2016
DOI: 10.3390/f7120300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transforming Justice in REDD+ through a Politics of Difference Approach

Abstract: Since Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation "Plus" (REDD+) starting gaining traction in the UN climate negotiations in 2007, its architects and scholars have grappled with its community-level justice implications. On the one hand, supporters argue that REDD+ will help the environment and forest-dependent communities by generating payments for forest carbon services from industrialized countries seeking lower cost emissions reductions. Critics, by contrast, increasingly argue that REDD+ is a new … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Technocratic arguments and approaches to delivering equity through fulfilling safeguard principles tend to overshadow attempts to make global forest governance more inclusive, and the knowledge, values and practices of marginal groups remain unrealised [61][62][63][64]. Accordingly , social safeguards associated with climate-related governance represent weak interpretations of recognition-based norms, representing a "do no harm" principle rather than facilitating specific debate about the nuances and different perspectives on these disaggregated impacts and how to promote progressive realisation of human rights [65], and may fail to address injustice in practice [66]. Rather than addressing a range of costs and benefits linked to local values and practices, including loss of cultural and place attachments, distribution issues themselves tend to be reduced to technical exercises for distribution of monetary benefits [67].…”
Section: Barriers To Effective Mobilisation and Upward Travel Of Justmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Technocratic arguments and approaches to delivering equity through fulfilling safeguard principles tend to overshadow attempts to make global forest governance more inclusive, and the knowledge, values and practices of marginal groups remain unrealised [61][62][63][64]. Accordingly , social safeguards associated with climate-related governance represent weak interpretations of recognition-based norms, representing a "do no harm" principle rather than facilitating specific debate about the nuances and different perspectives on these disaggregated impacts and how to promote progressive realisation of human rights [65], and may fail to address injustice in practice [66]. Rather than addressing a range of costs and benefits linked to local values and practices, including loss of cultural and place attachments, distribution issues themselves tend to be reduced to technical exercises for distribution of monetary benefits [67].…”
Section: Barriers To Effective Mobilisation and Upward Travel Of Justmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The findings challenge the assumption that REDD+ is a cheap mitigation option and they shed light on the importance of delivering conservation incentives paying attention to the diversity of farming strategies and livelihood needs. Finally, Marion Suiseeya's [25] offers a comprehensive review of justice-related REDD+ debates and demonstrates how these have been generally grounded in simplistic visions of either distributive or procedural justice, ignoring the importance of recognition as the third pillar of justice. According to her, embracing the recognition principle would make of REDD+ a less technocratic endeavour, more sensitive to the "values, identities, lifeways, and voices" that might be displaced as a result of REDD+ activities.…”
Section: Politics Of Redd+ Designmentioning
confidence: 99%