Advertisement

Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application

  • Maria NijnikEmail author
  • Albert Nijnik
  • Emmy Bergsma
  • Robin Matthews
Original Article

Abstract

Making the concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) ready to be a mechanism to combat tropical deforestation and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by compensating developing countries for income foregone in reducing their rates of deforestation, requires solutions for outstanding controversies. Existing opinions on REDD+ vary greatly. By using the Q-method as part of an action research approach, this paper investigates experts’ attitudes towards REDD+. Based on their responses to 41 statements, four attitudinal groups were identified, characterized as pragmatists, sceptics, conventionalists and optimists. Opinions between groups differed as to the level of application, credibility, eligibility, economic effectiveness, and public acceptability of REDD+ policy instruments. Three of the four groups were supportive of international REDD+ type policy interventions, but there was disagreement on the more concrete design issues of REDD+ projects, such as the allocation of responsibilities, the distribution of burdens and benefits, and whether or not co-benefits could be expected, or should be required. As the potential of REDD+ is shaped not only by international climate policy but also by national and regional policies and stakeholder perceptions, this paper suggests that participatory forms of decision-making may help to develop tailor-made solutions that are supported by the many different actors that are necessarily involved in REDD+ projects.

Keywords

Climate policy REDD+ Avoided deforestation Attitudinal analysis Local communities Co-benefits 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was conducted under the EU-FP7 project Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation through Alternative Land Uses in Rainforests of the Tropics (REDD-ALERT). It is also part of the thematic research on Land Use for Multiple Benefits (WP 3.5) and Evaluation of Ecosystem Services (WP 1.2) of Scottish Government Strategic Research Programme. We are grateful to the participants of the Workshop on Tools and Methods for REDD and REALU value chains (Amsterdam, Netherlands, held on 19 - 20th April, 2011 at the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Free University of Amsterdam), and to other respondents who contributed to the survey.

References

  1. Angelsen A (ed.) (2008) Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor. Available via CIFOR. http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/2601.html. Cited 11 Jun 2013
  2. Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Sunderlin WD et al. (2012) Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Centre for international forestry research, Bogor. Available via CIFOR. http://www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/3805.html. Cited 11 Jun 2013
  3. Bernard F, Minang PA, Van Noordwijk M (2013) Review of current tools and methods for REDD and REALU value chains. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. Available via ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. http://www.asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/Review%20of%20current%20tools%20and%20methods%20for%20REDD±%20and%20REALU%20value%20chains.pdf. Cited 16 Jun 2013
  4. Boer R, Sulistyowati L, Zed F et al. (2009) Summary for policy makers: Indonesia second national communication under the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Ministry of forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta. Available via Forest Climate Center. http://forestclimatecenter.org/files/2009-11-14%20SNC%20-%20Indonesia%20Second%20National%20Communication%20under%20The%20UNFCCC%20%28Summary%20for%20Policy%20Makers%29.pdf. Cited 6 Jun 2011
  5. Brown S (1996) Q methodology and qualitative research. J Qual Health Res 6:561–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown SR (1999) A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4):91–138Google Scholar
  7. Brown SR, Durning D, Selden S (1999) Q Methodology. In: Miller GJ, Whicker ML (eds) Handbook of research methods in public administration. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 599–637Google Scholar
  8. Brown K, Adger WN, Boyd E et al. (2004) How do CDM projects contribute to sustainable development? Technical Report №16. Tyndall Centre, Norwich. Available via Tyndall Centre. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Brown,%20K.,%20Boyd,%20E.,%20Corbera,%20E.,%20Adger,%20N.%20%282004%29%20How%20do%20CDM%20projects%20contribute%20to%20sustainable%20development%20%28tr16%29.pdf. Cited 15 Jun 2013
  9. Cerbu G, Minang P, Swallow B et al. (2009) Global survey of REDD projects: What implications for global climate objectives? ASB policy brief No 12. ASB partnership for the tropical forest margins, Nairobi. Available via ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. http://www.asb.cgiar.org/pdfwebdocs/ASBPB12.pdf. Cited 14 Jun 2013
  10. Chomitz K (2002) Baseline, leakage and measurement issues: how do forestry and energy projects compare? Clim Pol 2:35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuppen E (2009) Putting perspectives into participation–constructive conflict methodology for problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. Uitgeverij BOXPress, OisterwijkGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies B, Sherlock K, Rauschmayer F (2005) ‘Recruitment’, ‘composition’ and ‘mandate’ issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals? Environmental Planning C 23:599–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon RK, Winjun JK, Adrasko KJ et al (1994) Integrated land-use systems: assessment of promising agroforest and alternative land-use practices to enhance carbon conservation and sequestration. Climate Change 30:1–23Google Scholar
  14. Dyer G, Nijnik M (2013) Implications of carbon forestry programmes on local livelihoods and leakage. Ann For Sci. doi: 10.1007/s13595-013-0293-9 Google Scholar
  15. FAO (2005a) A world imperilled: Forces behind forest loss. Available via Mongobay. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm. Cited 11 Jul 2012
  16. FAO (2005b) State of the world’s forests. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available via Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5574e/y5574e00.htm. Cited 14 Jun 2013
  17. FAO (2005c) Global forest resources assessment 2005: 15 key findings. Available via Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/forestry. Cited 3 Jul 2012
  18. Freer-Smith PH, Broadmeadow MSJ, Lynch JM (eds) (2007) Forestry and climate change. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Gentry BS (2000) Private capital flows and climate change: Maximizing private investment in developing countries under the kyoto protocol. In: Gomez EL (ed) Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, pp. 187–200Google Scholar
  20. IIED (2011) REDD: Protecting climate, forests and livelihoods. Available via IIED. http://www.iied.org/redd-protecting-climate-forests-livelihoods. Cited 12 Jun 2012
  21. IPCC (2000) Summary for policy-makers. Available via IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports spm/sres-en.pdf. Cited 12 Jun 2012
  22. Karumbidza B, Menne W (2009) Potential impacts of tree plantation projects under the CDM - An African case study. Available via Global Justice Ecology Project. http://globaljusticeecology.org/stopgetrees_news.php?ID=527. Cited 16 Jun 2012
  23. Keohane R, Ostrom E (eds) (1995) Local commons and global interdependence: Heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Lasswell H (1971) A pre-view of the policy sciences. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. McKeown B, Thomas D (1988) Q-methodology, Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  26. MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. Available via Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. http://www.unep.org/maweb/en/index.aspx. Cited 16 Jun 2013
  27. Miles L, Kapos V (2008) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Global land-use implications. Science 320(5882):1454–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nijnik M (2010) Carbon capture and storage in forests. Iss Environment Sci Tech 29:203–238Google Scholar
  29. Nijnik M, Halder P (2013) Afforestation and reforestation projects in South and South-East Asia under the CDM: Trends and development opportunities. Land Use Policy 31:504–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nijnik M, Zahvoyska L, Nijnik A, Ode A (2008) Public evaluation of landscape content and change. Land Use Policy 26:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nijnik M, Slee B, Pajot G (2010) Opportunities and challenges for terrestrial carbon offsetting and marketing, with some implications for forestry in the UK. South East Europ J Forestry 1(2):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N (2009) The little REDD+ book. Global Canopy Programme, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Peskett L, Brown D, Luttrell C (2006) Can payments for avoided deforestation to tackle climate change also benefit the poor? Forestry Briefing 12. Overseas Development Institute, London. Available via Overseas Development Institute. http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/28.pdf. Cited 16 Jun 2013
  35. Pistorius T, Schmitt CB, Benick D (2010) Greening REDD+: Challenges and opportunities for forest biodiversity conservation. University of Freiburg, Freiburg. Available via University of Freiburg. http://www.ifp.uni-freiburg.de/greening%20redd. Cited 15 Jun 2013
  36. Rayner J, Buck A, Katila P (eds) (2010) Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forest governance, IUFRO World Series 28. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, Vienna. Available via the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. www.iufro.org/download/file/6580/4539/ws28_pdf. Cited 15 Jun 2013
  37. Stephenson W (1963) Independency and operationism in Q-sorting. Psychol Rec 13:269–272Google Scholar
  38. UN (2005) United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. Available via UN-REDD. http://un-redd.com. Cited 22 Jun 2012
  39. UNEP (2010) Status and barriers of CDM projects in Southeast Asian Countries. Available via UNEP. http://www.unep.org/climatechange/Portals/5/documents/RoapFocalPoints/FinalCDMAnalysisReport.pdf. Cited 15 Jun 2013
  40. UNFCCC (1997) The Kyoto protocol to the convention on climate change. UNEP/IUC, BonnGoogle Scholar
  41. UNFCCC (2001) Report of the conference of the parties (COP 7) on its seventh session, held at Marrakech from 29 October to 10 November 2001. Available via UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a01.pdf. Cited 13 Jun 2013
  42. UNFCCC (2005) Report of the conference of the parties (COP 11) on its eleventh session, held at Montreal from 28 November to 9 December 2005. Available via UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/05a01.pdf. Cited 13 Jun 2013
  43. UNFCCC (2007) Report of the conference of the parties (COP 13) on its eleventh session, held in Bali from 3 November to 15 December 2007. Available via UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06.pdf. Cited 13 Jun 2013.
  44. UNFCCC (2009) Report of the conference of the parties (COP 15) on its fifteen session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 9 December 2009. Available via UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf. Cited 13 Jun 2013.
  45. UNFCCC (2010) Report of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) on its sixteen fifteen session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. Available via UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/meetings/cancun_nov_2010/meeting/6266/php/view/reports.php. Cited 13 Jun 2013
  46. van Asselt M, Mellors J, Rijkens-Klomp N et al (2001) Building blocks for participation in integrated assessment: A review of participatory methods. International Centre for Integrated Studies, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  47. van der Werf GR, Morton DC, DeFries RS et al (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat Geosci 2:737–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Kooten GC (2004) Climate change economics. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  49. van Kooten GC (2012) Climate change, climate science and economics: Prospects for a renewable energy future. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  50. Vatn A, Angelsen A (2009) Options for a national REDD+ architecture. In: Angelsen A (ed) Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 57–74Google Scholar
  51. Wolf S, Zilberman D (eds) (2001) Knowledge generation and technical change: institutional innovation in agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Nijnik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Albert Nijnik
    • 2
  • Emmy Bergsma
    • 3
  • Robin Matthews
    • 4
  1. 1.Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences GroupThe James Hutton InstituteAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Environmental Network LtdAberdeenshireUK
  3. 3.Department of Political SciencesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Information and Computational Sciences Research GroupThe James Hutton InstituteAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations