4.7 Article

Community evaluation of forest and REDD plus governance quality in the democratic Republic of the Congo

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 328, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116891

Keywords

Governance; Forests; REDD plus community; Evaluation; Democratic republic of the Congo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has vast forest resources, but poor governance and capacity limitations have hindered effective management. This study evaluates forest governance at the community level in the DRC using a survey method. The results indicate that REDD+ projects can improve perceived forest governance by the community through capacity-building, consultation, and long-term partnerships.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has over 100 million Ha of forest and has significant potential to benefit from these forests, including through REDD+ if they are managed effectively. Effective governance of forest landscapes is essential for environmental management and equitable harnessing of ecosystem service benefits for communities. Poor governance, political instability, and capacity limitations in the DRC are widely highlighted. However, there have been few, if any, attempts to evaluate forest governance in the DRC, especially at the community level. This paper reports a community-level evaluation of forest governance in the DRC, using a survey method. The results suggest that REDD+ projects have the ability to improve forest governance as perceived by the community. The research shows that building the right capacity, consulting and accessing the needs of the community and building long-term projects and partnerships a key success factors. These findings and the novel approach to supporting communities to evaluate their governance are applicable to similar community-level forest governance contexts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available