Subjects of injustice: Inequity, misframing and human rights violations in a Tanzanian REDD+ pilot project

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Emma Jane Lord , Siddharth Sareen
{"title":"Subjects of injustice: Inequity, misframing and human rights violations in a Tanzanian REDD+ pilot project","authors":"Emma Jane Lord ,&nbsp;Siddharth Sareen","doi":"10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Forest carbon offsetting schemes, including Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+), have attracted criticism from the outset, for building upon former colonial international relations to justify continued fossil fuel emissions and industrialized profit. Typically, implementation contexts in tropical forests feature entrenched inequities of power, wealth and social status. Worryingly, numerous implemented REDD+ projects have adversely impacted marginalized local communities. Impacts include contestation over rights and benefits, violence, and human rights abuses. This manuscript mobilizes <em>misframing</em> as an environmental justice lens to understand a failed REDD+ project in Western Tanzania, with contested land tenure status, boundary conflict and forced evictions. Empirical analysis draws upon 72 individual and 5 group stakeholder interviews, extensive document analysis, and eight months of ethnographic fieldwork, including extensive participant observation, during 2014–2022. Using an interactionist social science approach, we elucidate perspectives of marginalized groups and project practitioners’ justifications for their treatment. We show how misframing works through this REDD+ intervention, shifting the burdens of global climate concerns while injustices and inequities are socially reproduced. To safeguard against misframing and these attendant risks, we argue for mandatory attention to human rights protections in REDD+ projects, and for forest governance to explicitly address marginalized groups’ justice concerns.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12497,"journal":{"name":"Geoforum","volume":"161 ","pages":"Article 104245"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoforum","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718525000454","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Forest carbon offsetting schemes, including Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+), have attracted criticism from the outset, for building upon former colonial international relations to justify continued fossil fuel emissions and industrialized profit. Typically, implementation contexts in tropical forests feature entrenched inequities of power, wealth and social status. Worryingly, numerous implemented REDD+ projects have adversely impacted marginalized local communities. Impacts include contestation over rights and benefits, violence, and human rights abuses. This manuscript mobilizes misframing as an environmental justice lens to understand a failed REDD+ project in Western Tanzania, with contested land tenure status, boundary conflict and forced evictions. Empirical analysis draws upon 72 individual and 5 group stakeholder interviews, extensive document analysis, and eight months of ethnographic fieldwork, including extensive participant observation, during 2014–2022. Using an interactionist social science approach, we elucidate perspectives of marginalized groups and project practitioners’ justifications for their treatment. We show how misframing works through this REDD+ intervention, shifting the burdens of global climate concerns while injustices and inequities are socially reproduced. To safeguard against misframing and these attendant risks, we argue for mandatory attention to human rights protections in REDD+ projects, and for forest governance to explicitly address marginalized groups’ justice concerns.
《不公正的主题:坦桑尼亚REDD+试点项目中的不平等、误解和侵犯人权》
森林碳抵消计划,包括减少森林砍伐和森林退化造成的排放(REDD+),从一开始就受到批评,因为它建立在前殖民国际关系的基础上,为持续的化石燃料排放和工业化利润辩护。通常,热带森林的实施环境具有根深蒂固的权力、财富和社会地位不平等。令人担忧的是,许多已实施的REDD+项目对边缘化的当地社区产生了不利影响。影响包括对权利和利益的争论、暴力和侵犯人权。本文从环境正义的角度来理解坦桑尼亚西部一个失败的REDD+项目,该项目存在有争议的土地权属地位、边界冲突和强迫驱逐。实证分析借鉴了2014-2022年期间72个个人和5个团体利益相关者访谈、广泛的文献分析和8个月的民族志田野调查,包括广泛的参与者观察。使用互动社会科学的方法,我们阐明边缘化群体的观点和项目从业者对他们的治疗的理由。我们通过REDD+干预展示了错误框架是如何发挥作用的,它转移了全球气候问题的负担,同时不公正和不平等在社会上重现。为了防止误解和随之而来的风险,我们主张在REDD+项目中强制关注人权保护,并要求森林治理明确解决边缘化群体的正义问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geoforum
Geoforum GEOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
201
期刊介绍: Geoforum is an international, inter-disciplinary journal, global in outlook, and integrative in approach. The broad focus of Geoforum is the organisation of economic, political, social and environmental systems through space and over time. Areas of study range from the analysis of the global political economy and environment, through national systems of regulation and governance, to urban and regional development, local economic and urban planning and resources management. The journal also includes a Critical Review section which features critical assessments of research in all the above areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信