Land tenure remains one of the most critical factors determining equity under REDD+, as we demonstrated through our previous article, ‘Roots of inequity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices”. Githiru responded to this paper, with some apparent challenges to both the empirical basis and theoretical arguments, that we had put forward. In this rebuttal, we demonstrate that there were no empirical differences between our original paper and Githiru’s response that had bearing on our findings, but that there are substantial differences in our interpretations of legality and equity, and consequently divergence about who can expect to benefit from REDD+. In a context where land ownership has historically and presently involved processes of dispossession, marginalization and even evictions, this rebuttal illustrates the complexity of the dominant discourse on land tenure and benefits under REDD+ and shows how social safeguards will need to take historical context and people’s current entitlements and agency into account, if equitable outcomes are to be defined and realized.
Authors and Publishers
Chomba, Susan
Kariuki, Juliet
Lund, Jens Friis
Sinclair, Fergus
Land Use Policy is an international and interdisciplinary journal concerned with the social, economic, political, legal, physical and planning aspects of urban and rural land use. It provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information from the diverse range of disciplines and interest groups which must be combined to formulate effective land use policies.
Data provider
What is ScienceDirect
Elsevier’s leading platform of peer-reviewed scholarly literature.
University libraries and institutions offer ScienceDirect access to their communities of researchers.
Researchers, teachers, students, healthcare and information professionals use ScienceDirect to improve the way they search, discover, read, understand and share scholarly research.