How do Carbon Dioxide Removal strategies deliver on justice? Insights from a review of afforestation and reforestation research

Technical Summary: Justice Implications in Afforestation and Reforestation Strategies

Problem Statement
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), particularly through afforestation and reforestation (A/R), is increasingly central to climate mitigation strategies required to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement goals. While A/R is promoted for its potential to align with sustainable development and wellbeing, the literature reveals a critical gap: justice remains under-represented in policy and academic discourse regarding A/R impacts. Existing research predominantly focuses on technological and environmental challenges, often overlooking social challenges. Furthermore, there is an inversion of responsibility where the Global North drives knowledge production while the Global South often bears the burdens of implementation. It remains unclear whether current A/R implementations deliver net positive contributions to wellbeing or if they compound existing social and environmental injustices, particularly given the competition for land and the risks of durability.

Methodology
The authors conducted a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of A/R case studies spanning 37 countries between 2015 and 2024. The review process involved:

• Data Selection: A systematic search of the Web of Science Core Collection yielded 628 papers, which were filtered down to 80 relevant, open-access, peer-reviewed articles (40 empirical, 37 modeled, 3 literature reviews). These 80 articles provided 87 geographically distinct cases.
• Analytical Framework: The study utilized the Theory of Change (ToC) methodology to map the causal logic of A/R implementation, coding inputs (activities), contextual factors (geophysical, economic, social, institutional), outputs (A/R occurrence), and impacts.
• Justice Assessment: An abductive thematic analysis was performed using the framework by Sikor et al. (2014). This framework evaluates justice across three dimensions (recognitional, procedural, distributional) and for various subjects (individuals, communities, future generations, social systems, non-human entities, and nature). The analysis focused on implicit justice implications within the recorded processes and outcomes, rather than relying on explicit mentions of justice in the source literature.

Key Results

• Research Biases: The literature is geographically skewed, with 33% of studies originating from China and 22% from the EU. There is a strong focus on environmental impacts (76% of cases), particularly soil properties, water dynamics, and carbon stocks, while economic, social, and institutional impacts are significantly under-researched (24%).
• Absence of Explicit Justice Consideration: None of the 87 cases explicitly sought to identify implications for social or environmental justice as a product or condition of A/R. However, the post-hoc assessment revealed that justice implications are substantial and often overlooked.
• Divergent Justice Outcomes:
  • Human vs. Non-Human: In current, primarily market-based A/R activities, human individuals are likely to receive the most just outcomes (e.g., economic compensation), while non-human entities and nature itself often receive the most unjust outcomes (e.g., loss of intrinsic value, biodiversity reduction).
  • Trade-offs: Justice implications are rarely uniform. Positive outcomes for one group often correspond to negative outcomes for another. For instance, market-based initiatives (carbon trading, commercial forestry) often produce just distributional outcomes for landowners but unjust recognitional outcomes for communities and nature.
  • Contextual Dependence: Outcomes are highly dependent on implementation activities and context. Activities involving community awareness and participation showed potential for high recognitional and procedural justice for both human and non-human communities. Conversely, monocultures and ecologically unsuitable species tended to produce unjust recognitional outcomes for nature.
• Structural Limitations: The study found that while certain stakeholders may experience reduced vulnerability, others face compounded vulnerabilities. The current dominance of neo-liberal, market-based approaches prioritizes material gains and often exacerbates existing inequalities and land conflicts, limiting the ability of A/R to generate just outcomes for all stakeholders.

Key Contributions

• Systematic Justice Mapping: The paper provides the first systematic review mapping the implicit justice implications of A/R across 37 countries, identifying a significant research gap where justice is rarely a central objective in implementation research.
• Differentiation of Justice Dimensions: It distinguishes how different A/R mechanisms (e.g., agroforestry vs. commercial plantations vs. protected areas) differentially impact recognitional, procedural, and distributive justice across various subjects.
• Identification of Structural Barriers: The review highlights that the structural inequalities inherent in current land governance and market-based CDR mechanisms are not easily resolved by A/R alone, necessitating a broader socio-cultural shift in governance.

Significance and Claims
The paper asserts that for A/R to truly enhance wellbeing, policy must ensure just outcomes for already-marginalized human and non-human communities and nature itself. The authors claim that:

1. Justice is a Prerequisite: Awareness of justice implications is a necessary precursor to successful climate change mitigation; without it, A/R risks compounding existing vulnerabilities.
2. Contextual Adaptation is Critical: Implementing robust institutional mechanisms and adapting to specific socio-ecological realities can deliver just outcomes, whereas rigid, top-down, or purely market-driven approaches often fail to address deep structural injustices.
3. Trade-offs are Inevitable but Manageable: While trade-offs between stakeholders are inevitable in current CDR frameworks, conscious adaptation of policies to local conditions can minimize these trade-offs.
4. Research Gap: The absence of justice in the literature signifies a research gap rather than a lack of impact, urging future research to actively assess and address the justice implications of land-based CDR.

The authors conclude that current CDR policies, particularly A/R, are unable to produce just outcomes for all stakeholders in their current form and invariably produce net winners and losers. They argue that CDR cannot successfully address deep structural injustices through its current deployment mechanisms without a wider shift in governance that moves beyond prioritizing material gains.