Of mice and men: why the unintended consequences of carbon markets matter
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Standard
Of mice and men : why the unintended consequences of carbon markets matter. / Chomba, Susan; Kariuki, Juliet; Lund, Jens Friis; Sinclair, Fergus.
In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 61, 2017, p. 99-102.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Of mice and men
T2 - why the unintended consequences of carbon markets matter
AU - Chomba, Susan
AU - Kariuki, Juliet
AU - Lund, Jens Friis
AU - Sinclair, Fergus
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Land tenure remains one of the most critical factors determining equity under REDD+, as we demonstrated through our previous article, ‘Roots of inequity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices”. Githiru responded to this paper, with some apparent challenges to both the empirical basis and theoretical arguments, that we had put forward. In this rebuttal, we demonstrate that there were no empirical differences between our original paper and Githiru’s response that had bearing on our findings, but that there are substantial differences in our interpretations of legality and equity, and consequently divergence about who can expect to benefit from REDD+. In a context where land ownership has historically and presently involved processes of dispossession, marginalization and even evictions, this rebuttal illustrates the complexity of the dominant discourse on land tenure and benefits under REDD+ and shows how social safeguards will need to take historical context and people’s current entitlements and agency into account, if equitable outcomes are to be defined and realized.
AB - Land tenure remains one of the most critical factors determining equity under REDD+, as we demonstrated through our previous article, ‘Roots of inequity: how the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices”. Githiru responded to this paper, with some apparent challenges to both the empirical basis and theoretical arguments, that we had put forward. In this rebuttal, we demonstrate that there were no empirical differences between our original paper and Githiru’s response that had bearing on our findings, but that there are substantial differences in our interpretations of legality and equity, and consequently divergence about who can expect to benefit from REDD+. In a context where land ownership has historically and presently involved processes of dispossession, marginalization and even evictions, this rebuttal illustrates the complexity of the dominant discourse on land tenure and benefits under REDD+ and shows how social safeguards will need to take historical context and people’s current entitlements and agency into account, if equitable outcomes are to be defined and realized.
U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.018
DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.018
M3 - Journal article
VL - 61
SP - 99
EP - 102
JO - Land Use Policy
JF - Land Use Policy
SN - 0264-8377
ER -
ID: 169384296