Rendering Local: The Politics of Differential Knowledge in Carbon Offset Governance

References

• Ahlborg, H., and A. J. Nightingale. 2012. Mismatch between scales of knowledge in Nepalese forestry: Epistemology, power, and policy implications. Ecology and Society 17 (4): 16. doi: 10.5751/ES-05171-170416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, E., and W. Carton. 2017. Sälja luft? Om klimatkompensation och miljörättvisa i Uganda [Selling air: On carbon offsetting and environmental justice in Uganda]. In Politisk Ekologi: Om Makt Och Miljöer, ed. E. Jönsson and E. Andersson, 177–244. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Asiyanbi, A. P. 2016. A political ecology of REDD+: Property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River. Geoforum 77:146–56. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.10.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asiyanbi, A. P., E. Ogar, and O. A. Akintoye. 2019. Complexities and surprises in local resistance to neoliberal conservation: Multiple environmentalities, technologies of the self and the poststructural geography of local engagement with REDD+. Political Geography 69:128–38. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2018.12.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., and E. Lövbrand. 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 6 (1):50–75. doi: 10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhm, S., and S. Dabhi, eds. 2009. Upsetting the offset: The political economy of carbon markets. London: Mayfly.
   Google Scholar
• Bumpus, A. G. 2011. The matter of carbon: Understanding the materiality of tCO2e in carbon offsets. Antipode 43 (3):612–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00879.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cames, M., R. O. Harthan, J. Füssler, M. Lazarus, C. M. Lee, P. Erickson, and R. Spalding-Fecher. 2016. How additional is the clean development mechanism? Accessed January 21, 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/docs/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Carton, W., and E. Andersson. 2017. Where forest carbon meets its maker: Forestry-based offsetting as the subsumption of nature. Society & Natural Resources 30 (7):829–43. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2017.1284291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castree, N. 2003. Commodifying what nature? Progress in Human Geography 27 (3):273–97. doi: 10.1191/0309132503ph428oa.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavanagh, C., and T. A. Benjaminsen. 2014. Virtual nature, violent accumulation: The “spectacular failure” of carbon offsetting at a Ugandan national park. Geoforum 56:55–65. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepek, M. L. 2011. Foucault in the forest: Questioning environmentality in Amazonia. American Ethnologist 38 (3):501–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2011.01319.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbera, E., K. Brown, and N. W. Adger. 2007. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38 (4):587–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbera, E., and A. Martin. 2015. Carbon offsets: Accommodation or resistance? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47 (10):2023–30. doi: 10.1177/0308518X15611666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbera, E., and H. Schroeder. 2017. REDD + crossroads post Paris: Politics, lessons and interplays. Forests 8 (12):508–11. doi: 10.3390/f8120508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson, N. M., M. Mason, D. M. Mwayafu, H. Dhungana, P. Satyal, J. A. Fisher, M. Zeitoun, and H. Schroeder. 2018. Barriers to equity in REDD+: Deficiencies in national interpretation processes constrain adaptation to context. Environmental Science & Policy 88 (June):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.009.
   Google Scholar
• Demeritt, D. 2001. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91 (2):307–37. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0004-5608.00245/abstract. doi: 10.1111/0004-5608.00245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey, J. 2016. Enterprising nature: Economics, markets, and finance in global biodiversity politics. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ecotrust. 2016. Plan Vivo project design document (PDD)—Trees for Global Benefits—Version 2.0. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://www.planvivo.org/docs/TGB-PDD_V2.0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ecotrust. 2018. Trees for Global Benefits—2017 Plan Vivo annual report. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://www.planvivo.org/docs/TGB-annual-report-2017_public.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Edstedt, K., and W. Carton. 2018. The benefits that (only) capital can see? Resource access and degradation in industrial carbon forestry, lessons from the CDM in Uganda. Geoforum 97:315–23. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.09.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erb, M. 2012. The dissonance of conservation: Environmentalities and the environmentalisms of the poor in eastern Indonesia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 25 (Suppl.):11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, P., M. Lazarus, and R. Spalding-Fecher. 2014. Net climate change mitigation of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy 72:146–54. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairhead, J., and M. Leach. 1996. Misreading the African landscape: Society and ecology in the forest–savanna mosaic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairhead, J., M. Leach, and J. Fraser. 2012. Green grabs and biochar: Revaluing African soils and farming in the new carbon economy. Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (May):285–307. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.658042.
   Google Scholar
• Fairhead, J., M. Leach, and I. Scoones. 2012. Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2):237–61. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2012.671770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, K., F. Giertta, and F. Hajdu. 2019. Carbon-binding biomass or a diversity of useful trees? (Counter)topographies of carbon forestry in Uganda. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 2 (1):178–99. doi: 10.1177/2514848618823598.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K., and F. Hajdu. 2018. The importance of the will to improve: How “sustainability” sidelined local livelihoods in a carbon-forestry investment in Uganda. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 20 (3):328–41. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2017.1410429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J. 2012. No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx 46 (1):45–54. doi: 10.1017/S0030605311001384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, J. 2013. Justice implications of conditionality in payments for ecosystem services: A case study from Uganda. In The justices and injustices of ecosystem services, ed. T. Sikor, 21–45. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, J., C. J. Cavanagh, T. Sikor, and D. Mwayafu. 2018. Linking notions of justice and project outcomes in carbon offset forestry projects: Insights from a comparative study in Uganda. Land Use Policy 73:259–68. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.055.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R. 2010. Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society 8 (3):171–81. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.73806.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, R. 2017. Environmentality unbound: Multiple governmentalities in environmental politics. Geoforum 85 (June):311–15. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.009.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, T., and A. Walker. 2014. Hidden alliances: Rethinking environmentality and the politics of knowledge in Thailand’s campaign for community forestry. Conservation and Society 12 (4):408–17. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.155584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galik, C. S., and R. B. Jackson. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (11):2209–16. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, M. K., and E. Boyd. 2011. A social life for carbon? Commodification, markets and care. The Geographical Journal 177 (2):102–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00401.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gren, I. M., and A. A. Zeleke. 2016. Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature. Forest Policy and Economics 70:128–36. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, G., and C. J. Cavanagh. 2016. A review of the social impacts of neoliberal conservation: Formations, inequalities, contestations. Geoforum 75:199–209. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.07.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyams, K., and T. Fawcett. 2013. The ethics of carbon offsetting. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4 (2):91–98. doi: 10.1002/wcc.207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory, Culture and Society 27 (2–3):233–53. doi: 10.1177/0263276409361497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia, G., E. Shevliakova, P. Artaxo, N. D. Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Houghton, J. House, K. Kitajima, C. Lennard, A. Popp, A. Sirin, et al. 2019. Chapter 2: Land–climate interactions. Accessed August 24, 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2c.-Chapter-2_FINAL.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jindal, R., B. Swallow, and J. T. Kerr. 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration project in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32 (2):116–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00176.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kijazi, M. 2015. Climate emergency, carbon capture and coercive conservation on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa, ed. M. Leach and I. Scoones, 58–78. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Knox-Hayes, J. 2013. The spatial and temporal dynamics of value in financialization: Analysis of the infrastructure of carbon markets. Geoforum 50:117–28. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolinjivadi, V., G. Van Hecken, D. Vela Almeida, J. Dupras, and N. Kosoy. 2019. Neoliberal performatives and the “making” of payments for ecosystem services (PES). Progress in Human Geography 43 (1):3–25. doi: 10.1177/0309132517735707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansing, D. M. 2011. Realizing carbon’s value: Discourse and calculation in the production of carbon forestry offsets in Costa Rica. Antipode 43 (3):731–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00886.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansing, D. M. 2012. Performing carbon’s materiality: The production of carbon offsets and the framing of exchange. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44 (1):204–20. 10.1068/a44112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, R. 2012. Neoliberalism and the production of environmental knowledge. Environment and Society 3 (1):19–38. doi: 10.3167/ares.2012.030103.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, R., M. Doyle, and M. Robertson. 2010. Privatizing stream restoration in the U.S. Social Studies of Science 40 (5):677–703. doi: 10.1177/0306312710379671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach, M., and I. Scoones, eds. 2015a. Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, M., and I. Scoones. 2015b. Political ecologies of carbon in Africa. In Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa, ed. M. Leach and I. Scoones, 1–42. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Li, T. M. 2007. Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Economy and Society 36 (2):263–93. 10.1080/03085140701254308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, L. 2009. Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: The cases of carbon and cost–benefit. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (3–4):499–534. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, L. 2011a. Capital and climate change. Development and Change 42 (2):649–68. 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01700.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, L. 2011b. The endless algebra of climate markets. Capitalism Nature Socialism 22 (4):93–116. 10.1080/10455752.2011.617507.
   Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E., S. Beck, J. Chilvers, T. Forsyth, J. Hedrén, M. Hulme, R. Lidskog, and E. Vasileiadou. 2015. Who speaks for the future of earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change 32:211–18. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, J. F., E. Sungusia, M. B. Mabele, and A. Scheba. 2017. Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD + as conservation fad. World Development 89 (13):124–39. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.005.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, K., and P. Westoby. 2014. Carbon markets and the new “carbon violence”: A Ugandan study. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies: Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 9 (2):77–94. doi: 10.1080/18186874.2014.987956.
   Google Scholar
• Machen, R. 2018. Towards a critical politics of translation: (Re) producing hegemonic climate governance. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1 (4):494–515. doi: 10.1177/2514848618785515.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D. 2009. Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (3–4):440–55. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackey, B., I. C. Prentice, W. Steffen, J. I. House, D. Lindenmayer, H. Keith, and S. Berry. 2013. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change 3 (6):552–57. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1804.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahony, M., and M. Hulme. 2018. Epistemic geographies of climate change: Science, space and politics. Progress in Human Geography 42 (3):395–424. doi: 10.1177/0309132516681485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElwee, P. 2016. Forests are gold: Seeing the trees and people for the forests. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
   Google Scholar
• McElwee, P. 2017. The metrics of making ecosystem services. Environment and Society 8 (August):96–124. 10.3167/ares.2017.080105.
   Google Scholar
• Milne, S., and B. Adams. 2012. Market masquerades: Uncovering the politics of community-level payments for environmental services in Cambodia. Development and Change 43 (1):133–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01748.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milne, S., S. Mahanty, P. To, W. Dressler, P. Kanowski, and M. Thavat. 2019. Learning from “actually existing” REDD+: A synthesis of ethnographic findings. Conservation and Society 17 (1):84–95. doi: 10.4103/cs.cs_18_13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. London: Pluto.
   Google Scholar
• Muradian, R., M. Arsel, L. Pellegrini, F. Adaman, B. Aguilar, B. Agarwal, E. Corbera, D. Ezzine de Blas, J. Farley, G. Froger, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win–win solutions. Conservation Letters 6 (4):274–79. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nel, A. 2017. Contested carbon: Carbon forestry as a speculatively virtual, falteringly material and disputed territorial assemblage. Geoforum 81:144–52. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, T. 2011. Carbon forestry and agrarian change: Access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (4):859–83. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2011.611281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, T. 2015. Tradeoffs in carbon commodification: A political ecology of common property forest governance. Geoforum 67:64–77. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, T., and E. Shapiro-Garza. 2018. Embedding carbon markets: Complicating commodification of ecosystem services in Mexico’s forests. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 108 (1):88–105. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1343657.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto, J. 2018. Precarious participation: Assessing inequality and risk in the carbon credit commodity chain. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109 (1):187–201. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2018.1490167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson, M. M. 2006. The nature that capital can see: Science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24 (3):367–87. doi: 10.1068/d3304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, R. J., and W. Dressler. 2012. Market-oriented conservation governance: The particularities of place. Geoforum 43 (3):363–66. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreckenberg, K., D. M., Mwayafu, and R. Nyamutale. 2013. A case study of the trees for global finding equity in carbon sequestration. Accessed January 21, 2020. http://www.espa.ac.uk/files/espa/Case%20Study%20Trees%20for%20Global%20Benefits%20Project%2C%20Uganda.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• SEED. 2013. Trees for Global Benefits, Uganda: Low-carbon winner 2013. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://www.seed.uno/enterprise-profiles/trees-for-global-benefit.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro-Garza, E. 2013. Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 46:5–15. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephan, B. 2012. Bringing discourse to the market: The commodification of avoided deforestation. Environmental Politics 21 (4):621–39. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2012.688357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundberg, J. 1998. Strategies for authenticity, space, and place in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers Yearbook 24:85–96.
   Google Scholar
• Sundberg, J. 2006. Conservation encounters: Transculturation in the “contact zones” of empire. Cultural Geographies 13 (2):239–65. http://cgj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swyngedouw, E. 2011. Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political spaces. Political Geography 30 (7):370–80. doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, S., P. Dargusch, S. Harrison, and J. Herbohn. 2010. Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism projects? Land Use Policy 27 (3):880–87. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnhout, E., K. Neves, and E. De Lijster. 2014. “Measurementality” in biodiversity governance: Knowledge, transparency, and the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES). Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 46 (3):581–97. doi: 10.1068/a4629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twyman, C., T. A. Smith, and A. Arnall. 2015. What is carbon? Conceptualising carbon and capabilities in the context of community sequestration projects in the Global South. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6 (6):627–41. doi: 10.1002/wcc.367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., and C. Corson. 2015. The making of a “charismatic” carbon credit: Clean cookstoves and “uncooperative” women in western Kenya. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47 (10):2064–79. doi: 10.1068/a130233p.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, P. 2005. Translation, value, and space: Theorizing an ethnographic and engaged environmental anthropology. American Anthropologist 107 (4):632–42. doi: 10.1525/aa.2005.107.4.632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittman, H. K., and C. Caron. 2009. Carbon offsets and inequality: Social costs and co-benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka. Society & Natural Resources 22 (8):710–26. doi: 10.1080/08941920802046858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar