IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v12y2021is1p57-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing power imbalances in biosequestration governance

Author

Listed:
  • Simone Lovera‐Bilderbeek
  • Souparna Lahiri

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Simone Lovera‐Bilderbeek & Souparna Lahiri, 2021. "Addressing power imbalances in biosequestration governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 57-66, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:12:y:2021:i:s1:p:57-66
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12882
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rocheleau, Dianne & Edmunds, David, 1997. "Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 1351-1371, August.
    2. Cam Hoang & Poshendra Satyal & Esteve Corbera, 2019. "‘This is my garden’: justice claims and struggles over forests in Vietnam’s REDD+," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(S1), pages 23-35, July.
    3. Agrawal, Arun & Yadama, Gautam & Andrade, Raul & Bhattacharya, Ajoy, 2006. "Decentralization and environmental conservation: gender effects from participation in joint forest management," CAPRi working papers 53, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    5. Searchinger, Timothy D. & Beringer, Tim & Strong, Asa, 2017. "Does the world have low-carbon bioenergy potential from the dedicated use of land?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 434-446.
    6. Poshendra Satyal & Esteve Corbera & Neil Dawson & Hari Dhungana & Gyanu Maskey, 2019. "Representation and participation in formulating Nepal’s REDD+ approach," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(S1), pages 8-22, July.
    7. Angelsen, Arild, 2007. "Forest cover change in space and time : combining the von Thunen and forest transition theories," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4117, The World Bank.
    8. World Bank & Food and Agriculture Organization & International Fund for Agricultural Development, 2009. "Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook [Agricultura y desarrollo rural : manual sobre género en agricultura]," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6603.
    9. Clapp, Roger Alex, 1998. "Regions of refuge and the agrarian question: Peasant agriculture and plantation forestry in Chilean araucania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 571-589, April.
    10. Kumar, Kundan & Singh, Neera M. & Kerr, John M., 2015. "Decentralisation and democratic forest reforms in India: Moving to a rights-based approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    11. Grace Yee Wong & Cecilia Luttrell & Lasse Loft & Anastasia Yang & Thuy Thu Pham & Daisuke Naito & Samuel Assembe-Mvondo & Maria Brockhaus, 2019. "Narratives in REDD+ benefit sharing: examining evidence within and beyond the forest sector," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(8), pages 1038-1051, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sean Low & Livia Fritz & Chad M. Baum & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2024. "Public perceptions on carbon removal from focus groups in 22 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryan, Elizabeth & Behrman, Julia A., 2013. "Community–based adaptation to climate change: A theoretical framework, overview of key issues and discussion of gender differentiated priorities and participation," CAPRi working papers 109, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. William J. McConnell & Andrés Viña & Christian Kull & Clayton Batko, 2015. "Forest Transition in Madagascar’s Highlands: Initial Evidence and Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-27, November.
    3. Behrman, Julia A. & Johnson, Nancy & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela & Njuki, Jemimah & Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Rubin, Deborah & Waithanji, Elizabeth, 2011. "Gender, assets, and agricultural development programs: A conceptual framework:," CAPRi working papers 99, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Margreet Zwarteveen & Ruth Meinzen-Dick, 2001. "Gender and property rights in the commons: Examples of water rights in South Asia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 18(1), pages 11-25, March.
    5. Sikor, Thomas, 2006. "Analyzing community-based forestry: Local, political and agrarian perspectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 339-349, June.
    6. Colfer, Carol J. Pierce, 2011. "Marginalized Forest Peoples’ Perceptions of the Legitimacy of Governance: An Exploration," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 2147-2164.
    7. Satyal, Poshendra & Corbera, Esteve & Dawson, Neil & Dhungana, Hari & Maskey, Gyanu, 2020. "Justice-related impacts and social differentiation dynamics in Nepal's REDD+ projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    8. Coomes, Oliver T. & Barham, Bradford L. & Takasaki, Yoshito, 2004. "Targeting conservation-development initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 47-64, November.
    9. Millner, Naomi & Peñagaricano, Irune & Fernandez, Maria & Snook, Laura K., 2020. "The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Chris D. Arnot & Martin K. Luckert & Peter C. Boxall, 2011. "What Is Tenure Security? Conceptual Implications for Empirical Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 297-311.
    11. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    12. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    13. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    14. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    15. Michael Carus & Lara Dammer & Achim Raschka & Pia Skoczinski, 2020. "Renewable carbon: Key to a sustainable and future‐oriented chemical and plastic industry: Definition, strategy, measures and potential," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 10(3), pages 488-505, June.
    16. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.
    17. Burger Ronelle & Owens Trudy & Prakash Aseem, 2018. "Global Non-Profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Jung, Suhyun & Hajjar, Reem, 2023. "The livelihood impacts of transnational aid for climate change mitigation: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    20. Wehkamp, Johanna & Aquino, André & Fuss, Sabine & Reed, Erik W., 2015. "Analyzing the perception of deforestation drivers by African policy makers in light of possible REDD+ policy responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-18.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:12:y:2021:i:s1:p:57-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.