Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 23, Issue 14, pp 3543–3560 | Cite as

Discourse practices in environmental governance: social and ecological safeguards of REDD

  • Christoph Aicher
Original Paper

Abstract

REDD and the ecological and social REDD safeguards are emerging phenomena. They have technical but also environmental governance dimensions. The complexity of forest governance demands multi-level and trans-disciplinary approaches. Drawing on concepts of science and technology studies (STS) and discourse analysis the article examines REDD and the ecological and social REDD safeguards from the perspective of environmental governance. The article looks at the ordering and disciplining effects of governance and the power relationships behind. It tries to explore to what extent social and ecological REDD safeguards serve to sustain biodiversity and functioning ecosystems as well as respect and reflect cultural settings, capabilities and categories of forest dependent communities and indigenous peoples. These local peculiarities are understood to be central for the conservation of diverse social-ecological systems. REDD tends to simplify views on forest and consequently is likely to have negative effects on ecological and cultural diversities. The ecological and social REDD safeguards have the potential to balance this. This possible effect will, however, depend to a great extent upon the ability of western scientific knowledge production systems to reflect hegemonic claims for truth on the one hand, and the capacity of local communities and especially indigenous peoples to develop alternative strategies and standards based on their knowledge systems on the other hand.

Keywords

Tropical forest Deforestation International standards Indigenous peoples Knowledge systems 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I want to express my gratitude to the members of Tebtebba and its partners from the Global Indigenous Peoples Partnership on Climate Change, Forests and Sustainable Development for sharing their ideas, concerns and aspirations with me on REDD, safeguards, dialogues between science and traditional knowledge and much more.

References

  1. Agrawal A (2012) Local institutions and the governance of forest commons. In: Steinberg PF, VanDeveer SD (eds) Comparative environmental politics: theory, practice, and prospects. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 313–340Google Scholar
  2. Angelsen A (2008) REDD models and baselines. Int For Rev 10(3):465–475. doi: 10.1505/ifor.10.3.465 Google Scholar
  3. Angelsen A (2009) Introduction. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M et al (eds) Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  4. Angelsen A, McNeill D (2012) The evolution of REDD+. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 31–49Google Scholar
  5. Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob Environ Polit 6(1):50–75. doi: 10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bäckstrand K et al (2010) The promise of new modes of environmental governance. In: Bäckstrand K, Khan J, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E (eds) Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boas H (ed) (2011) No REDD papers: indigenous women defending land and life since the beginning of time, vol 1. Charles Overbeck/Eberhardt Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohensky EL, Maru Y (2011) Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration”?. Ecol Soc 16(4). doi: 10.5751/ES-04342-160406
  9. Boyd W (2010) Ways of seeing in environmental law: how deforestation became an object of climate governance. Ecol Law Q 37(3):843–916Google Scholar
  10. Briggs J (2013) Indigenous knowledge: a false dawn for development theory and practice? Prog Dev Stud 13(3):231–243. doi: 10.1177/1464993413486549 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caplow S, Jagger P, Lawlor K, Sills E (2011) Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):152–167. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CCB Standards Fact Sheet (n.y.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/CCB_Standards_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  13. CCBA (The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance) (2013a) Climate, community & biodiversity standards. Third edition. ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. CCBA (The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance) (2013b) Rules for the use of the climate, community & biodiversity standards. ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(42):17667–17670. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905308106 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conca K (2010) Rethinking authority, territory, and knowledge: transnational socio-ecological controversies and global environmental governance. In: Park J, Conca K, Finger M (eds) The crisis of global environmental governance: towards a new political economy of sustainability. Routledge, London, pp 193–207Google Scholar
  17. Crippa LA (2013) REDD+: its potential to melt the glacial resistance to recognize human rights and indigenous peoples’ rights at the World Bank. In: Abate RS, Kronk EA (eds) Climate change and indigenous peoples. The search for legal remedies. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 123–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crippa LA, Gordon G (2013) International law principles for REDD+: the rights of indigenous peoples and the obligations of REDD+ actors. Working Paper, Indian Law Resource Center, HelenaGoogle Scholar
  19. Danielsen F et al (2011) At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv Lett 4(2):158–167. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00159.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Danielsen F et al (2013) Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities. Ecol Soc 18(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-05464-180341
  21. Dean M (2006) Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. Sage Publ, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Eliasch J (2008) Climate change: financing global forests. The Eliasch review, office of climate changeGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellen RF, Parkes P, Bicker A (eds) (2000) Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: critical anthropological perspectives. Studies in environmental anthropology. Harwood Academic Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) & JRC (European Commission Joint Research Centre) (2012) Global forest land-use change 1990–2005, by: Lindquist EJ, Annunzio RD’ et al FAO Forestry Paper No. 169. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Flitner M (1998) Biodiversity: of local commons and global commodities. In: Goldman M (ed) Privatizing nature: political struggles for the global commons. Pluto Press, London, pp 144–166Google Scholar
  26. Fogel C (2004) The local, the global, and the Kyoto Protocol. In: Jasanoff S, Martello ML (eds) Earthly politics: local and global in environmental governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 103–125Google Scholar
  27. Fortmann L (2008) Introduction: doing science together. In: Fortmann L (ed) Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods: doing science together. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  28. Foucault M (2006) Geschichte der Gouvernementalität: Die Geburt der Biopolitik: Vorlesung am Collège de France 1978–1979. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  29. Fry BP (2011) Community forest monitoring in REDD+: the ‘M’ in MRV? Environ Sci Policy 14(2):181–187. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gill T (1946) Forestry joins the United Nations. J For 44(3):159–163Google Scholar
  31. GOFC-GOLD (2012) A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation. GOFC-GOLD Land Cover Project Office, Wageningen University, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  32. Goldtooth TBK (2011) Why REDD/REDD+ is not a solution. In: Boas H (ed) No REDD Papers: indigenous women defending land and life since the beginning of time, vol 1. Charles Overbeck/Eberhardt Press, Portland, pp 13–25Google Scholar
  33. Griffiths T, Tugendhat H (2013) Introduction: why safeguards matter. E-Newsletter special: safeguarding human rights in international finance. Forest Peoples Programme. Moreton-in-Marsh (UK): 2–4. http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2013/04/e-newsletter-april-2013-colour-english.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  34. Grimmig M (2011) Goldene Tropen: die Koproduktion natürlicher Ressourcen und kultureller Differenz in Guayana. Transcript, BielefeldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gupta A et al (2012) In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+measuring, reporting and verification systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):726–731. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heske F (1938/39) Der tropische Wald als Rohstoffquelle. Zeitschrift für Weltforstwirtschaft VI:413–485Google Scholar
  37. Hoogeveen H et al (2008) Designing a forest financing mechanism (FFM): a call for bold, collaborative & innovative thinking. Medford, MA. Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (CIERP). The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. http://environment.tufts.edu/wp-content/uploads/DesigningaForestFinancingMechanism.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  38. IFIPCC (2007) Statement by the International Forum of Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change (IFIPCC) on ‘reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ (REDD) agenda item at the UNFCCC climate negotiations. In: The 13th session of conference of the parties to the UNFCCC SBSTA 27, agenda item 5/REDDGoogle Scholar
  39. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2000) Land use, land-use change and forestry. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Hayama (Kanagawa)Google Scholar
  41. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III. Chapter 9, Forestry. Final DraftGoogle Scholar
  42. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (1990) IPCC first assessment report, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  43. IPCC (lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2006) IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4—agriculture, forestry and other land use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (eds) Hayama (Kanagawa)Google Scholar
  44. Ituarte-Lima C, Schultz M, Hahn T, Cornell S (2013). Discussion paper: safeguards for scaling-up biodiversity financing and possible guiding principles. Based on first discussion paper on: safeguards for scaling-up biodiversity financing and possible guiding Principles—UNEP CBD/COP/11/INF7 (2012). Stockholm, Stockholm Resilience Centre. http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-07-en.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  45. IWGIA et al (2014) Submission on non-carbon benefits as an imperative for the sustainability of REDD+ submission by: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), Forests of the World, IBIS, CARE-Denmark, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN), Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN). http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/smsn/ngo/408.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  46. Jasanoff S (2006) The idiom of co-production. In: Jasanoff S (ed) States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. Routledge, London, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  47. Jasanoff S, Martello ML (2004) Conclusion: knowledge and governance. In: Jasanoff S, Martello ML (eds) Earthly politics: local and global in environmental governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 335–350Google Scholar
  48. Kanie N, Haas PM (eds) (2004) Emerging forces in environmental governance. United Nations Univ. Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  49. Karsenty A, Ongolo S (2012) Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism. For Policy Econ 18:38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kjaer AM (2004) Governance. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Kühne K (2011) Why REDD+ is dangerous (in its current form). http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/02/05/why-redd-is-dangerous-in-its-current-form/. Accessed 30 July 2014
  52. La Viña AGM (2010) The future of REDD-Plus: pathways of convergence for the UNFCCC negotiations and the partnership. Working Paper, Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD). https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/for/wscbredd-apac-01/other/wscbredd-apac-01-oth-field_redd_paper-en.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  53. Larsen G, Rey D, Daviet F (2012) Map of SBSTA submissions: REDD+ safeguard information system. WRI Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, http://www.clientearth.org/reports/map-of-sbsta-submissions-redd+-safeguard-information-system.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  54. Lawlor K, Madeira E, Blockhus J, Ganz D (2013) Community participation and benefits in REDD+: a review of initial outcomes and lessons. Forests 4(2):296–318. doi: 10.3390/f4020296 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Litfin KT (1998) Satellites and sovereign knowledge: remote sensing of the global environment. In: Litfin KT (ed) The greening of sovereignty in world politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 193–221Google Scholar
  56. Maffi L (2001) Introduction: on the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. In: Maffi L (ed) On biocultural diversity: linking language, knowledge, and the environment. L. Maffi. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  57. Martello ML, Jasanoff S (2004) Introduction: globalization and environmental governance. In: Jasanoff S, Martello ML (eds) Earthly politics: local and global in environmental governance. MIT press, Cambridge, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  58. Martone F, Griffiths T (2013) Safeguards in REDD+ financing schemes. E-Newsletter Special: safeguarding human rights in international finance. Forest Peoples Programme. Moreton-in-Marsh (UK): 24–27. http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2013/04/e-newsletter-april-2013-colour-english.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  59. Mathews AS (2014) Scandals, audits, and fictions: linking climate change to Mexican forests. Soc Stud Sci 44(1):82–108. doi: 10.1177/0306312713490330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H (2012) Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ Sci Policy 21:63–72. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Melick D (2010) Credibility of REDD and experiences from papua New Guinea. Conserv Biol 24(2):359–361. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01471.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moss N, Nussbaum R (2011) A review of three REDD+ safeguard initiatives Forest Carbon Partnership Facility & UN-REDD ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  63. Myers N et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853–858. doi: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6772/suppinfo/403853a0_S1.html
  64. Newing HS (2009) Traditional knowledge in international forest policy: contested meanings and divergent discourses. J Integr Environ Sci 6(3):175–187. doi: 10.1080/19438150903090491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pacheco P, Putzel L, Obidzinski K, Schoneveld G (2012) REDD+ and the global economy: competing forces and policy options. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 51–66Google Scholar
  66. Parker C (2009) The little REDD + book. Global Canopy Programme, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Parrotta JA, Trosper RL (2012) Introduction: the growing importance of traditional forest-related knowledge. In: Parrotta JA, Trosper RL (eds) Traditional forest-related knowledge: sustaining communities, ecosystems and biocultural diversity. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010a) REDD+: when the stakes are high—E-Letter responses to: charles Palmer REDD+: property rights and liability. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5982/1105.1/reply. Accessed 30 July 2014
  69. Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010b) Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 328(5976):312–313. doi: 10.1126/science.1187774 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pistorius T (2012) From RED to REDD+: the evolution of a forest-based mitigation approach for developing countries. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):638–645. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pokorny B, Scholz I, de Jong W (2013) REDD+ for the poor or the poor for REDD+ ? About the limitations of environmental policies in the Amazon and the potential of achieving environmental goals through pro-poor policies. Ecol Soc 18(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-05458-180203
  72. Qureshi A et al (2012) A review of protocols used for assessment of carbon stock in forested landscapes. Environ Sci Policy 16:81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rey D, Roberts J, Korwin S, Rivera L, Ribet U (2013) A guide to understanding and implementing the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards. London, ClientEarth. http://www.clientearth.org/reports/a-guide-to-understanding-and-implementing-unfccc-redd+-safeguards.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  74. Riamit S, Tauli-Corpuz V (2011) indigenous peoples’ perspectives and activities in monitoring, reporting, and indicators development for REDD+ and a review of the MRV concepts, tools and instruments. http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Feb2011/Indigenous%20Peoples%27%20Perspective%20on%20Community%20based%20MRV%20for%20Social%20and%20Enviromental%20Standards.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  75. Savaresi A (2012) The Role of REDD in the harmonization of overlapping international obligations. In: Hollo EJ, Kulovesi K, Mehling M (eds) Climate change and the law. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 391–418Google Scholar
  76. Savaresi A (2013) REDD+ and human rights: addressing synergies between international regimes. Ecol Soc 18(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-05549-180305
  77. Sobrevila C (2008) The role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation: the natural but often forgotten partners. World Bank, Washington, D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBIODIVERSITY/Resources/RoleofIndigenousPeoplesinBiodiversityConservation.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  78. Steinberg PF, VanDeveer SD (2012) Comparative theory and environmental practice: toward doubly engaged social science. In: Steinberg PF, VanDeveer SD (eds) Comparative environmental politics: theory, practice, and prospects. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 371–403Google Scholar
  79. Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Streck C, Parker C (2012) Financing REDD+. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 111–127Google Scholar
  81. Swan S, McNally R (2011) High-biodiversity REDD+: operationalising safeguards and delivering environmental co-benefits Ha Noi, SNV-Netherlands Development Organisation. http://www.snvworld.org/files/publications/hb_redd_safeguards.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  82. Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education) (2014) Submission on providing incentives and addressing methodological issues related to non-carbon benefits (NCBs) resulting from the implementation of REDD-Plus activities. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2014/smsn/ngo/410.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  83. Tebtebba Foundation (2008) Indicators relevant for indigenous peoples: a resource book. Baguio CityGoogle Scholar
  84. Tengö M et al (2013) The Multiple evidence base as a framework for connecting diverse knowledge systems in the IPBES. Discussion paper 2012–06–04, Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm. http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.416c425f13e06f977b11277/1381790056214/Multiple+Evidence+Base+for+IPBES+2013-06-05.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  85. Thompson MC, Baruah M, Carr ER (2011) Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ Sci Policy 14(2):100–110. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.006
  86. Tsing AL (2005) Friction: an ethnography of global connection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  87. Turnhout E et al (2012) Conservation policy: listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454–455. doi: 10.1038/488454a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2009) Methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. Decision 4/CP.15Google Scholar
  89. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2011) Report of the conference of the parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010—Addendum: part Two: action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session: decision 1/CP.16 – The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the ConventionGoogle Scholar
  90. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2012) Report of the conference of the parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011—Addendum: part Two: action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session. Durban decision 12/CP.17Google Scholar
  91. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2014) Report of the conference of the parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013—Addendum. Part two: action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its nineteenth sessionGoogle Scholar
  92. Van Dam C (2011) Indigenous territories and REDD in latin America: opportunity or threat? Forests 2(1):394–414. doi: 10.3390/f2010394 Google Scholar
  93. Visseren-Hamakers IJ, McDermott C, Vijge MJ, Cashore B (2012) Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(6):646–653. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Young O (2006) Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecol Soc 11(1). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art27/). Accessed 30 July 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Environmental PoliticsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations