IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v56y2015icp38-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project

Author

Listed:
  • Vijge, Marjanneke J.

Abstract

This article analyzes three of the most contentious scholarly and political debates regarding REDD+, focusing on 1) what REDD+ should achieve; 2) who should monitor REDD+ outcomes; and 3) how REDD+ should be financed. In analyzing these, the article conceptualizes three sets of storylines and assesses which of the identified storylines resonate in the first Indian REDD+ project, focusing on both stakeholders' views and project design. The three identified questions do not give rise to contentious debates among stakeholders of the REDD+ project. Contrasting views on REDD+ found in scholarly and political debates – such as carbon versus non-carbon objectives, authority of technical experts versus local communities, and market versus fund-based approaches – are not prevalent among project stakeholders, who believe that different approaches to REDD+ can be combined and can even reinforce each other. Project stakeholders prefer non-carbon benefits as the project's main objective to be monitored jointly by experts and local communities, and favor a mix of fund- and market-based approaches. This is also reflected in the project design. The conclusion reflects on the insights that the multi-level discourse analysis in this article generated, including for REDD+ in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Vijge, Marjanneke J., 2015. "Competing discourses on REDD+: Global debates versus the first Indian REDD+ project," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 38-47.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:38-47
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115000581
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801.
    2. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    3. Mert, Aysem, 2009. "Partnerships for sustainable development as discursive practice: Shifts in discourses of environment and democracy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 109-122, March.
    4. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    5. Arhin, Albert Abraham, 2014. "Safeguards and Dangerguards: A Framework for Unpacking the Black Box of Safeguards for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 24-31.
    6. Constance L. McDermott & Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore, 2011. "Building the Forest-Climate Bandwagon: REDD+ and the Logic of Problem Amelioration," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 11(3), pages 85-103, August.
    7. Tobias Nielsen, 2014. "The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 265-280, September.
    8. Lederer, Markus, 2011. "From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1900-1907, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin & Phin, Sopheap, 2017. "Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 10-21.
    2. Nielsen, Tobias Dan, 2016. "From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 177-184.
    3. Siegner, Meike & Hagerman, Shannon & Kozak, Robert, 2018. "Going deeper with documents: A systematic review of the application of extant texts in social research on forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 128-135.
    4. Tapan Kumar Nath & Mohammed Jashimuddin & Makoto Inoue, 2020. "Achieving sustainable development goals through participatory forest management: Examples from South‐Eastern Bangladesh," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(4), pages 353-368, November.
    5. Zambrano-Cortés, Darío Gerardo & Behagel, Jelle Hendrik, 2023. "The political rationalities of governing deforestation in Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Benjamin M. Abraham, 2021. "Ideology and non-state climate action: partnering and design of REDD+ projects," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 669-690, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    2. Mbatu, Richard S, 2016. "REDD+ research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 140-152.
    3. Rosendal, G. Kristin & Andresen, Steinar, 2011. "Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD: Lessons from the global environment facility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1908-1915, September.
    4. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.
    5. Anderson, Blake & M'Gonigle, Michael, 2012. "Does ecological economics have a future?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 37-48.
    6. George A. Gonzalez, 2016. "Transforming Energy: Solving Climate Change with Technology Policy . New York : Cambridge University Press . 360 pages. ISBN 9781107614970, $29.99 paperback. Anthony Patt , 2015 ," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(1), pages 111-113, January.
    7. Leipold, Sina, 2014. "Creating forests with words — A review of forest-related discourse studies," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 12-20.
    8. Hein, Jonas, 2013. "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), Transnational Conservation and Access to Land in Jambi, Indonesia," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 2, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    9. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    10. Shannon Johnson, 2021. "Discourse and Practice of REDD+ in Ghana and the Expansion of State Power," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Nielsen, Tobias Dan, 2016. "From REDD+ forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 177-184.
    12. Stéphane Hallegatte, 2008. "A Proposal for a New Prescriptive Discounting Scheme: The Intergenerational Discount Rate," Working Papers 2008.47, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    13. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    14. Oliver Schenker, 2013. "Exchanging Goods and Damages: The Role of Trade on the Distribution of Climate Change Costs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 261-282, February.
    15. Alejandro Lopez-Feldman, 2013. "Climate change, agriculture, and poverty: A household level analysis for rural Mexico," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1126-1139.
    16. Bikki Jaggi & Alessandra Allini & Riccardo Macchioni & Annamaria Zampella, 2018. "Do investors find carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1031-1056, May.
    17. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    18. Richard Tol, 2011. "Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 827-839, October.
    19. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    20. Grüll, Georg & Taschini, Luca, 2011. "Cap-and-trade properties under different hybrid scheme designs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 107-118, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:38-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.