Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:56:59.057Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property Rights and Participation in REDD+: The Case of Mozambique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2012

Grit Ludwig
Grit Ludwig*
Affiliation:
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Department of Environmental and Planning Law, Leipzig (Germany). The author worked in Mozambique, Nampula Province, between 2005 and 2007. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation with the help of the emerging REDD+ mechanism provides an opportunity to combine climate protection with biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. However, one of the crucial questions is how the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities will be protected in REDD+ implementation. This article depicts the challenges involved in protecting the rights of local communities in the case of Mozambique. The study finds that constraints regarding property and participation rights arise, in particular, from incomplete procedures of delimitation and titling, corruption, lack of rights awareness, lack of democratic structures within the community or poor infrastructure. Because many states with a REDD+ potential are not able to guarantee sufficient rights protection, the REDD+ mechanism itself needs to be endowed with strong safeguards for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Keywords

REDD+Land TenureParticipationLocal CommunitiesMozambique
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , October 2012 , pp. 381 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 IPCC, ‘Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report’, 2007, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.

2 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), ‘Global Forest Resources Assessment – Key Findings’, 2010, at p. 3, available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en.

3 E.g., Lewis, S.L. et al. ., ‘Increasing Carbon Storage in Intact African Tropical Forests’ (2009) 457(7232) Nature, pp. 1003–U1003.Google Scholar

4 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ‘Global Biodiversity Outlook 3’ (CBD: 2010), at p. 32, available at: http://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/prints/gbo3-final-en.pdf.

5 Grainger, A. et al. ., ‘Biodiversity and REDD at Copenhagen’ (2009) 19(21) Current Biology, pp. 974–6Google Scholar, at 974. See also Ricketts, T.H. et al. ., ‘Indigenous Lands, Protected Areas, and Slowing Climate Change’ (2010) 8(3) PLoS Biology, pp. 1–4, at 1.Google Scholar

6 Geist, H.J. & Lambin, E.F., ‘Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation’ (2002) 52(2) BioScience, pp. 143–50Google Scholar; Grainger, A., ‘Difficulties in Tracking the Long-Term Global Trend in Tropical Forest Area’ (2008) 105(2) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pp. 818–23Google Scholar; Eliasch, J., Climate Change: Financing Global Forests – The Eliasch Review (The Stationery Office, 2008), pp. 35–6.Google Scholar

7 DeFries, R.S. et al. ., ‘Deforestation Driven by Urban Population Growth and Agricultural Trade in the Twenty-First Century’ (2010) 3(3) Nature Geoscience, pp.178–81Google Scholar; Nepstad, D. et al. ., ‘The End of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon’ (2009) 326 Science, pp. 1350–1Google Scholar, at 1350; Rudel, T.K. et al. ., ‘Changing Drivers of Deforestation and New Opportunities for Conservation’ (2009) 23(6) Conservation Biology, pp. 1396–405Google Scholar, at 1397. The range of the use of agricultural products reaches from food and feed, via natural renewable resources for the industry, to energetic use of biomass. One reason for the increase in the demand for agricultural products is the growing world population, which will probably reach 9 billion in 2050. On the other hand, dietary habits are changing and include more land-intensive produced meat and dairy products. Climate change and energy security aspects have led to the promotion of biomass as a source of energy. With the decrease in oil reservoirs, industry is looking for alternative raw materials: see Douglas, J. & Simula, M., The Future of the World’s Forests: Ideas vs Ideologies (Springer, 2010), at p. 84.Google Scholar

8 Douglas & Simula, ibid, at p. 96; Geist, H.J. & Lambin, E.F., What Drives Tropical Deforestation? (LUCC, 2001), at p. 44.Google Scholar

9 Douglas & Simula, ibid, pp. 145–6; Rüger, N. et al. ., ‘Long-Term Impacts of Fuelwood Extraction on a Tropical Montane Cloud Forest’ (2008) 11 Ecosystems, pp. 868–81Google Scholar, at 877; Douglas &Simula, n. 7 above, at p. 95.

10 Kanninen, M. et al. ., Do Trees Grow on Money? The Implications of Deforestation Research for Policies to Promote REDD (Center for International Forestry Research, 2007), at pp. 21–3Google Scholar; Hansen, C.P., Lund, J.F. & Treue, T., ‘Neither Fast, Nor Easy: The Prospect of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) in Ghana’ (2009) 11(4) International Forestry Review, pp. 439–55Google Scholar, at 444–5.

11 Paras. 6 and 10 of the Copenhagen Accord, Decision 2/CP.15, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, 18 Dec. 2009, available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf.

12 New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int.

13 Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Decision 1/CP.16, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, 11 Dec. 2010, Sec. III.C, available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf.

14 Other questions are, e.g., how to distribute the funds between forest nations: cf. Phelps, J. et al. ., ‘What Makes a “REDD” Country?’ (2010) 20(2) Global Environmental Change, pp. 322–32Google Scholar, at 332; Okereke, C. & Dooley, K., ‘Principles of Justice in Proposals and Policy Approaches to Avoided Deforestation: Towards a Post-Kyoto Climate Agreement’ (2009) 20(1) Global Environmental Change, pp. 82–95Google Scholar, at 84. Another point is that incentives need to be high enough to compete with other land use options: Persson, M.U. & Azar, C., ‘Preserving the World’s Tropical Forests: A Price on Carbon May Not Do’ (2010) 44(1) Environmental Science and Technology, pp. 210–5Google Scholar, at 214.

15 Kanninen et al., n. 10 above, at pp. 17–9.

16 Secretariat of the CBD, n. 4 above, at pp. 40–1; Phelps et al., n. 14 above, at p. 324; Skutsch, M.M. & Ba, L., ‘Crediting Carbon in Dry Forests: The Potential for Community Forest Management in West Africa’ (2010) 12(4) Forest Policy and Economics, pp. 264–70Google Scholar, at 269; Chhatre, A. & Agrawal, A., ‘Trade-offs and Synergies between Carbon Storage and Livelihood Benefits from Forest Commons’ (2009) 106(42) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pp.17667–70Google Scholar, at 17669; Murdiyarso, D. & Skutsch, M.M. (eds.), Community Forest Management as a Carbon Mitigation Option: Case Studies (Center for International Forestry Research, 2006), at pp. 4–6.Google Scholar

17 Douglas & Simula, n. 7 above, at p. 182.

18 Indigenous peoples and local communities may be unable to participate in conservation payment programmes because of a lack of property rights (to forests or forest carbon), lack of information, lack of legal protection, high implementation and transaction costs, or because historical contributions to conservation render them ineligible.

19 Okereke & Dooley, n. 14 above, at p. 93.

20 Ibid., at p. 91; Alden Wily, L., ‘Custom and Commonage in Africa: Rethinking the Orthodoxies’ (2008) 25(1) Land Use Policy, pp. 43–52, at 47.Google Scholar

21 Phelps, J., Webb, E.L. & Agrawal, A., ‘Does REDD+ Threaten to Recentralize Forest Governance?’ (2010) 328(5976) Science, pp. 312–3Google Scholar; Sandbrook, C. et al. ., ‘Carbon, Forests and the REDD Paradox’ (2010) 44(03) Oryx: The International Journal of Conservation, pp. 330–4Google Scholar, at 332.

22 For opportunities and challenges in detail, see Lawlor, K. & Huberman, D., ‘Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and Human Rights’, in Campese, J., Sunderland, T., Greiber, T. & Oviedo, G. (eds.), Rights-Based Approaches: Exploring Issues and Opportunities for Conservation (CIFOR & IUCN, 2009), pp. 269–86, at 271–2.Google Scholar

23 Geldenhuys, C.J. & Golding, J.S., ‘Resource Use Activities, Conservation and Management of Natural Resources of African Savannas’, in Faleiro, F.G. & de Farias Neto, A.L. (eds.), Savanas: Desafios estratégias para o equilíbrio entre sociedade, agronegócio e recurso naturais (Embrapa, 2008), pp. 225–60Google Scholar, at 230; Global Forest Coalition (GFC), REDD Realities (GFC, 2009), at p. 53, with reference to Mozambican National Forest Inventory: Inventário Florestal Nacional, National Directorate of Lands and Forests (DNTF), Maputo, 2008. Miombo forests have a lower wood carbon storage per hectare than humid forests, but because they cover such extensive areas, their overall contribution is considered to be quite high: see Dewees, P.A. et al. ., ‘Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, Incentives and Options for the Rural Poor’ (2010) 2(1) Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, pp. 57–73Google Scholar, at 67.

24 Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics.

25 A. Salomão & F. Matose, ‘Towards Community-Based Forest Management of Miombo Woodlands in Mozambique’, available at: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/miombo/docs/CBNRMMozambique1207.pdf.

26 Di Lucia, L., ‘External Governance and the EU Policy for Sustainable Biofuels: The Case of Mozambique’ (2010) 38(11) Energy Policy pp. 7395–403Google Scholar, at 7397; Nhantumbo, I. & Salomão, A., Biofuels, Land Access and Rural Livelihoods in Mozambique (International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2010), at p. 7.Google Scholar

27 V. Ribeiro, ‘An Overview of the Problems Faced by Mozambique’s Forests, Forest-Dependent Peoples and Forest Workers’, at p. 4, available at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Mozambique.html; Mackenzie, C., Forest Governance in Zambézia, Mozambique: Chinese Takeaway! (Fongza, 2006), at pp. 73–4Google Scholar, available at: http://www.illegal-logging.info/uploads/Mozambique_China.pdf.

28 Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Sitoe, A. & Salomão, A., How is REDD+ Unfolding in Southern Africa’s Dry Forests? A Snapshot from Mozambique (CIFOR, 2011), at p. 2Google Scholar, with reference to Marzoli, A., Inventário Florestal Nacional, Avaliação Integrada das Florestas de Moçambique (DNTF, Ministry of Agriculture, Maputo, 2007).Google Scholar

29 Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Mardas, N. & Sosis, K., The Little REDD+ Book (Global Canopy Foundation, 2009), p. 28.Google Scholar

30 A list of REDD Country Participants is available at: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/Node/19.

31 Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sitoe & Salomão, n. 28 above, at p. 4.

32 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto (Japan), 11 Dec. 1997, in force 16 Feb. 2005, available at: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.

33 Art. 12 of the Kyoto Protocol does not include safeguards concerning rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. This has resulted in adverse effects on the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities of some CDM projects, e.g., through controversial large-scale plantations: see Phelps et al., n. 14 above, at p. 323.

34 N. 12 above.

35 Meridian Institute, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): An Options Assessment Report (Meridian Institute, 2009), at pp. 25–7.Google Scholar

36 There are 166 parties to the ICCPR (n. 42 below), 160 to the ICESCR (n. 43 below), 194 to the UNFCCC (n. 12 above), and 190 to the Kyoto Protocol (n. 32 above).

37 Rajamani, L., ‘The Increasing Currency and Relevance of Rights-Based Perspectives in the International Negotiations on Climate Change’ (2010) 22(3) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 391–429Google Scholar, at 412.

38 Annex G, para. 2 lit. (c)–(d) of the Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention on its Eighth Session, Copenhagen (Denmark), 7–15 Dec. 2009, UN Doc. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/17, 5 Feb. 2010, available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca8/eng/17.pdf; and Appendix I, para. 2 lit. (c)–(d); Decision 1/CP.16, n. 13 above.

39 Decision 1/CP.16, n. 13 above, no. 71.d.

40 Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention in Copenhagen, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2010/2, 11 Feb 2010, Annex V, para. 5(c), available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/02.pdf.

41 For a more comprehensive overview on the relevant international law, see Lyster, R., ‘REDD+, Transparency, Participation and Resource Rights: The Role of Law’ (2011) 14(2) Environmental Science & Policy, pp. 118–26, at 119–20.Google Scholar

42 New York, NY (US), 16 Dec. 1966, in force 23 Mar 1976, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm.

43 New York, NY (US), 16 Dec. 1966, in force 3 Jan. 1976, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm.

44 New York, NY (US), 10 Dec. 1948, GA Res. 217 A (III), UN Doc. A/810, 71, available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr.

45 UN Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 13 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol.1), Annex 1, available at: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1.htm.

46 Rome (Italy), 4 Nov. 1950, in force 3 Sept. 1953. The 1st Protocol was adopted 20 Mar. 1952, in force 18 May 1954. Both are available at: http://conventions.coe.int

47 San José (Costa Rica), 22 Nov. 1969, in force 18 July 1978, available at: http://www.cidh.org/basicos/English/Basic3.American%20Convention.htm.

48 Banjul (Gambia), 27 June 1981, in force 21 Oct. 1986, available at: http://www.achpr.org/english/_info/charter_en.html.

49 UN Doc. A/RES/61/295, 13 Sept. 2007, available at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.

50 UN Doc. A/RES/47/135, 18 Dec. 1992, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm.

51 ILO Convention No. 169, Geneva (Switzerland), 27 June 1989, in force 5 Sep.1991, available at: http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C169.

52 Lynch, G., ‘Kenya’s New Indigenous: Negotiating Local Identities in a Global Context’ (2011) 17(1) Nations and Nationalism, pp.148–67Google Scholar, at 156–7; Pelican, M., ‘Umstrittene Rechte indigener Völker: das Beispiel der Mbororo in Nordwestkamerun (Contested Indigenous Rights: The Case of the Mbororo in Northwest Cameroon)’ (2010) 135(1) Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, pp. 39–60Google Scholar, at 41–2.

53 Niezen, R., The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity (University of California Press, 2003), at p. 19.Google Scholar

54 African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR), Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities (ACHPR & International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2005), at p. 86.Google Scholar

55 Cotula, L. & Mayers, J., Tenure in REDD: Start-Point or Afterthought? (IIED, 2009)Google Scholar; Global Forest Coalition, n. 23 above, at p. 85.

56 Cf. for the discussion, Shaw, M.N. (ed.), International Law (Cambridge University Press, 6th edn, 2008), 279Google Scholar; Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 1998), at p. 574Google Scholar; Banning, T.R.G., The Human Right to Property (Intersentia, 2001), at p. 58.Google Scholar

57 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights cases involving Art. 21 of the ACHR: The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Judgment of 31 Aug. 2001; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, Judgment of 17 June 2005; and Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment of 28 Nov. 2007, all available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/archive.asp. In the Mayagna case the court found that the state must obtain consent from indigenous communities for activities on lands they have historically occupied and that the state must enact procedures to grant these communities legal title to their lands in order to uphold the right to property. In the Saramaka case the same court found that Art. 21 indicates the right of the Saramaka people to property. It was further found that this right requires the state to grant them legal title to their customary lands. However, the state may still restrict the ‘use of property in circumstances that are defined by law and that are proportionate to the achievement of a legitimate objective’.

58 There are a few states that have already recognized carbon sequestration rights as separate from the property in trees or the forest. For the example of Australia cf. Lyster, n. 41 above, at p. 123. See also Takacs, D., Forest Carbon: Law and Property Rights (Conservation International, 2009), at pp. 21–3.Google Scholar

59 Constituição da República de Moçambique 2004, English version available at: http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/Constitution_%28in_force_21_01_05%29%28English%29-Mozlegal.pdf.

60 Government of Mozambique 1997, Lei de Terra 19/97. English translation available at: http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/moz15369E.pdf.

61 The titleholder of the right of land use and benefit may mortgage the immovable assets and improvements which he or she has duly been authorized to make on the land, or over which he or she has legally acquired a right of ownership: Art. 16(5) Land Law.

62 Lei de Florestas e Fauna Bravia 1999, Law No. 10/99, available at: http://www.legisambiente.gov.mz/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=37&Itemid=39.

63 Available at: http://www.legisambiente.gov.mz/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&Itemid=39.

64 Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) & International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities (RRI & ITTO, 2009), at p. 16Google Scholar. The study accounts for 84% of African tropical forests.

65 Salomão & Matose, n. 25 above, at p. 13.

66 Pagden, A., ‘Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe’s Imperial Legacy’ (2003) 31(2) Political Theory, pp. 171–99.Google Scholar

67 Ibid, at p. 182.

68 Damler, D., Wildes Recht: Zur Pathogenese des Effektivitätsprinzips in der neuzeitlichen Eigentumslehre (Wild Law: About the Pathogenesis of the Principle of Effectiveness in the Doctrine of Property Rights of the Modern Age) (Dunker & Humblot, 2010), at p. 12.Google Scholar

69 Alden Wily, n. 20 above, at p. 44.

70 Global Forest Coalition, n. 23 above, at p. 56; Vermeulen, S. & Cotula, L., ‘Over the Heads of Local People: Consultation, Consent, and Recompense in Large-Scale Land Deals for Biofuels Projects in Africa’ (2010) 37(4) Journal of Peasant Studies, pp. 899–916Google Scholar, at 909; Nhantumbo & Salomão, n. 25 above, at pp. 31–2.

71 L. Alden Wily, ‘Land Rights Reform and Governance in Africa: How to Make it Work in the 21st Century’, UNDP Discussion Paper, Feb. 2006, at p. 31, available at: http://knowledgebase.terrafrica.org/fileadmin/user_upload/terrafrica/docs/Land_Rights_Reform_and_Gov_in_Africa.pdf.

72 Serra, C. & Tanner, C., ‘Legal Empowerment to Secure and Use Land and Resource Rights in Mozambique’, in Cotula, L. & Mathieu, P. (eds.), Legal Empowerment in Practice: Using Legal Tools to Secure Land Rights in Africa (IIED & FAO, 2008), pp. 61–70Google Scholar, at 61.

73 Alden Wily, n. 71 above, at p. 32.

74 Barrera-Hernández, L., ‘Got Title, Will Sell: Indigenous Rights to Land in Chile and Argentina’, in McHarg, A. et al. . (eds.), Property and the Law in Energy and Natural Resources (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 185–209Google Scholar, at 208.

75 The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), Readiness Plan Idea Note (R-PIN) submitted by Mozambique on 15 Dec. 2008, at p. 6, available at: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Mozambique_R-PIN_Revised_Feb_2009.pdf.

76 Norfolk, S. & Tanner, C., Improving Tenure Security for the Rural Poor: Mozambique Country Case Study (FAO, Support to the Legal Empowerment of the Poor, 2007)Google Scholar, at p. vii. See also Alden Wily, n. 71 above, at p. 28: ‘Mozambique does not practice what it preaches, giving investor interests in customary lands more support than customary interests.’

77 Alden Wily, ibid., at pp. 31–2.

78 FCPF, n. 75 above. Serra & Tanner, n. 72 above, at p. 63.

79 Global Forest Coalition, n. 23 above, at p. 56; Serra & Tanner, n. 72 above, at p. 61; Norfolk & Tanner, n. 76 above, at p. 31.

80 Norfolk & Tanner, ibid., at p. 31.

81 Ibid., at p. xi; Tanner, C. et al. ., Making Rights a Reality: Participation in Practice and Lessons Learned in Mozambique (FAO, LSP Working Paper 27, 2006), at p. 24.Google Scholar

82 Unruh, J.D., ‘Carbon Sequestration in Africa: The Land Tenure Problem’ (2008) 18(4) Global Environmental Change, pp. 700–7, at 702.Google Scholar

83 Aarhus (Denmark), 25 June 1998, in force 30 Oct. 2001, available at: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html.

84 N. 48 above.

85 With regard to participation in REDD+, cf. in detail Morgera, E., ‘Participation, Balancing of Rights and Interests, and Prior Informed Consent’, in Costenbader, J. (ed.), Legal Frameworks for REDD Design and Implementation at the National Level (IUCN, 2009), pp. 35–56Google Scholar, at 49–53.

86 N. 51 above.

87 N. 49 above.

88 ‘Community participation’ must not end up at the community leader: cf. Kyed, H.M., State Recognition of Traditional Authority: Authority, Citizenship and State Formation in Rural Post-War in Kenya (PhD Dissertation, Roskilde University, 2007), at p. 363Google Scholar, available at: http://www.diis.dk/graphics/_Staff/hmk/HeleneKyed_Dissertation_State%20recognition%20of%20traditional%20Authority.pdf.

89 Regarding access to information on REDD+, see also Morgera, n. 85 above, at p. 49.

90 Own observations; Tanner et al., n. 81 above, at p. 54.

91 Hobley, M., Where in the World is There Pro-Poor Forest Policy and Tenure Reform? (Rights and Resources, 2007), at p. 27Google Scholar, available at: http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_658.pdf.

92 Tanner et al., n. 81 above, at p. 67.

93 Global Forest Coalition, n. 23 above, at p. 78; Seymour, F., ‘Forests, Climate Change and Human Rights: Managing Risks and Trade-Offs’, in Humphreys, S. (ed.), Human Rights and Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 207–37Google Scholar, at 216.

94 Numbers vary between 20 and over 40: Cumbane, R.M.M., Mozambique: Language Situation (Elsevier, 2006)Google Scholar; Lewis, M.P. (ed.), Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Ethnologue, 2009)Google Scholar, 16th edn, online version, available at: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Mozambique.

95 Cumbane, ibid., at p. 359.

96 Norfolk & Tanner, n. 76 above, at pp. 27–8, illustrate a case where the lack of ID cards was a constraint in the delimitation and land titling process.

97 Phelps et al., n. 14 above, at p. 326.

98 Global Forest Coalition, n. 23 above, at pp. 54–5.

99 See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/Pages/HumanRightsintheWorld.aspx.

100 Own observations; Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSIfS), Mozambique – Justice Sector and the Rule of Law (OSIfS Africa, 2006), at p. 123.Google Scholar

101 Ibid., at pp. 123–4.

102 Own observations; cf. also Section 3.4 above.

103 OSIfS Africa, n. 100 above, at pp. 125–6 and 135.

104 Norfolk & Tanner, n. 76 above, at p. 31; Serra & Tanner, n. 72 above, at p. 64.

105 Norfolk & Tanner, ibid., at p. 31.

106 With the same conclusion: Bond, I. et al. ., REDD+ in Dryland Forests: Issues and Prospects for Pro-Poor REDD in the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa (IIED, 2010), at p. 24.Google Scholar

107 The term was shaped by Phelps et al., n. 14 above, and comprises – besides carbon storage in forests – a quality forest governance and the protection of rights of forest-dependent people. With regard to forest governance, it was pointed out that Mozambique has serious problems, which are linked in the first place with corruption: Mackenzie, n. 27 above, at p. 71, for Zambézia Province.

108 Simula, M., Analysis of REDD+ Financing Gaps and Overlaps (REDD+ Partnership, 2010), at p. 58.Google Scholar

109 Dooley, K. et al. ., Smoke and Mirrors: A Critical Assessment of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FERN and Forest Peoples Programme, 2011), at p. 16Google Scholar. For more references, see Westholm, L. et al. ., REDD+ and Tenure: A Review of the Latest Developments in Research, Implementation and Debate (Focali, 2011), at p. 14Google Scholar. Cf. also Davis, C. et al. ., A Review of 25 Readiness Plan Ideas: Notes from the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (WRI Working Paper, 2009), at p. 2.Google Scholar

110 Brown, M.L., ‘Limiting Corrupt Incentives in a Global REDD Regime’ (2010) 37(1) Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 237–68Google Scholar, at 254. Not surprisingly, developing countries highly dependent on forest resources, and thus in the first line of potential countries eligible for REDD+ funds, are among the most corrupt countries in the world: Kishor, N. & Damania, R., ‘Crime and Justice in the Garden of Eden: Improving Governance and Reducing Corruption in the Forestry Sector’, in Campos, J.E. & Pradhan, S. (eds.), The Many Faces of Corrruption: Tracking Vulnerablities at the Sector Level (World Bank, 2007), pp. 89–114Google Scholar, at 90.

111 E.g., the costs of information and participation in the form of free, prior and informed consent for the implementation of REDD+ in the 40 provinces in Viet Nam were estimated to be US$14 million: T. Boyle, Application of Free Prior Informed Consent in the UN-REDD Programme: Experiences from Viet Nam, Presentation at the FPIC and Recourse Workshop, Panama, Oct. 2010, at p. 29.

112 Ring, I. et al. ., ‘Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Mitigation: What Role Can Economic Instruments Play?’ (2010) 2(1–2) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, pp. 50–8Google Scholar, at 52. In respect of corruption within REDD+ in detail, see Brown, n. 110 above.

113 A. Savaresi & E. Morgera, ‘Ownership of Land, Forest and Carbon’, in Costenbader, n. 85 above, pp. 15?34, at 34; and Global Forest Coalition, n. 23 above, at p. 79.

114 Vatn, A. & Vedeld, P., Getting Ready! A Study of a National Governance Structure for REDD+ (Noragric, 2011), at p. 8Google Scholar. In detail, see Meridian Institute, n. 35 above, at p. 25; Chagas, T., Non-State Actors and REDD: Issues Surrounding the Participation of Indigenous People and Local Communities (Climate Focus, 2009), at pp. 7–9Google Scholar, available at: http://www.redd-oar.org/links/Legal%20Issues%20REDD.pdf.

115 Okereke & Dooley, n. 14 above, at p. 93.

116 Hobley, n. 91 above, p. 53.

117 UNFCCC, Adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties and its Subsidiary Bodies, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/1996/2, 22 May 1996, available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop2/02.pdf.

118 Pilot projects, e.g. in Bolivia, led to a cessation of deforestation in the project area but to accelerated deforestation in the rest of the country: see F. Pearce, ‘Noel Kempff Project is “saving the forest” by Forcing Destruction Elsewhere’, The Guardian, 11 Mar. 2010, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/11/greenwash-noel-kempff-forests.

119 Cf. the references in n. 16 above.

120 Hobley, n. 91 above, at pp. 30–1.

121 Karky, B.S. & Skutsch, M., ‘The Cost of Carbon Abatement through Community Forest Management in Nepal Himalaya’ (2010) 69(3) Ecological Economics, pp. 666–72Google Scholar, at 671; Skutsch &Ba, n. 16 above, at p. 269.

122 IUFRO, Embracing Complexity: Meeting the Challenges of International Forest Governance (International Union of Forest Research Organizations, 2010), at p. 137.Google Scholar

123 Ostrom, E. & Cox, M., ‘Moving Beyond Panaceas: A Multi-Tiered Diagnostic Approach for Social-Ecological Analysis’ (2010) 37(4) Environmental Conservation, pp. 451–63Google Scholar, at 460.