Transforming land use governance: Global targets without equity miss the mark

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Constance L. McDermott, Jasper Montana, Aoife Bennett, Carolina Gueiros, Rachel Hamilton, Mark Hirons, Victoria A. Maguire-Rajpaul, Emilie Parry, Laura Picot
{"title":"Transforming land use governance: Global targets without equity miss the mark","authors":"Constance L. McDermott,&nbsp;Jasper Montana,&nbsp;Aoife Bennett,&nbsp;Carolina Gueiros,&nbsp;Rachel Hamilton,&nbsp;Mark Hirons,&nbsp;Victoria A. Maguire-Rajpaul,&nbsp;Emilie Parry,&nbsp;Laura Picot","doi":"10.1002/eet.2027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A confluence of concerns about tropical forest loss, global warming, and social inequality drive calls to transform land use governance. Yet there is widespread debate about what must be transformed, by whom, and how. The increasing equation of transformation with ambitious, quantitative global targets, such as “net zero emissions” or “zero deforestation” has gained widespread appeal as a means to inspire action and hold powerful actors to account. However presenting targets themselves as the end goals of transformation, obscures both the means of achieving them and the social and environmental values that legitimate them. The escalation of targets for land use, in particular, is disconnected from targeted geographies, lacks accountability to socially diverse knowledge and priorities, and is readily appropriated by powerful actors at multiple scales. This paper argues instead, for an equity-based approach to transformation that reveals how unequal power distorts both the ends and the means of global governance. We illustrate this argument with five case-study “vignettes” in Indonesia, Ghana, Peru, and Brazil that reveal how de-contextualized, target-based thinking has reinforced state and corporate control over resources at the expense of local access, while largely failing to deliver the promised environmental outcomes. We conclude that equity-focused, case study research is critical not only to unpack the local consequences of pursuing global targets, but also to make visible alternative efforts to achieve deeper socio-environmental transformations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47396,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Policy and Governance","volume":"33 3","pages":"245-257"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eet.2027","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Policy and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.2027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

A confluence of concerns about tropical forest loss, global warming, and social inequality drive calls to transform land use governance. Yet there is widespread debate about what must be transformed, by whom, and how. The increasing equation of transformation with ambitious, quantitative global targets, such as “net zero emissions” or “zero deforestation” has gained widespread appeal as a means to inspire action and hold powerful actors to account. However presenting targets themselves as the end goals of transformation, obscures both the means of achieving them and the social and environmental values that legitimate them. The escalation of targets for land use, in particular, is disconnected from targeted geographies, lacks accountability to socially diverse knowledge and priorities, and is readily appropriated by powerful actors at multiple scales. This paper argues instead, for an equity-based approach to transformation that reveals how unequal power distorts both the ends and the means of global governance. We illustrate this argument with five case-study “vignettes” in Indonesia, Ghana, Peru, and Brazil that reveal how de-contextualized, target-based thinking has reinforced state and corporate control over resources at the expense of local access, while largely failing to deliver the promised environmental outcomes. We conclude that equity-focused, case study research is critical not only to unpack the local consequences of pursuing global targets, but also to make visible alternative efforts to achieve deeper socio-environmental transformations.

转变土地利用治理:没有公平的全球目标没有达到目标
对热带森林损失、全球变暖和社会不平等的担忧交织在一起,促使人们改变土地利用治理。然而,关于必须改变什么、由谁改变以及如何改变,存在着广泛的争论。随着“净零排放”或“零毁林”等雄心勃勃的量化全球目标的不断增加,作为激励行动和追究强大行为者责任的一种手段,转型的等式已经获得了广泛的吸引力。然而,将目标本身作为转型的最终目标,既掩盖了实现这些目标的手段,也掩盖了使这些目标合法化的社会和环境价值观。特别是土地利用目标的升级与目标地区脱节,缺乏对社会多样性知识和优先事项的问责,而且很容易被多个规模的强大行为者侵占。相反,本文主张以公平为基础的转型方法,揭示不平等的权力如何扭曲全球治理的目的和手段。我们用印度尼西亚、加纳、秘鲁和巴西的五个案例研究“小插曲”来说明这一论点,这些案例研究揭示了去情境化、基于目标的思维如何以牺牲当地获取资源为代价,加强了国家和企业对资源的控制,同时在很大程度上未能实现承诺的环境成果。我们得出的结论是,以公平为重点的案例研究不仅对于揭示追求全球目标的地方后果至关重要,而且对于做出明显的替代努力以实现更深层次的社会环境变革也至关重要。
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
Environmental Policy and Governance
Environmental Policy and Governance ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
13.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Environmental Policy and Governance is an international, inter-disciplinary journal affiliated with the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE). The journal seeks to advance interdisciplinary environmental research and its use to support novel solutions in environmental policy and governance. The journal publishes innovative, high quality articles which examine, or are relevant to, the environmental policies that are introduced by governments or the diverse forms of environmental governance that emerge in markets and civil society. The journal includes papers that examine how different forms of policy and governance emerge and exert influence at scales ranging from local to global and in diverse developmental and environmental contexts.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信