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

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY Geoforum Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104245
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":3.4000,"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Local varieties of state-directed green and digital innovation processes in China: Evidence from Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Longyan More than ‘self-help’: The urban governance of the Ebola outbreak in Monrovia, Liberia Unveiling global narratives of restoration policy: Big data insights into competing framings and implications Struggles over value, access and positionality: Differentiated dis/association agency in humanitarian aid Subjects of injustice: Inequity, misframing and human rights violations in a Tanzanian REDD+ pilot project
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1