A political ecology of REDD+: property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in Cross River

This paper offers a critical assessment of REDD+ in Nigeria through a political ecology perspective. Focusing on questions of property rights and resource access, it maps the discursive articulations and contestations through which carbon rights are being determined. It also shows how these articulations and contestations are linked to land and forest rights, and how they shape everyday access to the forest. Evidence from the Nigerian case suggests that factors that complicate rights and undermine access to resources for forest communities under REDD+ are immanent to the contested terrain constituted in part by REDD+ proposals, proponents’ discourses and practices geared towards securing the forest for REDD+. Efforts to secure property rights and guarantee the permanence of REDD+ forests align with economic, ecological and ideological aspirations of state and non-state actors to produce a regime of militarised protectionism. I demonstrate how, in addition to its material and symbolic facilitation of the emergent carbon forestry economy, militarised protectionism as a regime of exclusion also constitutes collateral political economies of ‘more-than-carbon’ forest resources (such as timber and non-timber forest products) which perpetuate capital accumulation by the elites. It is this kind of exclusion–accumulation dialectic legitimised by carbon forestry claims that this paper describes as carbonised exclusion. The paper thus furthers debates on the political ecology of REDD+ and other carbon forestry projects, while productively engaging technocentric literature on REDD+ and property rights

Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves

We used two measures to compare the effectiveness of 52 conservation criteria in achieving conservation targets for forest types. The first measure was efficiency. Although widely used, efficiency assumes no loss or reduction of biodiversity features before conservation is implemented. This is invalid in many situations. Often, it is more realistic to assume gradual implementation accompanied by incremental, predictable reduction and loss of biodiversity features. We simulated future landscapes resulting from the annual interplay of loss and conservation of forest types. We then based our second measure, retention, on how well criteria scheduled conservation action to prevent targets being compromised. The simulations partly support predictions about the best criteria for scheduling implementation with continuing biodiversity loss. Retention was weakly related or unrelated to efficiency across 52 criteria. Although retention values were sensitive to changes in targets and rates of conservation and forest loss, one criterion consistently produced highest retention values