Advanced

Recognizing Carbon Forestry’s Uneven Geography: A Response to Purdon and the Structure-Agency Dichotomy That Never Was

Carton, Wim LU and Andersson, Elina LU (2018) In Society and Natural Resources
Abstract
We here respond to the critique by Purdon of an article on carbon forestry that we published in this journal last year (Carton and Andersson). While we welcome critical engagements with our work, Purdon’s argument is wide of the mark and appears based largely on misconceptions regarding our theoretical entry point and empirical findings. Underlying this are fundamental disagreements about the nature of carbon forestry, structure-agency dynamics, and how to understand environmental interventions in the global South more broadly. We argue that we are unlikely to “find common ground” in our respective analyses of the Trees for Global Benefits project unless we share a common understanding of the unequal power relations and fundamental... (More)
We here respond to the critique by Purdon of an article on carbon forestry that we published in this journal last year (Carton and Andersson). While we welcome critical engagements with our work, Purdon’s argument is wide of the mark and appears based largely on misconceptions regarding our theoretical entry point and empirical findings. Underlying this are fundamental disagreements about the nature of carbon forestry, structure-agency dynamics, and how to understand environmental interventions in the global South more broadly. We argue that we are unlikely to “find common ground” in our respective analyses of the Trees for Global Benefits project unless we share a common understanding of the unequal power relations and fundamental geographical unevenness within which carbon projects operate. Contrary to what Purdon argues, this position has nothing to do with ignoring local benefits, nor with denying the agency of the smallholder farmers who participate in the project. We see no contradiction between an analysis that does justice to the various structural conditions that frame carbon forest projects, and a recognition of local agency. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
epub
subject
in
Society and Natural Resources
pages
9 pages
publisher
Taylor & Francis
external identifiers
  • scopus:85047959207
ISSN
0894-1920
DOI
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
850d7f06-61a1-4252-a22d-a962950c7310
date added to LUP
2018-05-11 18:11:56
date last changed
2018-06-17 05:32:10
@misc{850d7f06-61a1-4252-a22d-a962950c7310,
  abstract     = {We here respond to the critique by Purdon of an article on carbon forestry that we published in this journal last year (Carton and Andersson). While we welcome critical engagements with our work, Purdon’s argument is wide of the mark and appears based largely on misconceptions regarding our theoretical entry point and empirical findings. Underlying this are fundamental disagreements about the nature of carbon forestry, structure-agency dynamics, and how to understand environmental interventions in the global South more broadly. We argue that we are unlikely to “find common ground” in our respective analyses of the Trees for Global Benefits project unless we share a common understanding of the unequal power relations and fundamental geographical unevenness within which carbon projects operate. Contrary to what Purdon argues, this position has nothing to do with ignoring local benefits, nor with denying the agency of the smallholder farmers who participate in the project. We see no contradiction between an analysis that does justice to the various structural conditions that frame carbon forest projects, and a recognition of local agency.},
  author       = {Carton, Wim and Andersson, Elina},
  issn         = {0894-1920},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {06},
  pages        = {9},
  publisher    = {Taylor & Francis},
  series       = {Society and Natural Resources},
  title        = {Recognizing Carbon Forestry’s Uneven Geography: A Response to Purdon and the Structure-Agency Dichotomy That Never Was},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/},
  year         = {2018},
}