'Glocalizing' land-use and forest governance in the tropics: examining research partnerships and international forest policies affecting Brazil, DRC and Indonesia.

Background: International and market forces are key drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, with transnational and market-based solutions in land-use and forest governance often missing economic, distributive, and environmental targets. Methods: This paper tackles both the framing and effectiveness of transnational initiatives affecting forest lands and peoples in the Global South, and the quality of relationships between institutions in the Global North and the Global South. Through more equitable research partnerships, this paper draws lessons from case studies in Indonesia (legality verification system in different forest property regimes), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (lifting of a moratorium on new logging concession), and Brazil (FSC in the Amazon region and the Amazon Fund). Results: International partnerships have privileged market-based instruments and commodity exchange between Global South and Global North countries, and the benefits of such mechanisms are unevenly distributed. Complementary and alternative policy instruments are discussed for each geography. Conclusions: Glocalizing land-use and forest governance implies in advancing equitable research partnerships between institutions in the Global South and Global North, and strengthening a community of practice for critical enquiry and engagement in partnerships for sustainable development. Land-use, climate and forest governance mechanisms must redress power dynamics, and partnership models, and commit to improving well-being and sustainable livelihood outcomes.

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects.

Adaptation and mitigation share the ultimate purpose of reducing climate change impacts. However, they tend to be considered separately in projects and policies because of their different objectives and scales. Agriculture and forestry are related to both adaptation and mitigation: they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and removals, are vulnerable to climate variations, and form part of adaptive strategies for rural livelihoods. We assessed how climate change project design documents (PDDs) considered a joint contribution to adaptation and mitigation in forestry and agriculture in the tropics, by analyzing 201 PDDs from adaptation funds, mitigation instruments, and project standards [e.g., climate community and biodiversity (CCB)]. We analyzed whether PDDs established for one goal reported an explicit contribution to the other (i.e., whether mitigation PDDs contributed to adaptation and vice versa). We also examined whether the proposed activities or expected outcomes allowed for potential contributions to the two goals. Despite the separation between the two goals in international and national institutions, 37% of the PDDs explicitly mentioned a contribution to the other objective, although only half of those substantiated it. In addition, most adaptation (90%) and all mitigation PDDs could potentially report a contribution to at least partially to the other goal. Some adaptation project developers were interested in mitigation for the prospect of carbon funding, whereas mitigation project developers integrated adaptation to achieve greater long-term sustainability or to attain CCB certification. International and national institutions can provide incentives for projects to harness synergies and avoid trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation.