Climatic Change

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 213–226 | Cite as

Framing REDD+ in the Brazilian national media: how discourses evolved amid global negotiation uncertainties

  • Maria Fernanda GebaraEmail author
  • Peter H. May
  • Rachel Carmenta
  • Bruno Calixto
  • Maria Brockhaus
  • Monica Di Gregorio


Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD+) in tropical countries is an important and contested element of the post-Kyoto climate regime. For policy options which generate controversy between diverse actor groups, such as REDD+, mass media plays an important role in defining and supporting policy possibilities. Analysis of the way in which national media frames issues of climate change and deforestation can offer insights into the nature of the contested domains of the REDD+ policy process. Here, we examine the Brazilian national media discourses surrounding REDD+ because it contributes to setting the tone of policy debates at the federal level. Specifically, we ask the following: (i) How was REDD+ portrayed in the Brazilian national print media and whose opinions and perceptions were represented? and (ii) How have media frames on REDD+ in the national print media changed over time? Our results contribute with new knowledge for understanding the observed progress of REDD+ in Brazil. We identify two main themes that dominate the focus in the national media coverage of REDD+, specifically “politics and policymaking” (representing half the coverage) and “economics and market” (with over a third). Results show that discussions around carbon markets were amongst the most contested and that optimism in relation to REDD+ effectiveness declined over time. The analysis suggests that positions adopted on the national REDD+ strategy were shaped by state and federal collision of interests. We demonstrate an evolution of national concerns from an initial focus on efficiency (e.g. finance and carbon markets) to a recentred focus on equity issues (e.g. implementation of safeguards). We conclude with some thoughts on the implications of these features for REDD+ interventions and implementation in Brazil.


Policy Actor Policy Process National Medium Carbon Market Climate Change Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research is part of the policy component of the Global Comparative Study of REDD+ of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) ( We would like to thank Sergio Leite, Tiemi Kagohara, and Izaira Zineski for their contributions on managing the resources of this research. The methods applied in this study were built on research undertaken by the Comparing Climate Change Policy Networks program ( We also thank Stephan Price and Clare Saunders for sharing the Code Book for the Analysis of Media Frames in Climate Change Articles, which was adapted for the media analysis of national REDD+ policy.


  1. Abranches SR (2014) The political economy of deforestation in Brazil and payment-for-performance finance. CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series. Center for Global Development, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson A (2009) Media, politics and climate change: towards a new research agenda. Sociol Compass 3:166–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assunção J, Gandour CC, Rocha R (2012) Deforestation slowdown in the legal Amazon: prices or policies? Rio de Janeiro: NAPC/PUC-Rio (CPI Technical Report). Available at:
  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. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, pp 31–49Google Scholar
  5. Boerner J, Wunder S (2008) Paying for avoided deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: from cost assessment to scheme design. Int For Rev 10(3):496–511Google Scholar
  6. Boykoff M (2007) From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate science. Trans Inst Br Geogr 4(32):477–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boykoff MT (2008) The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Polit Geogr 27:549–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M (2012) A brief overview: component 1 on national REDD+ policies and processes. CIFOR Infobrief 13, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Brockhaus M, Korhonen-Kurki K, Sehring J, Di Gregorio M, Assembe-Mvondo S, Babon A, Bekele M, Gebara MF, Khatri DB, Kambire H, Kengoum F (2016) REDD+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: a qualitative comparative analysis. Clim Pol 1–23Google Scholar
  10. Carvalho FVD (2013) The Brazilian position on forests and climate change from 1997 to 2012: from veto to proposition. Rev Bras Polit Int 55(special edition):144–169Google Scholar
  11. Cronin T, Santoso L, Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Mardiah S, Muharrom E (2016) Moving consensus and managing expectations: media and REDD+ in Indonesia. Clim Chang 137:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crow AD (2010) Local media and experts: sources of environmental policy initiation? Policy Stud J 38(1)Google Scholar
  13. De Sassi C, Sunderlin WD, Sills EO, Duchelle AE, Ravikumar A, Resosudarmo IAP, Luttrell C, Joseph S, Herold M, Kweka DL, Atmadja SS et al (2014) REDD+ on the ground: global insights from local contexts. In: Sills et al (eds) REDD+ on the ground: a case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. Center for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  14. Dittmer J (2005) Captain America’s empire: reflections on identity, popular culture, and post-9/11 geopolitics. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 95:626–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dkamela G, Brockhaus M, Kengoum DF, Schure J, Assembe MS (2014) Lessons for REDD+ from Cameroon’s past forestry law reform: a political economy analysis. Ecol Soc 19(3):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Cronin T, Muharrom E (2012) Politics and power in national REDD + policy processes. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD, Verchot LV (eds) Analysing REDD +: Challenges and Choices. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, pp 69–90 Google Scholar
  17. Eliasch J (2008) Climate change: financing global forests. The Eliasch review. Office of Climate Change, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Fatorelli L, Gebara MF, May P, Zhang S, Di Gregorio M (2015) The REDD+ governance landscape and the challenge of coordination in Brazil. CIFOR infobrief no. 115. Available at:
  19. GCF – Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (2014) Proposal for allocation of “U-REDD” emissions reductions in Brazilian GCF member states/organized by Mariano C. Cenamo; Pedro G. Soares; Junia Karst. IDESAM, ManausGoogle Scholar
  20. Gebara MF, Thuault A (2013) GHG mitigation in Brazil’s land use sector: an introduction to the current national policy landscape. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available at:
  21. Gebara M, Fatorelli L, May P, Zhang S (2014) REDD+ policy networks in Brazil: constraints and opportunities for successful policy making. Ecol Soc 19(3):53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregersen H, Lakany HE, Karsenty A, White A (2010) Does the opportunity cost approach indicate the real cost of REDD+. Technical report, Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, USGoogle Scholar
  24. Hochstetler K, Viola E (2012) Brazil and the politics of climate change: beyond the global commons. Environ Polit 21(5):753–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hochstetler K, Viola E (2015) Brazil. In: Bäckstrand K, Lövbrand E (eds) Research handbook on climate governance. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  26. INPE (2016) Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa Espacial. Prodes project: monitoring the Brazilian Amazon forest by satellite. Available at:
  27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Synthesis report summary for policymakers. Fourth assessment report. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennamer DJ (ed) (1992) Public opinion, the press, and public policy. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  29. Khatri DB, Pham TT, Di Gregorio M, Karki R, Paudel NS, Brockhaus M, Bhushal R (2016) REDD+ politics in the media: a case from Nepal. Clim Chang 138:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Korhonen-Kurki K, Sehring J, Brockhaus M, Di Gregorio M (2014) Enabling factors for establishing REDD+ in a context of weak governance. Clim Pol 14(2):167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 18(4):52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. May PH, Millikan B, Gebara MF (2011) The context of REDD+ in Brazil: drivers, agents, and institutions, 2nd edn. Center for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  33. MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2012) Salvaguardas para REDD+. Nota Informativa n. 02. Secretaria de Mudanças Climáticas e Qualidade Ambiental, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brasília. Available at:
  34. Mautner G (2008) Analysing newspapers, magazines and other print media. In: Wodak R, Krzyzanowski M (eds) Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 30–53Google Scholar
  35. Nepstad D, Soares-Filho B, Merry F, Moutinho P, Rodrigues H, Bowman M, Schwartzman S (2007) The costs and benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Woods Hole Research Center, FalmouthGoogle Scholar
  36. ODI – Overseas Development Institute (2015) Subsidies to key commodities driving forest loss: implications for private climate finance, Overseas Development Institute. Available at:
  37. Paletz DL (1999) The media in American politics: contents and consequences. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Pham TT, Brockhaus M, Wong G, Dung LN, Tjajadi JS, Loft L, Luttrell C, Assembe Mvondo S (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: a preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  39. Plumb ST, Nielsen EA, Kim Y-S (2012) Challenges of opportunity cost analysis in planning REDD+: a Honduran case study of social and cultural values associated with indigenous forest uses. Forest 3:244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers EM, Dearing JW (2007) Agenda-setting research: where has it been, where is it going? In: Graber DA (ed) Media power in politics. CQ, Washington, DC, pp 80–97Google Scholar
  41. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UNFCCC - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010) Decision-1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements. Available online at:
  43. van der Hoff R, Rajão R, Leroy P, Boezeman D (2015) The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil. Forest Policy Econ 55(C):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal Rural University of Rio de JaneiroLondonUK
  2. 2.Center for International Forestry ResearchBogorIndonesia
  3. 3.Federal Rural University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.São PauloBrazil
  5. 5.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  6. 6.Sustainability Research InstituteUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations