Rawls in the mangrove: Perceptions of justice in nature-based solutions projects
Rawls in the mangrove: Perceptions of justice in nature-based solutions projects
复制标题
红树林中的罗尔斯：基于自然的解决方案项目中的正义感
DOI：
10.1002/pan3.10498
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Huxham M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Huxham M
适应和减缓气候变化需要保护和扩大自然碳汇，特别是红树林（“蓝碳”的一个例子）等碳密度极高的生态系统。这样做的项目被称为“基于自然的解决方案”(NbS)。规范 NbS 的国际规范规定了正义的重要性，这与更广泛的保护领域的一些历史和实践形成鲜明对比。然而，正义的含义及其在实践中如何体现仍然存在争议。在自愿市场上出售碳信用额是 NbS 日益增长的资金来源。大量文献探讨了生态系统服务（PES）（包括蓝碳）支付的伦理、经济学、科学和政治。在这种情况下对正义的解释特别有争议，但尚未从正义的角度审查可操作的蓝碳项目。在此，我们报告一个案例研究，涉及第一个蓝碳项目 Mikoko Pamoja 及其姐妹项目 Vanga Blue Forest，这两个项目都位于肯尼亚。我们考虑当地参与者和受益人如何通过访谈、焦点小组和参与者观察来收集数据，以及国际利益相关者如何在相关管理文件和政策中构想正义。我们将这些看法与从文献中先验得出的期望和批评进行比较，其中包括有影响力的正义哲学家约翰·罗尔斯称之为“原始立场”的经典思想实验。与高层政策和许多文献相反，但与罗尔斯一样，当地利益相关者都强调正义的分配方面。对精英捕获和商品化等有争议问题的当地解释与文献中的常见解释明显不同。我们的工作强调在评估 NbS 项目的正义性时将抽象概念置于当地背景中的重要性。它展示了在 NbS 中提倡技术精确性和经济效率的叙述如何损害地方层面的透明度和机构，并强调了被认为公平的利益分享的至关重要性。在期刊博客上阅读本文的免费简明语言摘要。
Adapting to and mitigating against climate change requires the protection and expansion of natural carbon sinks, especially ecosystems with exceptional carbon density such as mangrove forests (an example of ‘blue carbon’). Projects that do this are called ‘nature‐based solutions’ (NbS).International norms regulating NbS stipulate the importance of justice, in contrast with some of the history and practice in wider conservation. However, what justice means and how it manifests in practice remain contentious.Selling carbon credits on the voluntary market is a growing source of funding for NbS. A large literature examines the ethics, economics, science and politics of such payments for ecosystem services (PES), including for blue carbon. The interpretations of justice in this context are particularly contentious, but operational blue carbon projects have not been examined from a justice perspective.Here we report on a case study involving the first blue carbon project, Mikoko Pamoja, and its sister project Vanga Blue Forest, both based in Kenya. We consider how justice is conceived by local participants and beneficiaries, using interviews, focus groups and participant observation to collect data, as well as by international stakeholders and in relevant governing documents and policy. We compare these perceptions with expectations and critiques derived a priori from the literature, including a classic thought experiment that influential justice philosopher John Rawls called the ‘original position’.In contrast to high‐level policy and much of the literature, but in common with Rawls, local stakeholders emphasised distributional aspects of justice. Locally situated interpretations of contentious issues such as elite capture and commodification differed markedly from common interpretations in the literature.Our work emphasises the importance of situating abstract concepts in their local contexts when evaluating justice in NbS projects. It shows how narratives advocating technical precision and economic efficiency in NbS can militate against transparency and agency at a local level and emphasises the critical importance of benefit sharing that is perceived to be fair.Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.