The shifting ‘development’ rhetoric: An analysis of development meanings around the preparation for and implementation of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism in Guyana and Suriname
Speaker: Yolanda Ariadne Collins
This presentation will highlight my preliminary ideas on how development meanings are conceptualised around the preparation for and implementation of REDD+ in Guyana and Suriname. REDD+, in both countries, is intended to facilitate a shift of priorities from resource extraction and environmentally damaging activities, to a less carbon intensive way of life but its implementation has been met by efforts to merely include the mechanism into the traditional models of economic growth, or by framing it as an impractical option due to the fact that it may limit the economic growth of recipient countries. The work which follows shows that within the highly forested, low deforestation (HFLD) countries of Guyana and Suriname, REDD+ has contributed to discursively shifting responsibilities for environmental damage to indigenous communities and other forest dwellers while ignoring the more complex sources of environmental degradation. REDD+ remains a largely imagined exercise, especially in the case of Guyana, with little effects perceptible on the ground. The notable exception here is the North Rupununi in Guyana which is already seeing benefits from REDD+ preparation efforts.
A cross-country comparative analysis of how REDD+ is framed and designed in Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, PNG, Vietnam, Peru and TanzaniaSpeaker: Marjanneke Vijge
This paper carries out a cross-country comparative analysis of how prominent international debates regarding REDD+ play out at the national level in Cameroon, Indonesia, Nepal, PNG, Vietnam, Peru and Tanzania. We assess how REDD+ is framed and designed, focusing on 1) what REDD+ should achieve (carbon vs. non-carbon benefits), 2) who should monitor REDD+ (technical experts vs. local communities), 3) at what level REDD+ should be governed (central vs. sub-national level), and 4) how REDD+ should be financed (market-based vs. fund-based). Based on survey data among national policy actors involved in REDD+, we analyze the framing of REDD+ that is most prominent in each of the countries, looking at the number, type and power of policy actors behind frames related to the four identified questions. Based on semi-structured interviews, we analyze which specific storylines exist among policy actors. We analyze which of these storylines are institutionalized in the countries’ Readiness Preparation Proposals (R-PPs, prepared with funding from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility), focusing on how REDD+ is framed as well as the proposed institutional arrangements. This paper draws on data from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+.
The REDD+ PhD Discussion group is an acknowledged discussion group operating under the Graduate School PE&RC and is open to all PhD students. The REDD+ PhD discussion group welcomes any PhD, Postdoc or researcher who is interested in REDD+ research and/or this topic.