Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Competing or complementary claims on rural spaces in the Global South…

- - - - As most deals are between national governments and corporations, will they comply as it's only voluntary? Should it be made legal?
      - Does it regularise a practise that should be condemned? Should we be encouraging private investment into smallholder agriculture?
      - Doesn’t question structural issues of intrusive resource extraction
  - - - Ensuring the continuation of lease and allocated rights is not always secure --> lack of security removes incentive to participate
      - Kashwan: It’s not always a binary conflict between the environment and people – answer lies in political control – are government ready to hand over land to communities?
      - Fleischman: stickiness of large state departments – training is often about biophysical conditions and not about the people living there  very hard to chance mind-set of people in these government departments
      - Overseas Development Institute 2008: the technical, managerial and financial requirements stipulated by the framework are often incompatible with local realities and interests. A successful legal and institutional framework will incorporate the strengthening of existing institutions and enable the dissemination of locally appropriate practices as well as the local capacity for regulation and control
      - Reem et al (2011): Outlined a load of challenges for CFM based on evidence from the Amazon:
        
        Land Ownership: not uncommon for small settlements living traditionally to lack clear title to the forests and lands, as such their rights to harvest the land may come into dispute. Formal recognition of land ownership or rights to use is needed for legal forest management
        
        Capital: A community will require start-up capital to invest in the required infrastructure, equipment, and to hire a forester to organise and oversee management plans
        
        Technical Knowledge: Community members have a thorough understanding of forest ecology in a natural and historical sense, they often lack the technical knowledge and legal certification required to manage forest resources legally
        
        Market Access: Small villages that are often the focus of community forestry initiatives generally have limited access to markets due to their physical isolation, precarious transport and communication, limited contact with buyers and lack of marketing knowledge
  - - - Scope:
        
        How far should the rights go?
        
        Tribal rights advocates say populations should have complete control of their land
        
        Kashwan (2013): limited to include conservation responsibilities, limited eligibility, limited transferability - i.e. need to ensure that these people don't chop down all the trees and burn them/don't sell all their land to developers
      - Tsikata 2009:
        
        changing the terminology will not increase NGOs' productivity or even necessarily the NGOs' programs that are being implemented. Just by stating that the government and corporations should now be responsible for development as an issue of human rights does not mean that any changes in procedures will occur
        
        many NGOs that have combined the ideas of human rights along with development before the term "rights-based approach to development" was coined. There has been a natural linkage between development and rights and there has frequently been pressure on states and governments to be involved with issues of human rights as well as development. Therefore, in many cases, changing the terminology will not increase the effectiveness of the state
        
        disparity between NGOs in the north and NGOs in the south between their viewpoints and ideas in which to implement programs in relation to development and human rights separately. By trying to combine these two discourses across the globe can create problems of fragmentation of ideas and programs.