Climatic Change

, Volume 138, Issue 1–2, pp 309–323 | Cite as

REDD+ politics in the media: a case from Nepal

  • Dil B. Khatri
  • Thuy Thu Pham
  • Monica Di Gregorio
  • Rahul Karki
  • Naya S. Paudel
  • Maria Brockhaus
  • Ramesh Bhushal
Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes public discourse on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) as it is portrayed in the media and examines how this influences effective and equitable outcomes of REDD+ in Nepal. It draws on analysis of articles in three national newspapers and interviews with radio and newspaper journalists, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, and technical experts. Findings show that REDD+ coverage has been limited in the Nepalese print media and overall reporting on REDD+ has declined over time. The discourse is currently dominated by a small number of experts and development project implementers who portray REDD+ optimistically as an opportunity to benefit from carbon markets, while contributing to sustainable forest management. There was limited representation of the interests and concerns of marginalized groups and local communities in the public debate, thus underplaying the complexities and challenges of REDD+ development and implementation in Nepal. While the absence of debate on potential negative impacts can be explained partly by the dominance of optimistic voices in the media, it was also attributed to journalists’ limited access to independent knowledge and understanding of the issue. The resulting lack of balanced information in the public domain could undermine both the effectiveness of REDD+ implementation and its equitable outcome.

Keywords

REDD + Nepal Media discourse Policy process 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the policy component of the Global Comparative Study of REDD+ of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (http://www.forestsclimatechange.org/global-comparative-study-on-redd.html). We would like to thank Niru Gurung and Lochana Rana for their contribution in terms of media content analysis. Funding for CIFOR’s research was provided by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, the Australian Agency for International Development, the UK Department for International Development, the European Commission and the US Agency for International Development.

References

  1. Anderson A (2009) Media, politics and climate change: towards a new research agenda. Soc Compass 3:166–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billett S (2010) Dividing climate change: global warming in the Indian mass media. Clim Chang 99:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boykoff M (2008) The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Polit Geogr 27:549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boykoff M (2010) Indian media representations of climate change in a threatened journalistic ecosystem. Clim Chang 99:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boykoff MT (2014) Media discourse on the climate slowdown. Nature Clim Change 4(3):156–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boykoff MT, Yulsman T (2013) Political economy, media, and climate change: sinews of modern life. Clim Chang 4:359–371Google Scholar
  7. Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M (2012) A brief overview: Component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. InfoBrief No. 13. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bushley BR (2014) REDD+ policy making in Nepal: toward state-centric, polycentric, or market-oriented governance? Ecol Soc 19(3):34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrne S, Shrestha G (2014) A compromising consensus? Legitimising local government in post-conflict Nepal. Int Dev Plann Rev 36(4):435–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2009) Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(42):17667–17670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronin T, Santoso L (2010) REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Indonesia. CIFOR Working Paper (no. 49, p 40p). Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronin T, Santoso L, Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Mardiah S, Muharrom E (2015) Moving consensus and managing expectations: media and REDD+ in Indonesia. Clim Chang:1–14. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1563-3
  13. Crow AD (2010) Local media and experts: sources of environmental policy initiation? Policy Stud J 38(1):143–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Gregorio M, Price S, Saunders C, Brockhaus M (2012) Code book for the analysis of media frames in articles on REDD. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E, Santoso L, Mardiah S, Büdenbende M (2013) Equity and REDD+ in the media: a comparative analysis of policy discourses. Ecol Soc 18(2):39Google Scholar
  16. Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E, Mardiah S, Santoso L (2015) Deadlock or transformational change? Exploring public discourse on REDD+ across seven countries. Global Environ Polit 15(4):63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ForestAction CIFOR (2013) Sharing of research findings on: REDD+, media and policy actors. Forest Action Nepal and Center for International Forestry Research, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  18. GoN] Government of Nepal (2010) Readiness preparation proposal, Nepal. Government of Nepal, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  19. Khatri DB and Paudel NS (2013) Is Nepal getting ready for REDD + ? An assessment of REDD+ readiness process in Nepal. Discussion Paper Series 12.2. ForestAction Nepal, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawoti M (2008) Exclusionary democratization in Nepal, 1990–2002. Democratization 15(2):363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luttrell C, Loft L, Gebara MF, Kweka D (2012) Who should benefit and why? Discourses on REDD+ benefit sharing. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot L (eds) Analysing REDD+: challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 129–151Google Scholar
  22. Luttrell C, Loft L, Gebara MF, Kweka D, Brockhaus M, Angelsen A, Sunderlin WD (2013) Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecol Soc. doi:10.5751/ES-05834-180452
  23. McDermott CL, Coad L, Helfgott A, Schroeder H (2012) Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: actors, interests and ideas. Environ Sci Pol 21:63–72Google Scholar
  24. McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Pol 33:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O'Brien K, Eriksen S, Nygaard LP, Schjolden A (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim Policy 7(1):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ojha H, Khatri DB, Shrestha KK, Bushley B, Sharma N (2013) Carbon, community and governance: is Nepal getting ready for REDD + ? FTL 22(4):216–229Google Scholar
  27. Ojha HR, Ghimire S, Pain A, Nightingale A, Khatri DB, Dhungana H (2015) Policy without politics: technocratic control of climate change adaptation policy making in Nepal. Clim Policy:1–19. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.1003775
  28. Painter J (2010) Challenges, summoned by science: reporting climate change at Copenhagen and beyond. Institute for the Study of Journalism, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Paudel NS, Vedeld PO, Khatri DB (2015) Prospects and challenges of tenure and forest governance reform in the context of REDD+ initiatives in Nepal. For Policy Econ 52:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pham TT (2011) REDD+ politics in the media: a case study from Vietnam. Working Paper 53. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  31. Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010) Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance. Science 328(5976):312–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Poudel M, Thwaites R, Race D, Dahal GR (2014) REDD+ and community forestry: implications for local communities and forest management. A case study from Nepal. Int For Rev 16(1):39–54Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt A, Ivanova A, Schäfer MS (2013) Media attention for climate change around the world: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Global Environ Chang 23(5):1233–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schroeder H, McDermott C (2014). Beyond carbon: enabling justice and equity in REDD+ across levels of governance. Ecol Soc19 (1):31Google Scholar
  35. Shrestha S, Karky BS, Karki S (2014) Case study report: REDD+ pilot project in community forests in three watersheds of Nepal. Forests 5:2425–2439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vijge MJ, Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M, Muharrom E (2016) Framing REDD+ in the national political arena: a comparative discourse analysis of Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, PNG, Vietnam. Peru and Tanzania, Global Environmental Change (in press)Google Scholar
  37. Weingart P, Engels A, Pansegrau P (2000) Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Underst Sci 9(3):261–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dil B. Khatri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thuy Thu Pham
    • 3
  • Monica Di Gregorio
    • 3
    • 4
  • Rahul Karki
    • 1
  • Naya S. Paudel
    • 1
  • Maria Brockhaus
    • 3
  • Ramesh Bhushal
    • 1
  1. 1.ForestAction NepalKathmanduNepal
  2. 2.Department of Urban and Rural and DevelopmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.Center for International Forestry ResearchBogorIndonesia
  4. 4.School of Earth and Environment, Sustainability Research InstituteUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations