REDD+ mechanisms in Africa: a poverty alleviation strategy and its contextual complexities.

1. Introduction.
Climate change is expected to impact primarily subsistence societies characterized by the rooted dependency on environmental assets (Levene and Conversi, 2014; Brown, 2011). While ecosystems and physical systems can experience uncertain variabilities, in the social sphere, poor and marginalized societies will be threatened because of their dependency on forests and natural resources (Brown, 2011). As the contextual frameworks of climate change involve the African continent because of the vulnerability of rural society and the extensive forest area, it has prime importance owing to its biodiversity and ecological richness. Thus, conservation strategies comprise the sustainable management of natural resources, forest protection and enhancement of carbon stocks through projects oriented to “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD+) (Scheba, 2018). Yet, REDD+ also signifies a poverty alleviation mechanism.
Since the colonial period radically transformed the approach of managing not just the state and the society but also ecological systems (Mamdani, 1996), traditional chiefs tend to be the custodians of natural resources, whose authority often exceeds legal permissions by performing illicit operations in the form of large-scale logging, intensive artisanal mining, illegally harvested timber, or illicit fencing. (Nel, 2015; Poudyal, 2016; Watts, 2003). As a result, the excessive deforestation and land degradation for economic and subsistence purposes is common in most of the African countries, including Namibia, Congo, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Tanzania, Niger, among others (Sunderlin et al., 2014). REDD+ is seen as a co-benefit and safeguard strategy because promotes poverty reduction, biodiversity protection and economic development (Agrawal et al., 2011; Somorin et al., 2014). However, there are contextual factors that may limit the effectiveness of these market – based mechanisms, for instance where social, political and economic forces have the power to control forest ecosystems.
The aim of the present document is to explore how REDD+ mechanisms benefit the poor and the different barriers that impede this objective. The analysis includes a brief contextual framework and the main arguments that lead international organizations to consider of REDD+ as a conservation and poverty alleviation strategy and the historical legacy that may shape the application of these initiatives. To complement the arguments, it is considered the Tanzania case study, where different land tenure conflicts have limited the effectiveness of market-based projects. The conclusions include the importance of solving the main challenges of REDD+ from a governance perspective which involves the transparency of land distributions and the recognition of marginalized groups as active actors in the planning and implementation of REDD+ interventions.

2. Generalities of climate change and REDD+ mechanisms.

Climate change is expected to impact primarily subsistence societies characterized by the rooted dependency on environmental assets. (Levene and Conversi, 2014; Brown, 2011). While ecosystems can experience uncertain variabilities, in the social sphere, poor and marginalized societies will be threatened by three particular aspects: Higher levels of environmental changes in comparison to the rest of the population, insufficient adaptive capacity, and their profound dependency on forests and natural resources (Brown, 2011). In the case of Africa, the reliance on natural resources is principally based on their production systems for agricultural, extractive mining, and forestry purposes (Denton, 2002). Generally, the contextual frameworks of climate change involve the African continent because of the vulnerability of rural society and the extensive forest area. However, during the last decades, the attention of academic and scientific fields has been oriented to the conservation of forests as they contribute to the regulation and stability of the global environment (Brown et al., 2002). Thus, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increasing GHG sequestration represents the most prominent challenge for the international community to climate change, including governments, NGOs and multilateral organizations (Rossi et al., 2017; Scheba, 2018).
Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has promoted multiple mechanisms to succeed on GHG mitigation, Africa has a prime importance owing to the biodiversity and ecological richness of the continent. Strategies comprise the sustainable management of natural resources, forest conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks through projects oriented to “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD+) (Scheba, 2018). In other words, REDD+ strategy stimulates farmers, logging companies and rural households to reducing land degradation, forestry and other extractive activities, providing economic incentives for natural regeneration, agroforestry, and reforestation (Brown et al., 2002). As these market-based conservation initiatives may improve conservation initiatives, it also enables sustainable agriculture, food security and rural development. While the impacts of climate change in Africa have been predominantly perceived for the increasing of drought and erratic rainfalls which affect food security and farming practices, it is widely recognized that anthropogenic factors exacerbate these issues (Rossi et al., 2017). Therefore, for environmental and climate authorities, REDD+ not just signifies a critical strategy for GHG reduction but also a catalyzer of environmental degradation with direct effects in the sustainability of rural livelihoods and as a poverty alleviation (Samndong, and Vatn, 2018).

3. The colonial legacy of land degradation in Africa.

Scholars and historians have claimed the environmental and social effect of the colonial intervention on the tenure and exploitation of natural resources in Africa, including its forests, wildlife and land use (Kreike, 1995). In the words of MacKenzie (1997), colonial settlers were predatory in their intensive hunting practices. Since most of the colonial regulations were intended to limit agriculture, protect wildlife and pursue afforestation from the locals, the real objectives of the settlers were to avoid competition and guarantee their own interests (Anderson, 1984). One example of these motives is exemplified on the tourism and elite hunting as a result of the initiatives for wildlife protection and conservation (Carruthers, 1995). While this commercial model is seen as intrusive and opportunistic, especially because it excluded rural communities by disrupting their own development (Rajan, 1998), it also caused social segregation, changing agricultural patterns and land use. For instance, the conversion from transhumant to sedentary pastoralism, and the tendency of rural communities for dispersing in remote areas. These transformations can be perceived as contributors to the current land degradation and uncontrolled forest exploitation (Anderson, 1984). Hence, the colonial legacy probably shaped the social and environmental performance in the management of natural resources. As the social status of subsistence communities could emerge from the disruptive development models established by foreign settlers, decades of interventionist practices and authoritarian regimes might also have altered the local rationalities of land use as a utilitarian asset for self-sustaining and profit generation. Thus, the colonial period radically transformed the approach of managing not just the state and the society but also ecological systems (Mamdani, 1996).
In general, the existing land use policies and forestry regulations were shaped by pre-colonial and colonial regimes and currently, most of the African states have the formal control of forest areas (Watts, 2003). While the legal status implied the supervision of forest resources, the capacity of authorities for controlling and protecting remote areas has been ineffective, causing property disturbances, demarcation failures and unsuitable forest tenure (Kreike, 1995). Under these conditions, traditional chiefs tend to be the custodians of natural resources, whose authority often exceeds legal permissions by performing illicit operations in the form of large-scale logging, intensive artisanal mining, illegally harvested timber, or illicit fencing. (Nel, 2015; Poudyal, 2016; Watts, 2003). As a result, the excessive deforestation and land degradation for economic and subsistence purposes is common in most of the African countries exemplifying Namibia, Congo, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Tanzania and Niger (Sunderlin et al., 2014). Yet, the overexploitation of natural resources and illegal practices has impoverished countless of rural communities, who depend on their subsistence livelihoods and parcels of lands for subsistence farming systems (Watts, 2003). This scenario has fostered horizontal inequalities especially in the socio-economic aspect, involving land owners who often are supported by industries and other interest groups which could have strong incentives to control forest resources, at expense of minority communities who usually are poor and vulnerable. The absence of a legitimate authority at the control and protection of natural resources reinforces this idea. For instance, incidents in Côte d’Ivoire in 1998 involved the influx of foreign farmers when local chiefs introduced their own land laws because they were with the right to exploit it (Langer, 2005). As a result, ethnic conflicts and competition among local communities and external actors destabilized the social, economic and political sectors producing violent actions.

4. REDD+ as strategy for the poor.

As reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation REDD+ represents an initiative that benefits the environment from climate change, it may also signify an alternative to poverty alleviation, especially for the rural sector. It is widely known that peasants and farmers are strongly dependent on the sustainability of their livelihoods and there is no opportunity to maintain this condition but from the stability and adequate conservation of natural resources. This approach is not an exception in Africa, where most of the population is rural and reliant on forests directly or indirectly (Denton, 2002; Somorin et al., 2014). Generally, rural households obtain multiple services from forest ecosystems, including food security, fresh water, wood, fibers, charcoal and inputs for farming and agricultural activities (Awono et al., 2014; Scheba, 2018; Somorin et al., 2014). This provisioning attribute is complemented to additional services which comprises: regulating of climate, water, diseases; supporting for nutrient cycling, soil formation, primary production; and cultural for spiritual, educational, recreational and aesthetic aspects (Deal et al., 2012). Since these services enable rural development (Myers et al., 2018) its sustainable management may promote economic, environmental and social benefits through poverty alleviation, drought mitigation, and conflict reduction respectively. Thus, in the efforts to implement suitable management practices in the rural scenario, from environmental and socio-economic perspectives REDD+ is seen as a co-benefit and safeguard strategy because promote poverty reduction, biodiversity protection and economic development (Agrawal et al., 2011; Somorin et al., 2014). Countries which share the Congo Basin and other African nations have demonstrated interests in the design and implementation of REDD+ projects, mostly as a consequence of the rapid scale of deforestation, environmental degradation and soil erosion observed in these areas (FAO, 2011). As the rate of degradation and deforestation of forest ecosystems has the origin in the conversion of tropical forests to other land use, representing 12-20% of the total global carbon emissions (Houghton, 2005; IPCC, 2007), multiple governments are embracing REDD+ to fund forest conservation and a safeguard to the poor and vulnerable rural communities (Poudyal et al., 2016).
The implementation of REDD+ projects has involved poor and vulnerable groups through the application of social safeguards for the stability of their livelihoods. Most of the initiatives are intended to increase participation through community – based conservation programs (Nantongo et al., 2019). In Tanzania, where massive deforestation rates have threatened soil production, REDD+ scheme has been introduced using a governance approach for resource planning and land use. It embraces the demarking of areas and their boundaries for specific goals: agriculture, forest, grazing, residential zones, burials and land for schools (Nantongo et al., 2019). The management of the planning and land use has required commitments and restrictions for the reduction of deforestation, grazing and the correct application of conservation agriculture. Villagers have been part of associations, councils, and assemblies in order to guarantee the compliance of rules and the optimal benefit sharing which would be translated into periodical payments to compensate and incentivize conservation practices (ibid.).
As a market-based instrument, REDD+ is recognized as a pro-poor initiative owing to the monetary incentives for the sustainability of rural livelihoods and households (Scheba, 2018). As payments are distributed equally between the community members, money is often used for the acquisition of food, clothes, materials and consumer goods (Blomley, 2017). However, food security as a proxy of wealth is often the main social benefit of REDD+ projects. Examples in Madagascar show the greater food security among the villagers during the implementation of these projects, nevertheless, it has been identified that most of them use to have higher positions within forest management associations (Poudyal et al., 2016).
Regarding the last statements, it can be considered that while REDD+ strategies represent a novel mechanism to reduce poverty conditions, the structure and management system may work in scenarios where communities are equally committed and reliable. However, there are contextual factors that may limit the effectiveness of these market – based mechanisms, for instance where political and economic forces have the power to control natural resource management. The prevalent supremacies that are usually noticed in the rural sector of the African context, owing to inadequacies in tenure rights and land use regimes (Kreike, 1995) may suggest that REDD+ requires the strengthening of their legal and organizational structures in order to avoid particular concessions and conflict interest during the planning and implementation of the projects. Likewise, the use of money and financial funds demand precise coordination procedures to materialize conservation practices into poverty alleviation solutions. From this argument, it is critical the transparent use of resources and the equal status of all the villagers within the management system of forest conservation. If social and economic powers emerge and corruption permeate REDD+ structures, it can lead to new forms of horizontal inequalities, community divisions, property disputes and future conflicts. In the words of (Poudyal et al., 2016), market-based initiatives require a direct relationship with the individual households in order to restrict local elite capture and ensure accountability. Thus, sustainable forest management might benefit the poor through clear and unbiased economic incentives.

5. REDD+ and contextual complexities: a case study in Tanzania.

While the colonial and post-colonial governments defined protectionist structures to forest conservation, there was a tendency to exclude vulnerable rural communities to land developments in Tanzania (Brockhaus et al., 2014). Despite community – based approaches and natural resource management were initially pursued by governmental authorities and the locals, is was noticed that the absence of genuine participatory approaches owing to social differences, power positions and the increasing of political interests had a negative effect on conservation practices (Walwa, 2017). The social, political and economic differences provoked a myriad of conflicts and competition for land use, causing different forms of corruption which exacerbated poverty and vulnerability among marginalized groups (Lund et al., 2017). In the case of Tanzania, different scholars have argued that as economic, social and democratic empowerment is possibly insufficient to adequate forest management performance, it also comprises the active involvement of professionals with expertise in the field (Scheba and Mustalahti, 2015). However, these schemes may lead to exclusions as not all the community members are equally trained for the technical operation of natural resource management systems (Green and Lund, 2015). These exclusions can be frequent among marginalized communities whose poverty conditions impede them to have access to basic levels of education, being a means for the effective operation of conservation approaches. In this scenario, if governance systems are weak and the land distribution is unequal, the multiplier effect is usually seen on the poverty conditions of households and their livelihoods. Another consequence can be perceived in the displacement of forest-dependent groups as a result of land conflicts and unbalanced property rights.
Regarding the preceding context, after years of implementation of REDD+ mechanisms in Tanzania, cases studies have revealed different ambiguities and disarticulations related to the scheme of the projects and coordination processes (Myers et al., 2018). Multiple beneficiaries have identified that the main gaps include lack of technical capacities from the communities to apply the different guidelines provided by REDD+ programs; however, within the African context most of the discrepancies occur as a result of the lack of transparency on land tenures and governance systems. (Sunderlin et al., 2014). Often, the mechanism has been problematic because of the lack of legitimacy of the projects, with direct implications on community engagement (Myers et al., 2018). Likewise, the historical facts have played a role in the complexities of REDD+ in Tanzania as certain village lands were in conflict or not recognized (ibid.) One explanation of this fact is the level of tenure insecurity in the country (Sunderlin et al., 2014), being a problematic feature for forest management and community-based programs. In other cases, social conflicts and unclear land certificates represent boundaries for the distribution of parcels for agriculture, ranching, and forests (ibid.).
Solving tenure insecurity and guarantee legitimate tenure rights seems to be the main challenge for successful REDD+ projects in Tanzania. Defining village and land boundaries also implies the clear identification of landholders in order to pursue one of the main objectives of the mechanism which is to reduce poverty conditions by providing sustainable production systems with direct effect in the stability of subsistence livelihoods. One of the permanent concerns of REDD+ projects is the influence of past events in regards with conservation and community – based systems which led to exclusions, governance failures, interest groups, power positions, unequal distribution of benefits and displacement of vulnerable villagers (Beymer-Farris and Bassett, 2012; Nantongo et al., 2019; Phelps et al., 2010). Recent explorations demonstrate the linkages between communal participation, interest groups, power differentials and governance systems to the effectiveness of REDD+ strategies. In general, the responses to REDD+ mechanisms as forest conservation and poverty reduction have been positive among the rural communities in Tanzania and it is perceived as an instrument to avoid centralized decision-making processes (Nantongo et al., 2019). However, REDD+ can also be understood as a residue of a colonial and post-colonial past when different forms of external interventions were aligned to local forces for the control of land use, shaping individual’s knowledge of forest resources, attitudes, values and the practical acceptance of these interventions (ibid). From a poverty approach, economic incentives and other livelihoods solutions will be regularly well received from the poor and households in need. Yet, there are deep failures that need to be addressed in order to deliver environmental and social benefits (Scheba, 2018). Persistent inequalities, land tenure insecurity, and weak governance systems at the local level impede these objectives. Likewise, technical guidelines and lack of inclusive training systems limit the sustainability of REDD+ targets. On this argument Turnhout et al. (2013) suggest the relevance to apply inclusive knowledge creation. Thus, marginalized and vulnerable groups can also take part in the construction and improvement of REDD+ mechanisms to forest conservation, the reduction poverty conditions and the sustainability of community livelihoods.

6. Conclusions
As REDD+ strategies stimulate the conservation and protection of forest ecosystems and poverty alleviation, there are contextual factors that may shape these objectives. From a poverty approach, vulnerable groups may be benefited because of the economic incentives and the agricultural solutions that promote these interventions. Likewise, in a context of climate change where drought conditions may increase over time, the provision of training and technical assistance for the application of conservation models and agroforestry systems might contribute to soil formation, which has direct effects on food security and the sustainability of community livelihoods. In general, REDD+ can be identified as a poverty catalyzer since not just provides monetary incentives that can be used for the access of material goods and services such as sanitation, health and social security; it also delivers technical tools for a rural society totally reliant on the management of their natural resources. In other words, it might promote poverty reduction, biodiversity protection and economic development.
However, persistent inequalities, land tenure insecurity, and weak governance systems at the local level impede these objectives. Likewise, the lack of inclusive training systems limits the sustainability of REDD+ targets. The colonial legacy shaped the social and environmental performance in the management of natural resources. Decades of interventionist practices and authoritarian regimes might also have altered the local rationalities of land use as a utilitarian asset for self-sustaining and profit generation. Multiple beneficiaries have identified that the main gaps include the lack of technical capacities from the communities to apply the different guidelines provided by REDD+ program; however, within the African context most of the discrepancies occur as a result of the lack of transparency on land tenures and governance systems. (Sunderlin et al., 2014). From a poverty approach, economic incentives and other material solutions will be regularly well received from the poor and households in need. Yet, there are deep failures that need to be addressed in order to deliver environmental and social benefits, for instance the governance of natural resources and the recognition of poor communities as active voices that can contribute to the main challenges of climate change at a global and local level.

Reference list 

Agrawal, A., Nepstad and D., Chhatre, A. (2011). “Reducing emissions from deforestation and  forest degradation”. Annual Review of Environmental Resources. 36, 373–396.  

Anderson, D. M. (1984). ‘Depression, dust bowl, demography and drought: the colonial state  and soil conservation in East Africa during the 1930s’, African Affairs, 83, 332, 321–43.  

Awono, A., Somorin, O.A., Atyi, R.E.A. and Levang, P. (2014). “Tenure and participation in  local REDD+ projects: Insights from southern Cameroon”. Environmental Science &  Policy, 35, 76-86. 

Beinart, W. (2000). “African history and environmental history”. African Affairs, 99(395), 269- 302. 

Beymer-Farris, B.A. and Bassett, T.J. (2012). “The REDD menace: resurgent protectionism in  Tanzania’s mangrove forests”. Global Environmental Change, 22 (2), 332–341. 

Blomley, T., Edwards, K., Kingazi, S., Lukumbuzya, K., Mäkelä, M. and Vesa, L. (2017).  “When community forestry meets REDD+: has REDD+ helped address implementation  barriers to participatory forest management in Tanzania?”. Journal of Eastern African  Studies, 11(3), 549-570. 

Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. and Carmenta, R. (2014). “REDD+ policy networks: exploring  actors and power structures in an emerging policy domain”. Ecology and Society, 19 (4),  29.  

Brown, H.C. (2011). “Gender, climate change and REDD+ in the Congo Basin forests of  Central Africa”. International Forestry Review, 13(2), 163-176. 

Brown, S., Swingland, I.R., Hanbury-Tenison, R., Prance, G.T. and Myers, N. (2002). “Changes  in the use and management of forests for abating carbon emissions: issues and challenges  under the Kyoto Protocol”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.  Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 360(1797), 1593-1605.

Carruthers. J. (1995). The Kruger National Park: A social and political history. Natal University  Press, Pietermaritzburg. 

Deal, R.L., Cochran, B. and LaRocco, G. (2012). “Bundling of ecosystem services to increase  forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management”. Forest Policy and  Economics, 17, 69-76. 

Denton, F. (2002). “Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why does gender  matter?”. Gender & Development, 10(2), 10-20. 

FAO (2011). The State of the World’s Forest 2011. Food and Agriculture Organization of the  United Nations, Rome.  

Green, K.E. and Lund, J.F. (2015). “The politics of expertise in participatory forestry: a case  from Tanzania”. Forest Policy Economics. 60, 27–34 

Houghton, R.A. (2005). “Above-ground forest biomass and the global carbon balance”. Global  Change Biolog, 11 (6), 945–958.  

IPCC (2007). Mitigation of Climate Change. Working Group III Fourth Assessment Report,  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC.  

Kreike, E., 1995. The Ovambo agro-silvipastoral system: Traditional land use and indigenous  natural resource management in northcentral Namibia (No. 4). Directorate of Forestry,  Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Republic of Namibia. 

Langer, A. (2009). “Living with diversity: The peaceful management of horizontal inequalities  in Ghana”. Journal of International Development, 21(4), 534-546.  

Levene, M. and Conversi, D. (2014). “Subsistence societies, globalisation, climate change and  genocide: discourses of vulnerability and resilience”. The International Journal of Human  Rights, 18(3), 281-297. 

Lund, J.F., Sungusia, M.B., Mabele, A. and Scheba, A. (2017). “Promising change, delivering  continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Development. 89, 124–139. 

MacKenzie, J. (1997). ‘Empire and the ecological apocalypse: the historiography of the imperial  environment’ in Tom Griffiths and Libby Robin (eds), Ecology and Empire:  Environmental history of settler societies. Keele University Press, Edinburgh, 215–28.  

Mamdani, M. (1996). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late  Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Myers, R., Larson, A.M., Ravikumar, A., Kowler, L.F., Yang, A. and Trench, T. (2018).  “Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+  and conservation projects”. Global Environmental Change, 50, 314-324. 

Nantongo, M., Vatn, A. and Vedeld, P. (2019). “All that glitters is not gold; Power and  participation in processes and structures of implementing REDD+ in Kondoa,  Tanzania”. Forest Policy and Economics, 100, 44-54. 

Nel, A. (2015). “The neoliberalisation of forestry governance, market environmentalism and re territorialisation in Uganda”. Third World Quarterly, 36(12), 2294-2315. 

Phelps, J., Webb, E. and Agrawal, A. (2010). “Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest  governance?”. Science 328.  

Poudyal, M., Ramamonjisoa, B.S., Hockley, N., Rakotonarivo, O.S., Gibbons, J.M.,  Mandimbiniaina, R., Rasoamanana, A. and Jones, J.P. (2016). “Can REDD+ social  safeguards reach the ‘right’people? Lessons from Madagascar”. Global Environmental  Change, 37, 31-42. 

Rajan, R., 1998. Imperial environmentalism or environmental imperialism? European forestry,  colonial foresters and the agendas of forest management in British India 1800– 1900. Nature and the Orient: The environmental history of South and Southeast Asia,  pp.324-71. 

Rossi, V., Claeys, F., Bastin, D., Gourlet-Fleury, S., Guizol, P., Eba’a-Atyi, R., Sonwa, D.J.,  Lescuyer, G. and Picard, N. (2017). “Could REDD+ mechanisms induce logging  companies to reduce forest degradation in Central Africa?”. Journal of forest  economics, 29, 107-117.

Samndong, R. and Vatn, A. (2018). “Competing Tenures: Implications for REDD+ in the  Democratic Republic of Congo”. Forests, 9(11), 662. 

Scheba, A. (2018). “Market-Based Conservation for Better Livelihoods?” The Promises and  Fallacies of REDD+ in Tanzania. Land, 7(4), 119. 

Scheba, A. and Mustalahti, I. (2015). “Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest  management in Tanzania”. Forest Policy and Economics. 60, 7–18.

Somorin, O.A., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Arts, B., Sonwa, D.J. and Tiani, A.M. (2014).  “REDD+ policy strategy in Cameroon: Actors, institutions and governance”. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 87-97. 

Sunderlin, W.D., Larson, A.M., Duchelle, A.E., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Huynh, T.B., Awono, A.  and Dokken, T. (2014). “How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems?  Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam”. World  Development, 55, 37-52. 

Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. and Buizer, M. (2013). “Rethinking biodiversity: from  goods and services to “living with”. Conservation Letters, 6(3), 154-161. 

Walwa, J. W., (2017). “Land use plans in Tanzania: repertoires of domination or solutions to  rising farmer–herder conflicts?”. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 11(3), 408-424. 

Watts, S. (2003). “The effects of communal land resource management on forest conservation in  northern and north-eastern Namibia”. Development Southern Africa, 20(3), 337-359.