Addressing power imbalances in biosequestration governance

Abstract

Climate change is a global challenge that requires strong governance on a global scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested that large‐scale biosequestration in the form of forest restoration or tree plantation establishment is a potential form of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) that could contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. Yet it has also cautioned that this approach has social and environmental trade‐offs that need to be addressed through enhanced land governance. Land governance, per definition, has a strong local dimension as most lands are inhabited by local communities. Glocal and other multi‐scale governance approaches have been proposed to address potential conflicts between global policies and the rights, needs and priorities of local communities. Yet these approaches often overlook the power imbalances between the actors that design global climate policies and the local, often politically and economically marginalized, indigenous and other forest‐dependent communities that are directly impacted by these policies. The paper will explore to what extent theoretical concepts like rights‐based approaches have been able to address these conflicts and power imbalances, and whether more profound changes in governance systems are required to ensure equitable implementation of CDR.

Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries

“…However, we emphasize that focus group deliberations reflect expert assessments. Tensions over food versus fuel trade-offs in the development of the biofuel sector 49 are replicated in the discussion of using land for carbon stocks or bioenergy feedstocks, with implications for land tenure in global South agrarian communities and multi-functional land-use 50 , as well as transnational food or bioenergy supply chains 19 , 51 .…”

In people’s minds and on the ground: Values and power in climate change adaptation

“…But, because of power imbalances and the risk that dominant actors impose their perspectives, rights-based approaches have an important role to play, for example through formal protection of less powerful actors (including their right to free prior and informed consent regarding interventions in their lands). However, many examples show that formal rights may not be sufficient if they are not properly respected (Lovera-Bilderbeek and Lahiri, 2021). Processes such as the establishment of watershed PES in Peru should include clear safeguards (i.e., protective measures in form of standards for good practice for example regarding inclusiveness) and involve external actors (e.g., from the civil society) to scrutinize local decision-making processes or intervene as whistle-blowers or mediators.…”