Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. What started as reducing emissions from deforestation turned over the years into a more complex approach and stands now for ‘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’ (UNFCCC 2009). I use the term REDD when I look at the general idea and the concept, the term REDD+ when the integration of the enhancement of carbon stock and conservation of diverse standing forests is an important aspect of the argument. For an overview of the history from RED to REDD+ see Pistorius (2012) or Angelsen and McNeill (2012).

  2. For a critical analysis of the history and wider implications of the concept of biodiversity, see: Flitner (1998).

  3. Boreal and temperate forests, on the other hand, were rather viewed as sinks and by this expected to help to lower emission accounts of industrialized countries.

  4. This framework is a package of decisions which tackles finance; reference levels; measuring, reporting and verification (MRV); safeguards; forest monitoring systems, institutional arrangements; and addressing drivers of deforestation (UNFCCC 2014).

  5. The other safeguards are: (a) consistency with the objectives of national forest programs and relevant international; (b) transparency of national forest governance structures, respecting national sovereignty; (f) actions to address the risks of reversals; (g) actions to reduce displacement of emissions.

References

  • 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 313–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen A (2008) REDD models and baselines. Int For Rev 10(3):465–475. doi:10.1505/ifor.10.3.465

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen A (2009) Introduction. In: Angelsen A, Brockhaus M, Kanninen M et al (eds) Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 31–49

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boas H (ed) (2011) No REDD papers: indigenous women defending land and life since the beginning of time, vol 1. Charles Overbeck/Eberhardt Press, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Boyd W (2010) Ways of seeing in environmental law: how deforestation became an object of climate governance. Ecol Law Q 37(3):843–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs J (2013) Indigenous knowledge: a false dawn for development theory and practice? Prog Dev Stud 13(3):231–243. doi:10.1177/1464993413486549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CCB Standards Fact Sheet (n.y.) http://s3.amazonaws.com/CCBA/CCB_Standards_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014

  • CCBA (The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance) (2013a) Climate, community & biodiversity standards. Third edition. Arlington

  • CCBA (The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance) (2013b) Rules for the use of the climate, community & biodiversity standards. Arlington

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 193–207

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 123–147

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Helena

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F et al (2013) Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities. Ecol Soc 18(3). doi:10.5751/ES-05464-180341

  • Dean M (2006) Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. Sage Publ, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliasch J (2008) Climate change: financing global forests. The Eliasch review, office of climate change

  • Ellen RF, Parkes P, Bicker A (eds) (2000) Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: critical anthropological perspectives. Studies in environmental anthropology. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Rome

  • 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 144–166

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 103–125

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M (2006) Geschichte der Gouvernementalität: Die Geburt der Biopolitik: Vorlesung am Collège de France 1978–1979. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill T (1946) Forestry joins the United Nations. J For 44(3):159–163

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Wageningen

  • 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 13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Grimmig M (2011) Goldene Tropen: die Koproduktion natürlicher Ressourcen und kultureller Differenz in Guayana. Transcript, Bielefeld

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heske F (1938/39) Der tropische Wald als Rohstoffquelle. Zeitschrift für Weltforstwirtschaft VI:413–485

  • 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

  • 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/REDD

  • 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, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2003) Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Hayama (Kanagawa)

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III. Chapter 9, Forestry. Final Draft

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization) (1990) IPCC first assessment report, Geneva

  • 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)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 335–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanie N, Haas PM (eds) (2004) Emerging forces in environmental governance. United Nations Univ. Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaer AM (2004) Governance. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 193–221

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Mathews AS (2014) Scandals, audits, and fictions: linking climate change to Mexican forests. Soc Stud Sci 44(1):82–108. doi:10.1177/0306312713490330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moss N, Nussbaum R (2011) A review of three REDD+ safeguard initiatives Forest Carbon Partnership Facility & UN-REDD Programme

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 51–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker C (2009) The little REDD + book. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Phelps J, Webb EL, Agrawal A (2010b) Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance? Science 328(5976):312–313. doi:10.1126/science.1187774

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 391–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Savaresi A (2013) REDD+ and human rights: addressing synergies between international regimes. Ecol Soc 18(3). doi:10.5751/ES-05549-180305

  • 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

  • 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 371–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 111–127

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Tebtebba Foundation (2008) Indicators relevant for indigenous peoples: a resource book. Baguio City

  • 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

  • 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

  • Tsing AL (2005) Friction: an ethnography of global connection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout E et al (2012) Conservation policy: listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454–455. doi:10.1038/488454a

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.15

  • 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 Convention

  • 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.17

  • 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 session

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Environmental Politics, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318, Leipzig, Germany

    Christoph Aicher

Authors
  1. Christoph Aicher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Aicher.

Additional information

Communicated by Georg Winkel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aicher, C. Discourse practices in environmental governance: social and ecological safeguards of REDD. Biodivers Conserv 23, 3543–3560 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0812-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0812-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation