This article critically evaluates the discourses concerning the social impacts of Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) carbon offset schemes on people living in and around forest areas. In particular, the article critically evaluates two of the strategies proposed to mitigate potential social risks from REDD+ and to promote benefits to forest peoples and indigenous peoples: tenure reform and processes of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). The article suggests that these strategies may not lead to the outcomes forest peoples and their advocates are seeking and provide only constrained tools for contesting REDD+ projects. This article suggests these strategies may instead operate to facilitate the greater disciplinary inclusion of forest peoples in the so-called ‘green economy’.
This article offers some preliminary reflections on what has arguably been a blind spot in discussions both of the Paris Agreement and in the literature on climate change and human rights, namely the continual extraction of fossil fuels. The present article suggests three analytical tools – a ‘transnational law of carbon’, infrastructure and global value chains – that may offer possibilities for rethinking the relationship between fossil fuels and international law, as well as bringing questions of justice and rights into the centre of the frame.