Responses to deforestation do not address all aspects of the DPSIR framework. Communities living around Lakes Mai Ndombe and Tumba consider forest management and conservation ventures ineffective because forest policies that respond to forest loss are created at international and national scale without the input of local voices. For example, my findings show that the populations living around Lake Tumba perceive that management as non-existent while at Lake Mai Ndombe benefits expressed are said to be superficial. Responses to deforestation have garnered millions of dollars in LTLT, yet the money distributed to local communities is marginal. This is a common critique of REDD+ policies by civil society and local communities (Carr et al., 2007).

Some scholars articulate biases when surveying human communities because responses may be tailored in order to receive greater benefits (Creswell, 2013). However, these biases do not distort the reality of the circumstances on the ground, which is that wealth is still largely only captured by a few while most of the population remains economically impoverished, culturally marginalized, and thus left destitute with the forest as their only source of collateral (Clark, 2012).

Drivers of forest loss operate unchecked within political and governing bodies in DRC and, at the same time, there is a refusal to acknowledge that this cycle is occurring at various scales (Carr et al., 2009). My findings show that the perception of the policy climate of the country is filled with corruption, embezzlement, and patronage such that the informal sector has overrun the formal sector, becoming a dominant force in decisionmaking processes. Formal policies were found to have a history of top-down approaches lacking equity and inclusion of local stakeholders (McFerson, 2010). For example, property rights regimes have been muddled since land granting contracts were established under the order of King Leopold of Belgium in 1887 (Oliver and Atmore, 2000). These contracts unethically and illegally transferred land ownership away from local communities (Hochschild, 1998).

Moreover, findings here suggest that these policies lack sufficient relevance to local forest users. In 2014, local communities still poorly understood forestry laws and rights to land. These findings suggest that the problems are cyclical and related to the original history of how land, labor, and capital were acquired here.

Slash-and-burn agriculture is the most persistent pressure causing forest loss according to local communities and forest managers, although all pressures reduce food security for forest-dwelling communities. Drivers of forest loss and responders to forest loss constantly apply political checks to the pressure of slash-and-burn agriculture through laws such as the Forestry Code and polices such as the DRC ERPIN and REDD+ policy. Pressures have checks to balance their input into the forest system; however, checks imposed on pressures are biased, as they are controlled by the drivers of forest change, which have previously been determined to have large informal and corruptive implications. A study conducted on fuel wood harvesting worldwide concluded that only about 27-34% is unsustainable; sustainability is based on whether or not annual harvesting exceeds incremental re-growth (Bailis et al., 2015). Remote sensing results from this study indicates that in some instances fuel-wood collection can pressure forests greatly; however, in many instances fuel-wood collection was a by-product of forests previously cut or degraded from previous activities.

Therefore, investigating drivers that pressure forests, e.g., logging concessions, are needed, however, this has a history of not occurring.

There is a lack of trust between constituents and governing bodies regarding the implementation of relevant forest policies that effectively and equally address all pressures as well as the receipt of payment from profitable pressures. Money made from unchecked pressures is captured by an elite few heightening economic poverty for local communities. Therefore, slash-and-burn will continue, as long as it is the community’s only form of collateral.

References

1. Google Books. (2017). Economic Models of Tropical Deforestation: A Review. [online] Available at: https://books.google.com.ua/books?hl=ru&lr=&id=9ul0YEUyOWwC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=deforestation&ots=7fbOLus8-c&sig=3ooml0eMfSSMOsn76Sh0lAtFrVE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=deforestation&f=false .
2. Just Great DataBase. (2017). Deforestation among Riparian Lake Communities in Northwestern Democratic Republic Of Congo – Just Great DataBase. [online] Available at: https://jgdb.com/science/earth-sicences/deforestation-among-riparian-lake-communities-northwestern-democratic-republic-congo-220 .
3. Sciencedirect.com. (2017). Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis – ScienceDirect. [online] Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320799000889 .
4. Sciencedirect.com. (2017). What Drives Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon?: Evidence from Satellite and Socioeconomic Data – ScienceDirect. [online] Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069698910567 .