Climate Change and Climate Justice: Review of Gender Analysis in Redd+ Piloted Site

Basiru AO*

Federal University of Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Alabata, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author: Basiru AO, Federal University of Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Alabata, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria

Received: January 25, 2022; Published: July 23, 2022

Abstract

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation program, or REDD+, has been agreed by the global village first consensus step to establish a world acceptable forest governance mechanism and achieve both mitigation and adaptation of the effect of climate change effect on local, regional and national scale respectively. This review gives comprehensive examination concerning the formation mechanisms related to REDD+, snapshot of REDD up to date, theory of Climate change and gender justice as explained by Robert and Peluso theory on gender in Forest-Based communities. This review majorly included dimensions such as: learning from recent experience, right and tenure issue, participation, designing of REDD, sharing of the burden, distribution of ben- efits, local peoples voice, gender responsiveness to REDD and climate policy, Ribot and Peluso Access theory on gender and climate justice, REDD and gender decision making. Different research works has confirmed that communities living adjacent to forest are not adequately included in present REDD+ projects based on the criteria listed above, most especially women. Furthermore, institutional arrangement, designing, participation, right to issue, socio-cultural, unequal benefit sharing were reviewed also. REDD+ is also rec- ognized as an economic idea about free markets which bargains peoples’ connections with the natural environment through moneti- zation of nature. The review concluded on a structure which addresses gender future causes and warning related to REDD+ climate justice in form of procedural and distributive mechanisms for communities living adjacent to forest based on publication or studies must be strictly adhere to. This review therefore also assessed gender and climate justice in form of procedural and distributive lens in Forest Based communities where climate change action and adaptation plan has been piloted (such as REDD) and recommended that the socio-economic, access to some rights in form of resources, decision making and participation, sharing of both the effect and benefits accrued in resources conservation in making adaptation planning workable and gender-balanced factors must be addressed. The mechanism of benefit sharing which is the tenet of distributive justices in REDD+ study site and its delivery system based on gender must also be determined by evaluating the mode of disseminating the benefits, type of benefits, and the relationship that exist between the gender and policy makers. Finally, the response of the gender and climate justice must be weighed and the identification of important factors that hinder the wellbeing, procedural and distributive justice should be look into and address urgently.

Keywords: Distributive; Forest-Based Community; Governance; Procedural; Social Equity; Wellbeing

References

1. Adger WN. “Social aspects of adaptive capacity”. In Climate change, adaptive capacity and development (2003): 29-49.
2. Aguilar L. Foreward. In C. J. P. Colfer, B. S. Basnett, and M. Elias (Eds.), “Gender and forests: Climate change, tenure, value changes and emerging issues”. Oxon: Routledge Abingdon (2016).
3. Arora-Jonsson S. “Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change”. Global Environmental Change2 (2011): 744-751.
4. Baer P., et al. “The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World, The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework”. A report by Publication Series on Ecology, The Heinrich Bo¨ll Foundation, Christian Aid, EcoEquity and the Stockholm Environment Institute 1 (2007).
5. Basiru AO., et al. “Gender and Social Vulnerability Assessment of Forest-Based Communities to Climate Change and Variability in Southwest Nigeria”. Applied and Social Science International Research Journal (ASSIRJ) 1 (2018): 56-68.
6. Brown HC. “Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of Central Africa”. International Forestry Review2 (2011): 163-176.
7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.996pp. Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. (Eds.).
8. Corbera E., et al. “Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme”. Ecological Economics3 (2009): 743-761.
9. Griffiths T. “Seeing ‘REDD’? Forests, Climate Change Mitigation and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Moreton-in-Marsh, UK: Forest Peoples Programme (2008).
10. “Mainstreaming gender considerations into REDD+ processes: A gender and REDD+ roadmap for Uganda”. Towards pro-poor REDD+ project. Uganda: IUCN (2012).
11. Kabeer N. “Women’s empowerment, development interventions and the management of information flows”. IDS Bulletin6 (2010): 105-113.
12. Kariuki J and Birner R. “Are market-based conservation schemes gender blind? A qualitative study of three cases from Kenya”. Society and Natural Resources4 (2016): 432-447.
13. Khadka M., et al. “Gender equality challenges to the REDD+ initiative”. Nepal Mountain Research and Development3 (2014): 197-207.
14. Larson AM., et al. “The role of women in early REDD+ implementation: Lessons for future engagement”. International Forestry Review1 (2015): 43-65.
15. Okereke C and K Dooley. “Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: Towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement”. Global Environmental Change 20 (2010): 82-95.
16. Paavola J and N Adger. “Justice and adaptation to climate change”. Tyndall Centre For Climate Change Research (2002): 23.
17. Pagiola S., et al. “Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the ideas and the evidence to date from Latin America”. World Development2 (2005).
18. Pham TT., et al. “Women’s participation in REDD+ national decision-making in Vietnam”. International Forestry Review3 (2016): 334-344.
19. Ribot JC and NL Peluso. “A theory of access”. Rural Sociology2 (2003): 153-181.
20. Robledo C and Ma HO. “Great expectations because there are so few forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism”. Tropical Forest Update3 (2008).
21. Rosa H., et al. “Compensation for Environmental Services and Rural Communities: Lessons from the Americas and Key Issues for Strengthening Community Strategies, El Salvador: PRISMA (2003).
22. Stiem L and Krause T. “Exploring the impact of social norms and perceptions on women’s participation in customary forest and land governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo Implications for REDD+”. International Forestry Review1 (2016): 110-122.
23. Tuijnman W., et al. “Payments for environmental services, gendered livelihoods and forest management in Vietnam: A feminist political ecology perspective”. Journal of Political Ecology1 (2020): 317-334.
24. “Bali, Indonesia 3-15 December 2007”. 2/CP.13. Bali Action Plan (2014).

Citation

Citation: Basiru AO. “Climate Change and Climate Justice: Review of Gender Analysis in Redd+ Piloted Site". Acta Scientific Agriculture 6.8 (2022): 22-28.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Basiru AO. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.