applied Anthropology in Policy and Practice 23(3):43–53.Google Scholar
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., Larson, A. M., Hewlett, C. and Delgado, D.. 2020. Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change. World Development 127.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M. and Carr, E. R.. 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy 14:100–110.Google Scholar
Tippett, J., Handley, J. F. and Ravetz, J.. 2007. Meeting the challenges of sustainable development – a conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning 67(1):1–98.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1952. The essentials of bureaucratic organization: an ideal-type construction. Pages 18–27 in Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B. and Selvin, H. C., editors. Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
White, D. F., Rudy, A. P. and Gareau, B. J.. 2015. Environments, Natures and Social Theory towards a Critical Hybridity. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Williams, G. 2004. Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and (re)politicisation. Third World Quarterly 25(3):557–578.Google Scholar
Wilson, Z. and Perret, S.. 2010. Participation in water resource and services governance in South Africa: caught in the Acts. Pages 183–200 in Berry, K. and Mollard, E., editors. Social Participation in Water Governance and Management: Critical and Global Perspectives. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.