REDD+ Conflict: Understanding the Pathways between Forest Projects and Social Conflict
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While this paper is indeed both relevant and interesting, the review done is not comprehensive enough. Simply searching for "REDD+/REDD" and "conflict" will miss out many key publications by only using the word "conflict". Instead, as in a proper structured review, several synonyms should be included, i.e. tension* OR harm* OR contestation* OR disappointment OR disagreement* OR violence* with proper use of asterics (*). Such search would be more likely to catch other relevant studies, e.g. by Sanders et al (2017), Mahanty and Milne (2019) and Pasgaard (2015), which qualify as selected case studies. Moreover, and related to the review method, authors should define early on and in more details what they mean by "conflict" and "conflict driver", ie. before p 2 midway. This should also provide input to the search.
I fully acknowledge that the author have put a lot of effort into this paper already and I do encourage them to extend the review and analysis and resubmit. The present analysis is still valid, but perspectives from potentially missing papers should be added to better cover this important research area.
Author Response
Revision Memo for Manuscript “REDD+ Conflict: Understanding the Pathways between Forest Projects and Social Conflict” (forests-1217375) in Response to Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
While this paper is indeed both relevant and interesting, the review done is not comprehensive enough. Simply searching for "REDD+/REDD" and "conflict" will miss out many key publications by only using the word "conflict". Instead, as in a proper structured review, several synonyms should be included, i.e., tension* OR harm* OR contestation* OR disappointment OR disagreement* OR violence* with proper use of asterics (*). Such search would be more likely to catch other relevant studies, e.g., by Sanders et al (2017), Mahanty and Milne (2019) and Pasgaard (2015), which qualify as selected case studies.
Response:
We expanded the search as suggested by the reviewer, resulting in additional 64 original papers. All papers were read by at least two authors. All three papers suggested by the reviewer and one more paper (Lounela 2020) was read and carefully assessed by all three authors of the manuscript. See attached excel file with details on the assessment process of the 64 papers. While the four papers (Sanders et al. (2017), Milne and Mahanty (2019), Pasgaard (2015) and Lounela (2020)) did not meet our selection criteria to become a case study, the papers were highly interesting and relevant, and we explicitly emphasised their usefulness in Section 3.1. In Section 5 we used the papers to introduce new aspects (e.g., the bureaucracy of REDD+) that were not covered in our selected case studies. The suggestion by the reviewer to expand the search and particularly the suggested papers clearly strengthened the discussion section and the paper overall. We hence highly appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion.
Moreover, and related to the review method, authors should define early on and in more details what they mean by "conflict" and "conflict driver", i.e.. before p 2 midway. This should also provide input to the search.
Response:
We have now moved the definition of conflict to the second paragraph of the introduction. See L53-56. We think that “a situation in which at least two actors perceive their goals, actions, values, needs or priorities as incompatible with each other” is sufficiently clear to understand what we mean by conflict. In the cited reference (Scheffran et al. 2012) more detail on the conceptualisation of conflict is provided but we do not see an added value of providing more detail here. We have expanded the definition of “conflict driver” making it even clearer what we mean by it. See L79-81.
I fully acknowledge that the author have put a lot of effort into this paper already and I do encourage them to extend the review and analysis and resubmit. The present analysis is still valid, but perspectives from potentially missing papers should be added to better cover this important research area.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for her/his encouraging words. We have expended the review and analysis as detailed above. The perspective from the suggested papers have been added. See for instance L564-575.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See file attached herewith: Neupane-review comments_forests-1217375-authors
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Revision Memo for Manuscript “REDD+ Conflict: Understanding the Pathways between Forest Projects and Social Conflict” (forests-1217375) in Response to Reviewer 2
The manuscript provides useful understanding about the conflicts that may arise between indigenous peoples and local communities and REDD+ project proponents while implementing REDD+ at project scale. However, the lessons learned from the project level implementations can readily be incorporated into national REDD+ policies and measures (PAMs) and REDD+ processes. Indeed, that is actually an essence of phase wise approach of REDD+ readiness. The REDD+ projects can be considered as demonstration activities by the respective case study countries.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for his/her appreciating words. We have expanded the discussion of the findings of our study with respect to national REDD+ policies, measures, and processes, as suggested by the reviewer. Please see revised discussion section, L549-564.
The theme of the research in general logically developed and the MS appropriately subdivided. The objective of the research is clearly stated and logically linked with the research gap. The choice of theoretical framework is appropriate. The results are clearly and understandably described and convincingly linked to the theoretical framework. Results are compared with peer-reviewed literature, however, the volume of literature could be increased as there are numerous literature available regarding the issue area dealt by this MS.
Response:
Again, we thank the reviewer for his/her positive comments on the structure, framework, and clarity of the manuscript. The volume of literature has been increased, as suggested by the reviewer. Specifically, we have added 11 studies, for instance Maraseni et al. (2014); Pandit et al. (2017);Milne & Mahanty (2019).
Discussion is consistent with the content and result of the section. However, the MS misses the opportunity to discuss the implications of the outputs of this research for the national REDD+ PAMs and processes in REDD+ countries. I indicated this opportunity in the comments section below (Detail comments).
Response:
We have now included a discussion of the implications of our study for national REDD+ policies, measures, and processes, as suggested by the reviewer. Please see revised and expanded discussion section and responses to detail comments below.
Detail comments
Abstract
L10: Not necessarily, but I would replace ‘plus conservation’ with ‘in developing countries’.
Response:
‘plus conservation’ has been replaced with ‘in developing countries’, as suggested. It has also been changed in the first sentence of the introduction.
L21: I would suggest as following: [..], the tenure rights and livelihood benefits of local communities.
Response:
We suggest leaving “rights” without limiting it to “tenure rights” as we are also referring to human rights and others. Similarly, we did not combine “livelihoods” and “benefits” to “livelihood benefits” (as suggested) because these are two separate issues. We want to express that it is important to place the livelihoods of the communities as well as potential benefits of the project for the communities at the centre of REDD+, not only community benefits.
L22: Delete typo ‘ e of the REDD+ projects.’
Response:
The typo was deleted.
Introduction
The dimension of intra- and inter-community conflicts has now been added. The sentence now reads “including conflicts within and between communities as well as between them and other actors such as project proponents and government representatives”. The first two references have been added (as we wanted to make reference to articles in peer-reviewed journals here).
Theoretical Framework
Materials and Methods
Did you find any conflicts between REDD+ and other policies/mechanisms in the case study sites? If yes, please discuss briefly.
Response:
Conflicts between REDD+ and other policies/mechanisms were not explicitly mentioned in the selected case studies. However, with reference to the Hoang et al. case study, we stress that conflicts can also arise between REDD+ implementers and local government authorities. See L477-481
If we look the eight projects under this study from the UNFCCC REDD+ context, the project activities simply did not address and respect the UNFCCC (decision 1/CP.16, appendix I) safeguards for policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to REDD+, particularly “ Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and “The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities [..].” At the same time, it seems that the projects did not set up, prior to project implementation, any mechanism to ensure permanency and to address leakage and any grievance redress mechanisms or equivalent. REDD+ under the UNFCCC will be implemented at national scale by the developing countries seeking to obtain and receive result-based payments. To be eligible for the payments, besides other REDD+ elements, the countries should address and respect the UNFCCC (decision 1/CP.16, appendix I) REDD+ safeguards. The study assesses REDD+ projects focusing on conflicts. The project activities can be considered as demonstration activities, and national REDD+ policy processes can draw lessons from the case studies undertaken in this study.
In discussion section, I suggest to highlight the above-mentioned context, and discuss the opportunities available for the case study countries and REDD+ countries in general how they can readily incorporate such lessons into their national REDD+ policies and measures, and REDD+ processes.
Response:
We have now highlighted the context suggested above, including the suggested paragraphs of the UNFCCC. See L.550-564. Further, we have expanded the discussion of our lessons learned for the wider REDD+ policies, measures, and processes. We have introduced the approach of FPIC and briefly discussed the bureaucracy behind REDD+, drawing on literature suggested by Reviewer 1.
References
Maraseni, T. N.; Neupane, P. R.; Lopez-Casero, F.; Cadman, T. (2014): An Assessment of the Impacts of the REDD+ Pilot Project on Community Forests User Groups (CFUGs) and Their Community Forests in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management, 136(37-46.
Milne, S.; Mahanty, S. (2019): Value and Bureaucratic Violence in the Green Economy. Geoforum, 98(133-143.
Pandit, R.; Neupane, P. R.; Wagle, B. H. (2017): Economics of Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Evidence from REDD+ Piloting in Nepal. Journal of Forest Economics, 26(9-29.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised version presents a more comprehensive review with additional papers and thus perspectives. My main point to move forward concerns the clarity of the analysis, in particular 1) the role of REDD+ and 2) the presentation of the results.
1) I suggest that the authors clarify and specify the "uniqueness" of REDD+ in the conflict pathways (in particularly missing in the initial Overview of cases section). This could lead to a deeper discussion of how REDD+ pathways differ, if so, from other pathways, e.g. a BAU scenario without REDD+, or alternative pathways with other protection programmes like PES or PFM/CFM/JFM.
Specifically for the case overview: In the Blum case and other cases, for instance, conflicts began long before REDD+ entered the scene. In the Galudra case, REDD is not mentioned so its role is not at all clear. Similarly, the authors could specify the role of REDD in the arrow diagrams. When did REDD "enter" the pathways? The role of REDD+ is much more clear on e.g. p 13 and later on as well, but a bit blurry before that.
2) Tables 2 and 3 hold a lot of (interesting) information, but can be presented in a more "readable" and analytic way. Could the effects and responses in Table 2 somehow be categorized or grouped, e.g. with color codes or vertical sub-headings? Is there a "typology" of responses that can be made visible? Similarly, in Table 3, a better structure or categorization of the Uganda case measures would be helpful for the reader, e.g. pooling or connecting the company measures versus other groups of measures?
I hope these suggestions are helpful to the authors.
Author Response
Revision Memo for Manuscript “REDD+ Conflict: Understanding the Pathways between Forest Projects and Social Conflict” (forests-1217375) in Response to Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The revised version presents a more comprehensive review with additional papers and thus perspectives. My main point to move forward concerns the clarity of the analysis, in particular 1) the role of REDD+ and 2) the presentation of the results.
1) I suggest that the authors clarify and specify the "uniqueness" of REDD+ in the conflict pathways (in particularly missing in the initial Overview of cases section). This could lead to a deeper discussion of how REDD+ pathways differ, if so, from other pathways, e.g. a BAU scenario without REDD+, or alternative pathways with other protection programmes like PES or PFM/CFM/JFM.
Specifically for the case overview: In the Blum case and other cases, for instance, conflicts began long before REDD+ entered the scene. In the Galudra case, REDD is not mentioned so its role is not at all clear. Similarly, the authors could specify the role of REDD in the arrow diagrams. When did REDD "enter" the pathways? The role of REDD+ is much more clear on e.g. p 13 and later on as well, but a bit blurry before that.
Response:
We have revised Figure 5, indicating when the REDD+/carbon project entered the conflict pathway. Specifying the role of REDD+ in Figure 5 is difficult as the space is limited and the role of REDD+ in conflicts is the main focus of the text in Sections 4 and 5 (as the reviewer notes).
The main aim of Figure 5 and Section 3.2 is to provide an overview which then serves as a base for further discussion (in Section 4 and 5). REDD is not mentioned in the Galudra paper as the paper focuses on a carbon offset project, rather than a REDD+ project. This has been made clearer now in the revised method section (see L105-107 and L110-111) and Figure 5 (see also L401).
2) Tables 2 and 3 hold a lot of (interesting) information, but can be presented in a more "readable" and analytic way. Could the effects and responses in Table 2 somehow be categorized or grouped, e.g. with color codes or vertical sub-headings? Is there a "typology" of responses that can be made visible? Similarly, in Table 3, a better structure or categorization of the Uganda case measures would be helpful for the reader, e.g. pooling or connecting the company measures versus other groups of measures?
Response:
Three sub-headings (“Loss of”, “Division between” and “Other effects”) have been introduced to Table 2 to better structure and categorize the conflict effects on local communities, and to improve the presentation of the information. We have also discussed and tried different categories for Table 3 but the information there is too divers to be usefully categorized. Also given the limited overall size of Table 3, we suggest leaving it in its present form.
I hope these suggestions are helpful to the authors.
Response:
Yes, they were. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
